Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby affa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:02 am

Chris McKinley wrote:Technically speaking, all muscles work via contraction. Skeletal, or voluntary, muscles are not capable of actively extending, per se. Either gravity, centrifugal force or contraction of antagonist muscles are responsible for the extension of any skeletal muscle(s). As a result, the objective of maintaining an upright posture in a human is a result of multiple skeletal muscles contracting in multiple antagonistic units in such a way that the average balance of force vectors keeps the skeleton aligned in a more or less perpendicular attitude with respect to the ground.


so... bio-mechanically... once the static posture is established through "active" muscle contractions (i.e. the force vectors are balanced), is it possible to remove all muscle contraction, and allow the counter-balanced levers to support each other, purely by the tensility of the "web-work"? in other words, is 100% "song" possible, where the "tension" in the mechanism is not a contractile tension at all, but is an elastic tension... i.e. the balanced vectors stretch each other - by virtue of their gravitationally derived energy - thereby producing an "effortless" tension to support the overall posture against gravity? of course, this would only apply to a static posture, and not the active transformation between them. however, it should still remain possible (if it's possible in the first place) if an external force vector impinges on the posture and the posture rearranges around that force by virtue of its "contraction-less" malleability. does any of that seem to make sense? (static) song = contraction-less tension?

i know i missed the big song thread, and this isn't really the place, but boundaries are meant to be crossed :P :D
16, 76, 81, 88, 93
21, 28, 38, 52, 78
7, 40, 56, 73, 87
23, 65, 82, 91, 95
2, 6, 10, 46, 95
User avatar
affa
Wuji
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Chris McKinley on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:53 am

affa,

RE: "so... bio-mechanically...is it possible to remove all muscle contraction, and allow the counter-balanced levers to support each other, purely by the tensility of the "web-work"?". No, it is not. I'm not sure what you specifically mean by "web-work", but there are no counter-balanced levers, so to speak, that have simply been put in place by the musculature which could then be left in a static balance without muscular contraction as though it were some kind of biological house of cards. At all times, some degree of muscular contraction is required to keep the skeleton aligned perpendicularly to the ground.

RE: "in other words, is 100% "song" possible, where the "tension" in the mechanism is not a contractile tension at all, but is an elastic tension... i.e. the balanced vectors stretch each other - by virtue of their gravitationally derived energy - thereby producing an "effortless" tension to support the overall posture against gravity?". Again, no. If we are to converse on a technical level, you will need to mind your terms a bit more precisely. Vectors, per se, do not "stretch each other", and I'm not at all certain what you mean by "gravitationally derived energy" in this context. Still though, I can state, as I did in the previous paragraph, that there is no possibility of ""effortless" tension" creating or maintaining a static upright posture.
Chris McKinley

 

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Walter Joyce on Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:42 pm

Chris McKinley wrote: The condition of sustained muscular contraction, such as that which occurs in the creation/maintenance of upright posture, creates a condition of tension (by definition) in the muscle fibers, tendons and bones.



But if tension is by definition: 1 a: the act or action of stretching or the condition or degree of being stretched to stiffness :

Where is the stiffness that you say is a necessary "by definition"?

It seems to me that through training, especially standing meditation, one can train the opposing contractions of the antagonistic muscles to reach a state of equilibrium, allowing one to remain upright, without tension, or a state of stiffness.


Isn't that, after all, the result of extended training, the ability to keep the muscles feeling soft, i.e. without stiffness, while still maintaining the various postures?

I've have read here any number of times that very idea, as well as the description of the musculature of a neijia adept as relaxed and soft to the touch, which again implies a lack of stiffness, or tension.

And how is it that a bone or a tendon becomes tense?

What part is played by the fascia or the ligaments in maintaining posture?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to be stating your understanding as fact without offering support for the position.

As with any proposition that I feel is a matter of disagreement in understanding I look to the fundamentals of the statement.

If tension inherently contains stiffness as part of its definition and the result of training through standing and other practices is to be able to remain upright without stiffness, but rather in the opposite state of softness through profound relaxation and balance of forces within the body, then how can it be that tension is a prerequisite to remaining upright?

