dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
Basically, to change the paradigm, we need a bunch of doctors who have practiced serious IMA for quite some time to work together.
Steve James wrote:Of course, otoh, there may be a fear that the research will show that any style of tcc has similar benefits.
jonathan.bluestein wrote:The plus side is that nowadays lots of research is getting done on Taiji, and it's done by serious and well-intentioned scientists, who can use statistics and gather a lot of useful data.
The flip side is that, at least in the West, it's always done by people who haven't a clue about martial arts. They usually cannot name the style being taught in the research (and don't figure why it might be important), they don't understand why and how it worked or can work in the physical sense, they fail to take into account the ways in which people improve with their actual movements and form (which bears direct implications for health improvements), and all the studies are very short. The latter issue is the main problem in my opinion, as changes with IMA are most pronounced via the changing and re-modeling of connective tissues and the improved function of internal organs and mechanisms, and such changes often take years to become apparent and significant, not just a few weeks/months. So as long as this studies remain short, they'd never be able to point to the greatest health benefits of IMA.
Basically, to change the paradigm, we need a bunch of doctors who have practiced serious IMA for quite some time to work together. When you bring a bunch of experts from many different fields (Doctor, Statistician, Taiji Master, etc) you get a broader perspective, but no one grasps the whole picture.
Steve James wrote:[
Well, what style would they all agree upon to use? Has anyone decided which style would be better than any other to use?
Imo, it might be helpful to use long-time practitioners for study, but that'd be useless afa the general population was concerned. If it's long term, vigorous practice that is considered the baseline or expected norm --i.e., in order to receive "X" benefits from the practice-- then most people would never get those benefits.
The problem, imo, is that tcc (and ima) practitioners generally believe that their arts operate on a different level than western calisthenics (and even eastern external arts). Indeed, many often claim that the benefits can be achieved without physically moving. Frankly, I don't think there is an acceptable paradigm for study that most practitioners would agree upon. So, in fact, I think the most trustworthy work/research we will ever see will come from non-practitioners who simply look for results. Granted, not all styles or systems or practice methods will achieve the same results for all practitioners. Then again, there is no need to convince practitioners of eastern medicine that tcc "works."
Of course, we could start with children and do a long term study. However, imo, especially when it comes to tcc, the greatest benefit is that it is an exercise that even an ill or aged person can practice. I'm not talking about people who have been athletes all their lives, either. I think that almost any form of exercise (even simple standing) would benefit 80 year-olds, particularly if they were recovering from an illness.
Most of the studies study qualities like balance, leg strength, heart rate, etc., iow body functions that can be measured. If researchers studied the big 5 tcc styles and then did comparisons, that would still only account for a small number of styles. So, if anything, researchers would need to find out what, if anything, is common to all the tcc styles that accounts for its benefit. Though, I think that some practitioners would only accept that a particular style has the "real" benefits. Of course, otoh, there may be a fear that the research will show that any style of tcc has similar benefits.
yeniseri wrote: .......
How much time does it take for people to get the most benefit and change out of weight training, if they train hard? I'd say, 1-5 years would be the time frame in which the most significant changes would take place if the training is consistent, regardless of genetics and natural talent. So likewise, that time frame should probably be targeted with IMA as well... That is something all styles can agree on.
Users browsing this forum: Yeung and 1 guest