The metaphor of fascia?

You are correct on a technical level, but for IS purposes, "fascia" has been used to refer to the entire system of connective tissue, including the fascia, tendons, cartilage. But if we say "connective tissue," that includes the skin and we're really talking about the stuff under the skin that is neither muscle nor bone nor viscera nor blood vessels nor nerves. The more correct term would be "connective tissue". Others have pointed this out, but the term "fascia" has become pretty much interchangeable with "suit" and "connective tissue."

So "tendons" are included when the IS discussions refer generally to fascia because the fascial lines comprise all those elements to connect the various areas of the body.

Thanks.

David

Janet Rosen wrote: Um...no, sorry. From an anatomy and physiology perspective, fascia is the thin connective tissue the totally encases each muscle - when you cut a steak apart it is that membrane stuff. WHen you've had surgery it gets cut and can create all kinds of pain and scarring and stiffness. Tendons are the connective tissues that bind muscle to bone, the way ligaments bind bone to bone. Tendons are the things running through the top of your hand to each finger, letting the contraction of muscles in the forearm make your fingers move.

Doug Walker wrote: Ligaments, tendons, and fascia differ in their function and not so much in their nature. Ligaments connect bone to bone, tendons connect bone to muscle, and fascia connect muscle to muscle. Other than that, they are made of the same kinds of stuff (collagen) and merge into one another when not sitting dissected on a table or in a book.

Right, and that's how the Chinese classics use them. It's only important to differentiate them when you get down to specific joints. When referring to the whole connective trains, you have to include all the parts. It doesn't change the functioning for IS purposes, as far as I can tell.

David

Janet Rosen wrote: Being made of the same substance and yes, merging into each other, does not in my world make them the same thing; I stand by my statement that it is incorrect to say that what we call the fascia equals what we call a tendon.

No, they don't. Neither does the shift stick equal the gears in a car, but they're all part of the drive train. You are correct that they are not the same, but we're not so much concerned with the parts as with the whole functioning unit and the connective tissues (including the skin) work as a discrete mechanism of the body like "the circulatory system" or the "nerve system," both of which include many differentiated parts that do not equal one another but which function together in a system separate from other discrete systems.

It's a loose term for the discussion's purposes, but technically you are correct.

David

Philip Burgess wrote: You're saying then, you don't see any scientific studies coming forth in the future in the area of martial arts and the fasica.

Buck, are you a scientist? How many "scientific studies" have you done?

For the past decade, I've been deeply involved in studies of cancer, herbicide toxicity, diseases related to rubber tire manufacture, myasthenia gravis and others. That's all I do.

Who do you suppose would do a study of "fascia in 'internal' martial arts"?

Who would fund it?

What would be their research goals?

How would they determine their hypotheses and how would they measure their results?

I remember when I was very young, long before I was directly involved in research, when I used to come up with all kinds of ideas for "scientific studies" that should be done on various elements of martial arts. All it took was a few conversations with people actually involved in research to realize that your bird won't fly.

Dan and others have offered you a sword and you've pretty well cut both your own feet off with it, but you're demanding a sharper sword because the one that cut your feet off isn't sharp enough for you.

Zannen. Kawaiso Borat.

Ja ne.

David

FWIW, and deferring to those with a better and more accurate understanding of the human body, I found fascinating the following,discussion, excerpted from page 170-71 of the link posted earlier (http://www.anatomytrains.com/uploads...nsOverview.pdf.). Among other things, and without negating the validity of Janet's distinction above, it suggests an ontogenic inter-relatedness of different types of "connective tissue" in addition to positing the sort of functional wholism to which David was referring.

Regards,

cdh

"[F]rom the central armature of the notochord (the embryological form of the vertebral bodies and discs), connective tissue spreads out to create protective sacs and nets around the cells, structures, and systems of the body, organizing stable mechanical relationships, allowing certain movements, and discouraging others. …

This system of connective tissue can be seen as our ‘organ of form' … The ability of connective tissue [creating] cells to alter and mix … water, the fibers, and the gluey ground substance gel of glycoaminoglycarts produces on demand [a] wide range of familiar building materials in the body -- bone cartilage, ligament, tendon, areolar and adipose networks -- all the varieties of biological fabric. The body's joints, the ‘organ of movement,' are almost entirely composed of extracelluar matrix constructed by the connective tissue cells."