Either tension is NOT a prerequisite to remaining upright, or one can NOT obtain a state of relaxed musculature to the point
of the muscles remaining soft to the touch, and not stiff (i.e tense) while remaining upright in various postures that are trained in standing meditation practice.

One could posit that absent the necessary training one can not remain upright without tension or stiffness, or its corollary that only by proper training can one remain upright in a tension free state, but that has not been what the discussion of tension has resulted in on this board as far as I can recall.

As this discussion and the two states of being, tense or stiff and relaxed or soft, seem to be a fundamental element of internal arts, I'd like to see the issue resolved, or at least discussed enough to explain the inconsistent positions that have been put forth by the various parties to the long running intermittent discussion on the topic.
The more one sweats during times of peace the less one bleeds during times of war.

Ideology offers human beings the illusion of dignity and morals while making it easier to part with them.
Walter Joyce
Great Old One
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby affa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:08 pm

Chris McKinley wrote:I'm not sure what you specifically mean by "web-work",

muscles and connective tissue

counter-balanced levers

yeah... lever was a bad word choice... but house of cards was exactly the sort of image i was going for.

Vectors, per se, do not "stretch each other"and I'm not at all certain what you mean by "gravitationally derived energy" in this context


what i was going for - greatly simplified - was something like a pole and and a couple of strings... with the end of the pole propped on the ground, the strings tied to the top of the pole, and their other ends staked in the ground. the pole is not straight upward, but leans against the two strings. the pull of gravity on the pole stores energy in the two strings, up to the limits of their tensility. this in turns, holds the pole up. the strings have tension, but they're not actively contracting... it's a interactional product of the pole's gravitational vector and their (vectored) material properties.

now obviously the human body is ridiculously more complicated, but i guess my question was... is it possible to prop all the poles up on each other - like your house of cards - such that the energy stored in one "leaning pole's string" - i.e. muscle/connective tissue - provides the necessary tension (NOT contraction) for propping up another "leaning pole" component of the overall structure. in other words, i'm wondering if you're conflating "tension" and "contraction" in your statement...

At all times, some degree of muscular contraction is required to keep the skeleton aligned perpendicularly to the ground


i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just wondering if there's any way you might be :D
Last edited by affa on Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
16, 76, 81, 88, 93
21, 28, 38, 52, 78
7, 40, 56, 73, 87
23, 65, 82, 91, 95
2, 6, 10, 46, 95
User avatar
affa
Wuji
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Chris McKinley on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:52 pm

Walter,

RE: "But if tension is by definition: 1 a: the act or action of stretching or the condition or degree of being stretched to stiffness.". But that's not the definition of tension. Tension is a type of force, not an action. In this case, we are referring to that tension within muscle cells which affects the rotation or stationary position of bones around a joint. It is also germaine to the discussion to keep in mind the fact that muscle cells cannot partially contract. They respond digitally in that they are either contracted or they are not. What controls the amount of overall tension in a given muscle is how many individual motor units are contracting at any given moment in time.

RE: "Where is the stiffness that you say is a necessary "by definition"?". Stiffness is your word, not mine. I am merely pointing out the extremely easily demonstrated fact that a human skeleton cannot remain in a standing position without some degree of muscular tension holding it perpendicular to the ground.

RE: "...one can train the opposing contractions of the antagonistic muscles to reach a state of equilibrium, allowing one to remain upright, without tension, or a state of stiffness.". One can do exactly that, and entirely without formal zhan zhuang, as every human who has ever stood upright has done to one degree or another. However, a state of equilibrium between opposing sets of antagonistic muscle units still involves a minimal degree of muscular tension within those muscles involved in the creation and maintenance of that equilibrium. Reducing that muscular tension to a) only those muscles actively involved in the creation/maintenance of that posture, and b) only those motor units within the involved muscles that are absolutely necessary to maintain structural integrity are the Holy Grail, so to speak, of the pursuit of relaxation in standing.

RE: "And how is it that a bone or a tendon becomes tense?". It's not that they "become tense". They experience the force called tension when a load is placed on them via muscular contraction, centrifugal force, or gravity. The fact that they do not stretch, relatively speaking, does not preclude them from being placed under tension. Again, tension is a force, it is not a subjective quality.

