For me it's just to do with buzzwords. Some people just like to fill their online videos with buzzwords
They SURE do! I imagine we are talking about different people.
I mean, we could think of Fascia and the research around its role in the body as a 'fad' or as a 'buzz' word. But that would be akin to saying why use a word like 'Lymph'. Before we knew what Lymph was we still moved in ways that moved it around the body ... so why use that 'buzz word'.
I am actually
not a fan of putting everything on the shoulders of fascia and i don't do that. For some people it has become the be all and end all of things, but i am absolutely not in that camp. In fact from research I am thinking that Neurology is another major factor in 'connection. Happilly i like having my viewpoint altered by new evidence.
There are two problematic camps here for me .. .1) who reject it as a 'fad' 'buzz word' or similar like yourself. 2) who act like it is the answer for everything. Both are characterised by a lack of research on the subject and ignorance on both the body of available research, the continued research
and the scope of fascias importance.
I often wonder what would happen if all the "deep front line" and "cross body connection" or whatever’s were all taken away, what would you have left?
We would be left with people not understanding why they are doing a given movement. The descriptions i personally use absolutely help the person in front of me, or i wouldn’t use them. Or maybe we should fall back onto the brilliant descriptive power of something like 'Move the Chi' or 'Muscle-Tendon Channel'.
What i find really bizarre is that some terms for certain things you have no problem with. Things like Ground Path or' muscle-tendon channels', 'sinew channels' are accepted.
"To attain knowledge add things every day, to obtain wisdom remove things every day".
Very nice, but the context of that quote is important. I don’t think this method will help me get my degree.
I'm pretty sure we could boil all these lengthy explanations of things down a bit to make them more understandable.
"Explain it so that your grandmother could understand it":
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gr ... randmother
I totally agree with the article. In fact, I would go further and say that you should be able to explain to your grandmother AND get her to feel what you are talking about. I could walk to the fridge, pull out a joint of meat and show her in seconds what fascia is and get her to feel how it connects things, then say, its the same in our body.
I would love to hear how you would describe Jing, Shen, Li, Chi, 'muscle-tendon channels' and all the other classical terms ultimately defuse of concrete meaning/context to your grandmother haha.
The other issue is that obviously, fascia exists, but a lot of people seem to attribute it with all sorts of magical properties there's little or no evidence it has. That seems to happen a lot.
Are you seriously suggesting that people attribute more 'magical' properties to fascia than to Chi or Jing or whatever else an 'internal martial artist' will prefer to use ... and that lack of evidence is REALLY the problem here? If 'evidence' is so important here then something like 'chi' or the muscle-tendon channels should be rejected immediately. They are not and that is why i really struggle with your point of view.
Ultimately, I don't really care - everybody is free to do whatever they want.
People do indeed. But you really do seem to care, hence why i am interested in understanding your view. You comment on every thread with Fascia in the title.
As i say, for coaches, sports scientists and research departments i think it is important to know what is happening both for program design, for furthering anatomical understanding on the whole and practically for checking progress. For practitioners and athletes it should be nothing more that a sentence or two.
cheers.
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:45 am