"Connective tissue" would be a better term to use than "fascia", in terms of the references/usages in qi/ki development. Of course there's a lot more to it than just "using" them.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

David Orange wrote: It's a loose term for the discussion's purposes, but technically you are correct. David

Mike Sigman wrote: "Connective tissue" would be a better term to use than "fascia", in terms of the references/usages in qi/ki development. Of course there's a lot more to it than just "using" them. FWIW Mike Sigman

Words and language are actually critical in these discussions. Criticism and clarification of terms is the basis for progress in the realm of discussion. This is especially important in multi-disciplinary discussion in which the same or very similar terms are actually used to describe/refer to completely different things - which happens very often. This type of thing happens even with specialized disciplines by those with different 'interprative lineages'.

It would be nice if the distillation of these threads that provide clarity on the distinctions find their way into the aikiwiki - seems to be an area that could use more participation.

So to the OP and topic: Fascia is this context has been used as a misnomer that actually refers to the collection of tissues that comprise the connective tissues and systems (primarily elements of the extracellular matrix) in the body. How these systems are used and/or developed are another matter.

Rob, what you just wrote would make a fine start! Go ahead and post it.

Best,
Ron

Indeed - it's confusing just within the scientific milieu, too, I guess. Blood is technically connective tissue, but no one really thinks of it that way. And while Janet is right that there are different names for structures made up of Type I collagen depending on where they are, you and the Davids are right that they are so connected that it's impossible to say where one begins and one ends. Connective tissue (medically, "connective tissue proper", i.e. excluding blood, bones, and teeth) is an intrinsic part of the musculoskeletal system. I'll defer to Mike S. on the best term for the ki/qi context, since many of us look to him and those few others who have trained so extensively in that area for a window into it - but from an outsider's point of view, "connective tissue" seems a pretty accessible handle.

um...I disagree, respectfully, and challenge that.
Specifically I challenge that the strict categorization, naming, listing and definitions are needed ...right now.
I..er....am obviously not arguing that we need words to have a conversation or that we have to generally agree about what they mean; but that there is a danger in pulling out the microscope too soon.
For the average schmoe talking about things we can't do anyway now seems the time for brainstorming, serendipity, sharing, thinking laterally...being open. ....you know; remembering about seeing the forest for the trees. While nomenclature can keep you busy; it will kill the spirit. This is a continual danger in pursuing real science. Don't get lost because of your own noise... It is possible that your own guideposts become unintentional boundary markers.
While thinking and reflection are (as always critical) nomenclature , organization and rigid definitions and that kind of stuff are best left to the crusty museum curators.
Ducks don't like staying in their nice neat rows. At least not when there's a lot of action going on.

just feeling argumentative today. don't mind me.

David Henderson wrote: FWIW, and deferring to those with a better and more accurate understanding of the human body, I found fascinating the following,discussion, excerpted from page 170-71 of the link posted earlier (http://www.anatomytrains.com/uploads...nsOverview.pdf.). Among other things, and without negating the validity of Janet's distinction above, it suggests an ontogenic inter-relatedness of different types of "connective tissue" in addition to positing the sort of functional wholism to which David was referring. Regards, cdh "[F]rom the central armature of the notochord (the embryological form of the vertebral bodies and discs), connective tissue spreads out to create protective sacs and nets around the cells, structures, and systems of the body, organizing stable mechanical relationships, allowing certain movements, and discouraging others. … This system of connective tissue can be seen as our ‘organ of form' … The ability of connective tissue [creating] cells to alter and mix … water, the fibers, and the gluey ground substance gel of glycoaminoglycans produces on demand [a] wide range of familiar building materials in the body -- bone cartilage, ligament, tendon, areolar and adipose networks -- all the varieties of biological fabric. The body's joints, the ‘organ of movement,' are almost entirely composed of extracelluar matrix constructed by the connective tissue cells."

Interestingly, the ontogenic inter-relatedness they suggest is totally valid - but their vision of the actual embryology of it is kind of sketchy, being more a story of the beginnings of the mesentery and borrowing more from poetry than science. It's funny; I think that the real story is even more convincing in terms of conceiving as the musculoskeletal system as being all one - the lineages of bone, tendon, muscle etc. all start as the same kind of cell in the same place. As the embryo develops, populations of cells become more specific, differentiating into myotome (future muscle) and sclerotome (future bone) with mesenchyme all around. Populations of cells divide and grow and become more and more differentiated (different kinds of muscle cells or fibroblasts etc.), but they are developing together. And functionally, without any of those aspects, we wouldn't be able to move...