RE: "What part is played by the fascia or the ligaments in maintaining posture?". Very little by the fascia, especially with static postures. Ligaments, however, play a crucial role by stabilizing the joint such that tension placed on bones by the muscles attached to them doesn't immediately pull the joint apart.

RE: "I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to be stating your understanding as fact without offering support for the position.". I do not seem to be doing that at all, since I am using the actual technical definitions of these terms rather than colloquial or connotative ones. Thus far, nearly, if not all, differences in understanding are contributable to differences in definitions...especially that of the word 'tension', which I have hopefully cleared up with this post.
Chris McKinley

 

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby affa on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:02 am

Chris McKinley wrote:Walter,
However, a state of equilibrium between opposing sets of antagonistic muscle units still involves a minimal degree of muscular tension within those muscles involved in the creation and maintenance of that equilibrium. Reducing that muscular tension to a) only those muscles actively involved in the creation/maintenance of that posture, and b) only those motor units within the involved muscles that are absolutely necessary to maintain structural integrity are the Holy Grail, so to speak, of the pursuit of relaxation in standing.


so are those "absolutely necessary" motor units actively contracting, or is their tension a matter of cellular elasticity? both are capable of producing tension (the latter as coupled with the pull of gravity).
16, 76, 81, 88, 93
21, 28, 38, 52, 78
7, 40, 56, 73, 87
23, 65, 82, 91, 95
2, 6, 10, 46, 95
User avatar
affa
Wuji
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Chris McKinley on Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:51 am

Those motor units necessary for the muscle to provide appropriate tension on the bones to which they are attached in order to create/maintain any given postural structure are actively contracting, yes. Cellular elasticity is not nearly so relevant as the actin/myosin sliding filaments in creating muscular contraction and thereby tension force on the bone.

Should those muscle cells that are part of that given motor unit stop contracting, the filaments release and slide back to a state of relaxed elongation, and the bone to which they are attached would no longer experience the tension force holding it in place. It would be like cutting all the guy lines on a tent or the steel cables in a suspension bridge.
Chris McKinley

 

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby affa on Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:04 pm

do you know if there's been any research done on just what percentage of a muscle's motor units are required to contract, to retain an upright posture?
16, 76, 81, 88, 93
21, 28, 38, 52, 78
7, 40, 56, 73, 87
23, 65, 82, 91, 95
2, 6, 10, 46, 95
User avatar
affa
Wuji
 
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Chris McKinley on Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:28 pm

Biomechanical specialists have generated volumes of research information. I would suggest tapping into the online medical library of any large university. Ultimately though, it will depend on which muscle you are considering, since dozens of muscles are involved in the simple act of standing there. Further, the number of motor units present varies from muscle to muscle and person to person. Other factors include the number of muscle fibers that comprise a given motor unit, the relative strength of those muscle fibers, bone length/density, attachment sites on the bones, length ratio of tendon-to-muscle fibers, location of center of mass of the individual's body, etc.

As if that weren't enough, the entire system is in dynamic, not static, equilibrium, and minor adjustments are being made continuously in every muscle involved, meaning that the number of motor units activated at any given moment is always changing. IOW, it's not a simple enough system to provide a generic percentage number, nor would that number be valid outside of that one particular muscle, and only for that exact moment in time, and only in that one particular individual.
Chris McKinley

 

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Walter Joyce on Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:07 am

I'm avoiding a quote or cut and paste approach for ease of expression.

The definition that I used for tension is not a "colloquial or connotative one" and it is not my definition, but the definition from a dictionary, making it the common meaning of the word. I am not objecting to it, but you seem to be using tension as what is referred to as a term of art within the biomechanical field. And while this definition of tension when used as a term of art makes tension a force, and not a subjective state, that is not the common meaning of the word.

The difficulty that is created by the use of a term of art that is not recognized as such is misunderstanding, because a term of art is a common word that has a specific definition and by suing that common word as a term of art you change the accepted definition. As no one to this point, has made it clear, as you have, that they are using tension as a term of art, confusion is inevitable. I posit that many who have said that tension is required to remain standing are not aware that their understanding of the term is not the common definition of it.

Tension in its common usage is recognized as a force, but not as its primary meaning, the primary meaning is as a subjective state as evidenced by the definition I quoted, from Merriam Webster. The numerical order of the definitions con notates their degree of acceptance as the meaning of the word, the first definition offered as the most widely accepted meaning of the word. So the problem with this ongoing debate is one of lexicon, or semantics.

