The ideal physique: East vs. West

[johnwang]

I'm cutting down 5 trees on the slop (I have cut down 2, there are 3 more to go). After I had carried all those wood from down hill to up hill, even if I may started with "thin arms" and "unmuscular chest", my arms and chest will get bigger at the end of that task. If that's my life time job, I don't need to go to gym to lift weight, I'll have bigger arms and muscular chest. With all the hard work to carry wood from down hill to up hill, my "potbelly" and "wide hips" may be gone as will.

So even if I may have trained IMA for a long time, because my tree cutting job, I may still not be able to fit the following requirement.

- potbelly,
- wide hips,
- thin arms, and
- unmuscular chest.

In other words, in order to be able to meet the above requirement, you have to be rich enough and not involve with any "hard labor". This remind me the term "scholar" that one can't

- lift with his shoulder,
- carry with his hands,
- even kill a chicken with his hands.

[Ashura]

Georges Hébert has done some researchs in this field years ago based on his observation and a training methodology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_H%C3%A9bert



Following is a diaporama with some pictures of the natural method (méthode naturelle)

Hébert believed that in order to get an harmonious and useful body, one had to go through a number different kind of exercices:

Walking, running, jumping, climbing, walking on four limbs, throwing heavy objects like stones, keeping one´s balance, boxing, wrestling and swimming.

Despite good results, Georges Hébert´s method was abandoned in the 70´s.

[everything]

Fedor is not impressed.

[Steve James]

Hebert's philosophy of training was replaced in the 60s and 70s because of the disappearance of the amateur athlete and the subsequent emphasis on scientific specialization. However, Hebert's ideas were revived in Europe and can be considered the models for parkour and modern obstacle courses.

[GrahamB]

True potbelly chi master

https://www.facebook.com/gearmaniaworld ... 190311741/

[wkfung108]

I think you're starting from a few incorrect premises/assumptions, and more importantly, neglecting the influence of diet in the development of physique from a visible standpoint.

I would disagree that "The ideal warrior physique seen in ancient Greek and Roman arts are no different from that of a modern elite athlete -- with six-pack abs, bulging chests and biceps, and a relatively narrow waist." I'd begin by pointing out that the "IDEAL" physique of a physically capable male in the West underwent a huge shift in the 1970s with the popularization of bodybuilding as depicted by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not until he burst on the scene did Westerners start fixating on "bulging chests and biceps" and huge shoulders, or a narrow waist. None of the classical sculptures or paintings I've seen depicted men -- including soldiers and warriors -- with anything like Arnold's physique. For a more pop-culture look, do a Google image search of "Superman through the ages." You can see exactly how the ideal of how the Western ideal of a "super" guy looks has changed.

If anything, classical depictions of physically capable men tended to emphasize well-developed back muscles (both upper and lower). There are a few exceptions -- the statue of Laucoon and his sons comes to mind -- but in general, I think I'm correct on this.

I'll concede that guys in most such structures tended to have visible abs, but that's more a function of "food wasn't very easy to come by back in the olden days" than "warriors have washboard abs." Unless you were a wealthy, sedentary aristocrat, odds were you had a six-pack. (This also explains why classical sculptures didn't tend to depict huge bulging muscles. To get that sort of build, you have to eat a LOT of protein (meat), and meat was a luxury back then: most people would be lucky to get a few grams a week.)

So the depiction of western gladiators, athletes, etc. in antiquities isn't really a function of artists' conceptions of what drove athleticism, IMO.

As for classical depictions of Chinese warriors, for the most part I would disagree with your assertion that they tended to have a "potbelly" or "wide hips" or "thin arms" or an "unmuscular chest." It's worth noting that classical Chinese garb did not tend to allow for much observation of a person's musculature, and depictions of fighters tended to include armor -- which further obscures any useful observations on what artists at the time saw as the ideal for a physically capable male. Very few people could afford a "pot belly" back then, btw, for the same reason few Europeans had pot bellies back then. Food was EXPENSIVE relative to an average person's income.

Now, it's true that none of the subjects had huge pecs or biceps, but I would disagree that warriors were depicted as having skinny, emaciated chests and arms, too. It's worth noting that for much of Chinese history, in many parts of China, the ideal for male beauty was best described as "slender and refined." (You might argue that amongst older Chinese today, this is still the case.) Still, fighters were still depicted with not-unusual builds.

(The exception might be some murals on the Shaolin temple that depict some ... roly poly monks. But remember that monks were SUPPOSED to be pudgy. There's an old saying that there are two kinds of people who deserve to be flogged: skinny monks, and fat scholars. Monks were supposed to spend their days in seated meditation, chanting, and contemplation -- and thus be kind of flabby; a skinny monk was one who was running around, too involved in worldly affairs. (Scholars were supposed to be poor; a fat scholar was one who spent too much time eating rich foods, possibly drinking and whoring.))

The crux of your argument seems to be that artistic comparison of Chinese and Western fighters/athletes of old indicates that the Chinese emphasized more leg/core/waist work while Westerners were all about the chest and arms. I think that your impressions of classical Western physical pursuits (Including martial pursuits) is wrong. Europeans were no less cognizant of the importance of lower-body and waist/trunk/core to athletic and martial ability.

As a related topic to the thread I started on running, I'd like to focus on the differences between traditional Chinese and Western classical cultures in terms of the ideal physique for a warrior.

The ideal warrior physique seen in ancient Greek and Roman arts are no different from that of a modern elite athlete -- with six-pack abs, bulging chests and biceps, and a relatively narrow waist; in contrast, a typical Chinese warrior or martial artist depicted in ancient boxing manuals almost always have a potbelly , wide hips, thin arms, and an unmuscular chest.


IMO, these obvious discrepancies are clues hidden in plain sight that can help us better understand how the ancient Chinese fighters viewed, trained, and utilized their bodies in ways that were very different from their Western counterparts.

[johnwang]

btw, for the same reason few Europeans had pot bellies back then. Food was EXPENSIVE relative to an average person's income.

This is a good point. When I worked in Oakland, CA as a waiter in a Chinese restaurant back in 1972, I had to pay my food, but the vegetable soup was free. In 3 months of my summer job, I lived on drinking vegetable soup only. There was no way that I could get pot belly from that kind of food and live style.

I just feel that I may live in a totally different world than some RSF members live. In order to have pot belly, you will need to have a full stomach first. Sometime even that can be luxury for some people.

[Peacedog]

+1 on the available calories comments.

Compare the build of modern Afghan soldiers with US Civil War era soldiers. The similarities are really amazing.

[C.J.W.]

a typical Chinese warrior or martial artist depicted in ancient boxing manuals almost always have a

- potbelly,
- wide hips,
- thin arms, and
- unmuscular chest.

Perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording when I listed those physical traits, for the description I gave does tend to conjure up images of a middle-aged obese man who sits in front of the TV guzzling beers all day.

What I meant was a typical warrior/martial artist that you see in various forms of ancient Chinese art almost always have a thick trunk, wide hips, and normal-sized arms and chest as opposed to the big biceps, bulging chest, a lean thin waist, and narrow hips that we see in many modern sports fighters and athletes.

I suppose we can agree on the simple logical fact that the more a group of muscles is used, the bigger and thicker it gets?　

So the point I was getting at is that in Chinese fighting arts, the power center of the human body is the dantien and the lower body, while the upper body -- especially the biceps and chest -- mostly act as conduits (the spine and the shoulder girdles, however, are more actively involved.)

That is why a CMA practitioner who adheres to old-school training methods will develop a RELATIVELY large trunk and lower body compared to the upper.

For those of you who are still hung up on the "thin arms, wide hips, pot belly, and unmuscular chest" description I wrote earlier, please note that it's been revised and further explained.

[C.J.W.]

I'm cutting down 5 trees on the slop (I have cut down 2, there are 3 more to go). After I had carried all those wood from down hill to up hill, even if I may started with "thin arms" and "unmuscular chest", my arms and chest will get bigger at the end of that task. If that's my life time job, I don't need to go to gym to lift weight, I'll have bigger arms and muscular chest. With all the hard work to carry wood from down hill to up hill, my "potbelly" and "wide hips" may be gone as will.

So even if I may have trained IMA for a long time, because my tree cutting job, I may still not be able to fit the following requirement.

- potbelly,
- wide hips,
- thin arms, and
- unmuscular chest.

In other words, in order to be able to meet the above requirement, you have to be rich enough and not involve with any "hard labor". This remind me the term "scholar" that one can't

- lift with his shoulder,
- carry with his hands,
- even kill a chicken with his hands.

Funny you should mention this because I was just discussing it with a fellow member of this forum via private messages.

My view is that the type of muscular development and strength acquired through performing hard manual labor in a typical manner is NOT the same as what you will get from traditional CMA (especially IMA) training.

Unadulterated traditional CMA training is very specialized and style-specific. At higher levels, it often requires an individual to learn how to move and use his body is ways that are unnatural and counter-intuitive to an average person.


And are you aware that there have been many highly skilled CMA masters who were either quite rich themselves or born into wealthy families? Learning martial arts was considered a luxury and, in many cases, only the wealthy had the money and resources to study under top teachers. This is true in the cases of Baji master Liu Yunqiao, WC master Yip Man, Bagua master Wang Zhuangfei, Feeding Crane master Liu Gu, and many more. Since they had the time, energy, and money without having to work for a living, they were able to focus on their CMA training and become accomplished in their arts.

[willie]

And are you aware that there have been many highly skilled CMA masters who were either quite rich themselves or born into wealthy families? Learning martial arts was considered a luxury and, in many cases, only the wealthy had the money and resources to study under top teachers. This is true in the cases of Baji master Liu Yunqiao, WC master Yip Man, Bagua master Wang Zhuangfei, Feeding Crane master Liu Gu, and many more. Since they had the time, energy, and money without having to work for a living, they were able to focus on their CMA training and become accomplished in their arts.

I would more then agree with this statement.
tai chi is very expensive and I don't mean a rip off either.

It's best if you are rich and don't have to work or perhaps in your family.
Lately work has been slow so I have been doing form work up to 10-20 times per day.
Those forms are about 20 minutes long, plus getting into app's?

Imagine if you had to pay for all that time, I'm sure everything would be correct, but how much would that cost?

[wkfung108]

This is a better description, but I'd still disagree with both the assumptions you make and the conclusions you draw from them. Don't get me wrong: I agree that the training in Chinese martial arts, particularly the internal arts, employs a methodology and progression that differs from the physical and combative training methods found anywhere else in the world. I simply don't think that such training results in significantly visible differences in the average practitioner's body.

Again, food was expensive in the past (it still is in most parts of the world), and thus, body mass is uncommon. The thick trunk is not necessarily what you see in old photos and depictions of Chinese warriors/martial artists back in the day. Fu Zhen Song, Guo Yunchen, Chen Fake, and Sun Lutang were all just pretty skinny guys with unremarkable-looking trunks, hips, and arms -- as an example. (I leave it to you to Google them.)

I would also argue that modern sport fighters and athletes do not necessarily have "big biceps, bulging chest, a lean thin waist, and narrow hips." (Well, maybe the thin waist and narrow hips, but as I've already argued, that's less a function of how they train and more about what they eat and how much they train.) Look at MMA fighters: none have what I would describe as a lot of muscle mass. They're lean and ripped, but not huge. Take a look at Anderson Silva, or Randy Couture, or even fighters noted for their sheer strength, like Georges St. Pierre and Matt Hughes. Take a look at any of the Gracies. None of these guys are going to be on the cover of a bodybuilding magazine anytime soon. And if I put those guys in Chinese robes or classical Qing dynasty clothes, their bodies would not stand out or look all that unusual -- they might, in fact, look a bit frumpy. (They'd definitely look funny, though.) And remember that these guys are lean because they deliberately cut weight, which is not something that athletes in most non-combat sports need to worry about. If you look at guys in the NFL, the ones who don't have to do a lot of running don't tend to have "a lean thin waist and narrow hips" and they don't necessarily have a "bulging chest" either. They're still strong and capable athletes.)

And also, I do not agree on the "simple logical fact that the more a group of muscles is used, the bigger and thicker it gets." In some cases yes, in some cases no. It depends on how you train those muscles, which muscles you're talking about, AND WHAT/HOW MUCH YOU EAT. And even when the muscles get bigger, some only get slightly bigger. As an example, look at Olympic swimmers. They certainly work a whole bunch of muscles quite a lot, but none of them get bulging muscles. To your argument specifically, I don't think it's humanly possible to make your hips or your core significantly bigger in a muscular way -- certainly not so much that it would show if you were wearing normal clothes. (I suppose if you want big hips you can do the "five Chicago-style pizzas a day, washed down with pitchers of beer" diet, but that's something else altogether.)

Finally, a remark on your argument that "And are you aware that there have been many highly skilled CMA masters who were either quite rich themselves or born into wealthy families? Learning martial arts was considered a luxury and, in many cases, only the wealthy had the money and resources to study under top teachers. This is true in the cases of Baji master Liu Yunqiao, WC master Yip Man, Bagua master Wang Zhuangfei, Feeding Crane master Liu Gu, and many more. Since they had the time, energy, and money without having to work for a living, they were able to focus on their CMA training and become accomplished in their arts."

Yes, there were indeed some great masters who were born into wealthy families. But they were the exception rather than the norm. Historical research shows that in China, learning the martial arts was until post-World War II considered by society to be very much a low-class occupation that you undertook to learn a trade -- that trade being either a soldier or in some professional security capacity (caravan guard, bodyguards, etc.) And those trades were only undertaken if you came from a poor family and didn't have many other options to improve your lot in life. Throughout Chinese history, most martial artists started their lives as peasants. (This is similar to how historically, great American boxers tended to come from economically disadvantaged classes/ethnic groups. We had great Irish boxers when the Irish were discriminated against, great Jewish and Italian boxers, and there's a reason why so many good boxers today are black and Hispanic.)

To explain my argument using a more everyday analogy: I happen to know a guy who was born into a very old, fairly wealthy family (by which I mean he has a trust fund) who became a master plumber (that title's no joke -- it takes between six to 10 years of training and experience to get it). It would nevertheless not be correct to therefore claim that learning plumbing is considered a luxury or that plumbers in general come from wealthy families.

[quote="C.J.W."
What I meant was a typical warrior/martial artist that you see in various forms of ancient Chinese art almost always have a thick trunk, wide hips, and normal-sized arms and chest as opposed to the big biceps, bulging chest, a lean thin waist, and narrow hips that we see in many modern sports fighters and athletes.

I suppose we can agree on the simple logical fact that the more a group of muscles is used, the bigger and thicker it gets?　

[RobP3]

I suspect Tai Chi started getting more expensive when richer / higher class people started getting interested in it

[C.J.W.]

Wkfung108,

Nice post that reflects yours perspective on the topic.

In the CMA training I've been exposed to, dantien and kua are the two main areas of focus, and ones that requires the most hard work to develop. More specifically, we train to engage the dantien and open/close the kua to produce power. When done right over a long period of time, the bones, muscles, and fascia in the hip and waist areas will naturally become thicker, wider, and/or rounder. (Keep in mind that I'm not saying this will make you look like a fat couch potato with a ghetto booty, just that it changes the proportions of the body and makes it appear more "bottom heavy" as opposed to "top heavy.")

As for the built of modern fighters, I NEVER meant to argue that they had huge muscles like bodybuilders. The point is that they are more "top heavy" -- which obviously means they train and rely on upper body for power more than lower body.

As for those chests and biceps, not sure about you, but they do look quite muscular to me. Also note how their lower bodies appear smaller in proportion to the upper bodies.

Sure, genes play a role in the size of a person's lower body, but IMO, the proportion of one's body also directly reflects how they train over the long term.

[wkfung108]

The kua and dantian are constantly trained and worked in the Chinese martial arts with which I have familiarity as well. I'm just not convinced that this kind of training, no matter how diligently you do it and no matter how long you've been doing it, and no matter how much internal skill you have, is going to result in changes that are visible to the casual observer, particularly if you're wearing normal clothes.

Here are a few guys I think we'd all agree are highly skilled at various internal styles.

Here's Luo Dexiu. Arms and shoulders seem athletic, while his hips/kua/abdomen don't seem unusually pronounced.


Here's Ren Guangyi (with Lou Reed, because why not?). Yeah, his hips and waist aren't exactly slender, but they're in proportion to his upper torso -- his chest, shoulders, upper back. Don't tell me that guy doesn't have some muscle mass up top.


Here's Zhu Baozhen (left). OK, skinny arms, not much in the chest and back as far as mass goes. But also skinny waist and hips, too.


Now, in the pictures you posted, Georges St. Pierre and Matt Hughes are certainly muscular with their shirts off. There aren't any pictures of the old masters of IMA with their shirts off, but I suspect you'd find they were not lacking in muscle, even in the back, chest, and shoulders. The difference with St. Pierre and Huges is that not only do they train hard, they eat a high-protein diet -- Hughes got the base of his strength from being a farmer, and those midwestern boys love their beef. But put these two gentlement in casual street clothes, and do they really look that much different than the guys above, bodywise? I don't think so. In casual clothes, they look like average guys I walk past on the streets of New York every single day.