Jeremy Morrison wrote: Indeed - it's confusing just within the scientific milieu, too, I guess. Blood is technically connective tissue, but no one really thinks of it that way. And while Janet is right that there are different names for structures made up of Type I collagen depending on where they are, you and the Davids are right that they are so connected that it's impossible to say where one begins and one ends. Connective tissue (medically, "connective tissue proper", i.e. excluding blood, bones, and teeth) is an intrinsic part of the musculoskeletal system. I'll defer to Mike S. on the best term for the ki/qi context, since many of us look to him and those few others who have trained so extensively in that area for a window into it - but from an outsider's point of view, "connective tissue" seems a pretty accessible handle.

This is all an interesting topic and it's far more extensive than the elementary discussions here, but let's save a lot of it until there are more and more-complete skills out there. The one point I'd make is that "collagenous structures" is indeed a broad topic and even bone is, what, about 50% collagen? So your above exclusion prompts me to point out that this is a fairly complex topic.

Incidentally, there's an almost immutable logic to these things and how they work. And various training regimens aren't necessarily going to address the whole logic and spectrum of possibilities. On the other hand, I'm interested in watching the various competitive factions that are now in the horse race. This cannot help but be good for Aikido, having a number of different "sources" each trying to be the best and the most knowledgeable. Someone should keep notes of these times for later chronicling.

Best.

Mike Sigman

The Japanese and Chinese (who defined such things as tendon changing) both discovered and successfully taught how to do these things with training methods that were reliant upon intent and feel within the body more so then some western methods of "proving" what connected what.
I only mention fascia and anatomy trains as they help define certain paths. While they helped define some basic paths, knowing them in detail will not help one wit with how to train them or show where they aid you in mutually supporting each path and the whole body. They do not cover a training regimen to feel connections and strengthen connections with the breath and extremeties while avoiding the use of muscle either.
Everyone knows about your lungs and Diaphragm, and even the "idea" of moving from the center as well. I can point you to hundreds of thousands of words written about them, as well as Chinese classical internal training methods, that from my experience so far, hasn't helped the majority of JMA or ICMA'ers much at all. They all pretty much continue to flounder around using muscle and jacking up at hips and shoulders and approaching their arts like any good athlete would

And ounce of good intent instruction is worth a pound of knowledge about anatomy.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: An ounce of good intent instruction is worth a pound of knowledge about anatomy.

That's for sure! And thinking about something is worth a whole lot more when one has some instruction to base it on..

Here is some interesting stuff ...
[spoiler]

1. Check out the 'suit' of thoracolumbar fascia< Takes on a new meaning, eh? I like how he discusses running.
btw; that lead me to a whole bunch of other cool stuff about how the SI joint works (force closure, (counter/)nutation, etc.)

2. secret method? ?

3. And this was interesting...an example of fascia as a force conduit...

Paul Chek wrote: As we walk, we swing one leg and the opposite arm forward in what is termed counter rotation. Just prior to foot strike, the hamstrings become active. The DLS [deep longitudinal sling], uses the thoracolumbar fascia and paraspinal muscle system to transmit kinetic energy above the pelvis, while using the biceps femoris as a communicating link between the pelvis and lower extremity. For example, Vleeming shows that the biceps femoris communicates with the peroneus longus at the fibular head, transmitting approximately 18% of the contraction force of the biceps femoris through the fascial system into the peroneus longus.

From<

4.An interview I liked with CXW himself<

5. Another interesting thread
[/spoiler]
... that won't help at all!

Josh Phillipson wrote: just feeling argumentative today. don't mind me.

Mongo no like words.

Sure, then throw out " thoracolumbar" ya old sandbagger.

Sorry, I sometimes can't help myself. Quick, hide my keyboard before I post again!

I am always willing to accept that within a particular subgroup or culture, words may be understood to have a different meaning, and I thank David and others who were able to go into the depth of that.

As it relates to TCM and the Asian conception of the body, I find it very interesting - a book I've read through carefully twice now and will no doubt reread one day soon - HIGHLY recommended - is The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek and Chinese Medicine by Shigehisa Kuriyama

Sounds like a very interesting book.

Of course, my part in this is just an effort to organize some of the ideas I've gleaned from paying a lot of attention to the people who actually have the skills. I don't. But I'm trying to understand and as Mike and Dan have both pointed out, it's far more complex than the little outlines I've made.

I just think its something worthy of a lot of attention and especially of meeting and training with those who do have the skills.

Best to all.

David

Janet Rosen wrote: As it relates to TCM and the Asian conception of the body, I find it very interesting - a book I've read through carefully twice now and will no doubt reread one day soon - HIGHLY recommended - is The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek and Chinese Medicine by Shigehisa Kuriyama

In some ways the perspective on the human body is important and unique, in respect to the Asian view. Neither the western nor the Asian view was without faults, glitches, and errors, of course, but ultimately it needs to be recognized that the ancient view of qi/ki as having an etheric flow component simply didn't work... the Law of Thermodynamics in re the conservation of energy simply precludes many of the claims about qi/ki. Hence, modern Asia uses the principles of western physics, etc., and Beijing has numerous western-medicine hospitals, as well.

The Asian view of the body had a lot to do with strength and health. Qi and body strength always go hand in hand; even a western weight-lifter develops "qi" in the classical sense, even though it may not be useful in the "internal strength" sense. The 'divergence' of the two medical views is an interesting aspect to look at philosophically, but the critical element about the internal strength discussions is in regard to the methods used and the body-mechanics of internal strength... not the perspectives.

Regardless of the language or the medical perspective, the ancient Asians noticed some real physical phenomena that tends to elude western physiologists because western physiology neglected to view the fascial structures as parts of the overall strength equations. Incidentally, let me suggest that the overall complexity of these types of strengths is greater than the discussions on AikiWeb suggests.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Do you think it will change, Mike?

Mike Sigman wrote: Incidentally, let me suggest that the overall complexity of these types of strengths is greater than the discussions on AikiWeb suggests.

Josh Phillipson wrote: Do you think it will change, Mike?

I suspect that until the affects, properties and effects of the various factors that are distinctive of the various levels mentioned there will be little more than more talking in circles around each other. This is exactly what the call for clarification and terminology is about. As others have suggested maybe we are not quite ready for that but certainly we can all appreciate the need and take stock of where the current state of affairs rests for the time being.

Not being one of the informed I still can glean from the posting that there most likely is a real difference between aiki, internal strength and internal power, and the other 'terms' that have been floating about. I suggest that until these are enumerated and described in a way that is more complete than currently is evident we are back to that talking circle game.

I'm content for now to presume that we are not there yet but I hope y'all don't mind an occasional 'are we there yet?' in the interim.

Thanks

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: Not being one of the informed I still can glean from the posting that there most likely is a real difference between aiki, internal strength and internal power, and the other 'terms' that have been floating about.

Well, I've heard people try to argue that "Ki" is actually different from "Qi"... yet when you begin dissecting the terms and looking for any real differences there are none. At best there are some *perceived* differences because people didn't really understand Ki/Qi so they built up differences in their mind. The greater the misunderstanding, the greater the differences *appear*.

The same thing is true with these ongoing (and amateurish) discussions about ki, "aiki", kokyu, "tendon changing", fascia, and so on. There are only a few basic principles defining all the terms and if there appear to be differences, it's because people don't understand the larger picture, yet. I think some of these threads should be archived in special places, though, so that people can come back and understand that some of the *experts* five-years from now were only getting their foot in the door today. It will be part of the fun.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: The same thing is true with these ongoing (and amateurish) discussions about ki, "aiki", kokyu, "tendon changing", fascia, and so on. There are only a few basic principles defining all the terms and if there appear to be differences, it's because people don't understand the larger picture, yet. I think some of these threads should be archived in special places, though, so that people can come back and understand that some of the *experts* five-years from now were only getting their foot in the door today. It will be part of the fun. FWIW Mike Sigman

True
The premier repository of amateurish and tedious discussion-the nejia list- bore evidence to that. There are other lists and forums equally inane and tedious. I encourage everyone to peruse these discussions and then go feel those -in- the discussions. Make sure to find "real experts" as well. It's all an eye opener; "supposed" experts and "supposed" amateurs alike.
There are plenty of them.
Make a list and save some of the comments from certain people.
If the humor of the idea offered that "No one can really see or understand beyond their current level of exposure" hasn't escaped you, then reading the many highly debated, yet classified as... "larger picture discussions" taking place among "self-professed amateurs" should prove very entertaining.
Not all is as it appears, then again maybe it is.

Knowledge is an interesting thing; it can be empowering and it can be a labyrinth of useless information. Then again even good information can be useless information at the same time when it comes to physical skills. Keep checking people out; Real experts; with both knowledge and skills, in the Japanese or Chinese arts- are getting harder to find.
Cheers
Dan

http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6656
They, are watching -our- discussions
You won't do much better there, than here as far as who actually has something-as opposed to people just talking your ears off about what they think they "know."
The smart guys over there are even MORE jaded than people here. Some have been all over the world, and have trained with Internal power, master-level teachers, others with high level DR and aikido teachers and have seen the majority of their fellow MA'ers ...miss it. In general most -of them-are students and teachers of the internal Chinese arts and they argue about what constitutes "internal power" all the time.
Every once in a great while there is some interesting discussion.

As always IHTBF includes every supposed amateur and expert you can find. Don't trust in single sources get out there and compare and work on you.
Cheers
Dan

Mike Sigman wrote: Well, I've heard people try to argue that "Ki" is actually different from "Qi"... yet when you begin dissecting the terms and looking for any real differences there are none. At best there are some *perceived* differences because people didn't really understand Ki/Qi so they built up differences in their mind. The greater the misunderstanding, the greater the differences *appear*. The same thing is true with these ongoing (and amateurish) discussions about ki, "aiki", kokyu, "tendon changing", fascia, and so on. There are only a few basic principles defining all the terms and if there appear to be differences, it's because people don't understand the larger picture, yet. I think some of these threads should be archived in special places, though, so that people can come back and understand that some of the *experts* five-years from now were only getting their foot in the door today. It will be part of the fun. FWIW Mike Sigman

I would like to jump in here real quick and make comment. I think it is important. Sometime we get caught up in that ancient mystical, magical world of martial arts, and forget that world isn't the real world works.

Rob makes a good strong reasonable point in his comments that is very grounding. It is something I echo, only as being a reasonable person.

Mike, I think your comments here really encapsulate an important point in discussing *perceived* differences and that of(amateurish) discussions.

If anything in this world is going to be seen as or be credible it has to go through scrutiny. The martial arts world is full of misinformation, myth, miscommunication, and ignorance. All of which has been around for hundreds of centuries, resulting in so much of it, that there needs to be a beacon for truth, fact, proper information and communication. That is the role of scientific investigation.

Many other people, and rightly so, feel the only benchmark or test needed is the old standby. That credibility of a theory goes to the last guy standing (consider experiencing or seeing a feat can be faked and the follow applies to the frauds), resulting in if he says it is chi or god's power, then that is what it becomes, thus a fact. Amazed by such a feat, multitudes of people flock eagerly and naively to him to learn his skill for themselves. This creates an instant acceptance of what ever he tells the result of his skill is, how it works, and how he did it. In the the martial arts it is the tool of myth and misinformation that hides it all. But, what these people fail to realize is, he isn't going to give it all away and lose his importance, no matter who he is or what he proclaims. This does give credibility to only the fact, that he is the last man standing, his skill.

It can't be seen as an unreasonable request to ask for scientific clarification, understanding, a demystification of something, especially if it is something new, before it is declared fact, real, more than a hypothesis. This is done for all the obvious and mentioned reasons. Let me highlight a very important reason for this, it can give solid and grounded credibility. But, on the downside it can prove it otherwise.

I think it is fair if those who can't get or are able to prove scientific study state that, and judgement suspended. But the issue there is there is no instant credibility. I think that is why so many turn to the "ancient" frameworks as for some reason we all feel if it was practice by ancient peoples its got to be credible. Even though those ancient people knew far less of themselves, and the world around them then we do today. That isn't to say they didn't contribute to what we know today. But to say that their knowledge and methods of themselves and the world where not as complete as today, just as ours will be tomorrow.

In closing, what Rob and Mike said in their last posts has to be really seen as the normal. And also what I have been saying, scientific study (even though it isn't as romantic and entertaining as myth) has a place in martial arts. The benefits of doing so out-weight not doing so. Finally the don't call boxing "The Sweet Science" for nothing.