So, as it is now clear that you are defining tension as a force, a tertiary meaning of the word in common usage, but perhaps a primary meaning as a term of art, I agree that tension, as a force, is a prerequisite to remaining erect, and is is a force that applies equally to bone and soft tissue. And, you have explicitly acknowledged that tension, as a subjective state, the primary common definition of the term, is nor required to remain upright, even for the untrained.

Some may read this and think I am being overly technical in my analysis, but I posit that the basic misunderstanding of the intended meaning of this word between the different sides in this debate has led to the confusion.

Thank you for the suggestion of online research in biomechanics, research is almost always a good thing when seeking understanding.
The more one sweats during times of peace the less one bleeds during times of war.

Ideology offers human beings the illusion of dignity and morals while making it easier to part with them.
Walter Joyce
Great Old One
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Chris McKinley on Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:24 am

Walter,

I use the correct technical and most importantly, objective, definition of the word tension for this context because biomechanics is precisely what we are discussing. There is no single common definition of the term 'tension'; there are several, and none are primary. Which definition is appropriate is entirely context-dependent. Within an objective scientific context, the definition of tension as a force is not only the common meaning of the word, it is the exclusive one. There are no subjective definitions of the word, i.e., relating to qualities, that are appropriate to an objective discussion of the matter. It is the context that determines the appropriate definition, not any of our subjective choices, not even Messrs. Merriam and Webster, since they cannot know which context we require at the moment. You have precisely identified the communication barrier as one of semantics. My apologies to any and all if my use of the term 'tension' was at any time ambiguous or confusing; I have tried to make clear as early in the discussion as possible which definition I was and am using.

Certainly, I should state for clarification, the subjective quality of tension, implying excess muscular contraction, is not only not necessary for good posture, it impedes it by preventing the accurate proprioceptive feedback necessary for the continuous micromotor adjustments necessary to maintain such posture in a dynamic balance. Chasing after the ever-elusive goal of perfect 'sung' represents our attempt at finding the minimum necessary muscular tension required to keep the posture without any structural compromise. The subtlety of the feedback essential for doing so absolutely requires as much relaxation and sensitivity to minute proprioceptive change as we can possibly muster.

Even were one to achieve that goal, it would be ephemeral and fleeting, since as I have previously mentioned, the balance is dynamic rather than static, requiring a constant and continuous reacquisition of that balance. Therefore, the goal itself, like so many others in IMA, becomes almost a Platonic ideal. It becomes easier to see why development in these arts is more about the journey than the destination since one never really arrives anywhere, nor certainly stays longer than it takes to have a cup of tea.
Chris McKinley

 

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Walter Joyce on Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:43 pm

Chris,

I never really interacted with you much before, but I am recalling that you do like the biomechanical/western rational approach to understanding training. Being from western culture as well it is a mode of thought I am comfortable with as well, but there are board members, as you know I'm sure, that don't necessarily use that lens.

I enjoyed your posts, and agree with your conclusions when I compare to my own experience. I couldn't help but think when you wrote:

"the balance is dynamic rather than static, requiring a constant and continuous reacquisition of that balance. Therefore, the goal itself, like so many others in IMA, becomes almost a Platonic ideal. It becomes easier to see why development in these arts is more about the journey than the destination since one never really arrives anywhere, nor certainly stays longer than it takes to have a cup of tea."

that your description can easily be applied to balance in its many meanings in life, which is also dynamic, and not static, so too our understanding of things should be dynamic, and not static. And to speak metaphorically, those occasional cups of tea are what keep us going, both in training and in life.
The more one sweats during times of peace the less one bleeds during times of war.

Ideology offers human beings the illusion of dignity and morals while making it easier to part with them.
Walter Joyce
Great Old One
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts

Re: Relaxation and Athletic Performance

Postby Doc Stier on Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:54 pm

Perhaps the following pics will be helpful to this discussion as a graphic reference:

Image

Image

http://www.humankinetics.com/primal/

Doc
"First in the Mind and then in the Body."
User avatar
Doc Stier
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Woodcreek, TX

Previous

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests