Chi: Is it real?

[RatioFitness]

It's also worth noting that Eastern and Western medicine have the same success/failure rates. On this scale, that means that either BOTH work, or NEITHER work.

What's your source for this information?

Success/failure at what?

[Tarun Suri]

Slizz, thank you for that. It's an eye opener to say the least. The "facts" i carried with me all these years must have been misinterpreted. I always assumed that under cold conditions (I even saw the world record attempt at under ice water swimming with one breath in video), in order to reduce the heart rate, you had to drop your body temperature. I never recalled hearing about wanting to increase it. The training in the mountains is also new to me.

To say the least, I feel as though some of these concepts will need experimenting with. I always surprised my friend at how I could often set PRs after enormously long bouts of no-training, often spanning many months. I would tell him that I missed those lifts so much, that I would visualise them in great detail almost every day. I thought I was good at visualising, but it seems like I can make a lot more gains once I learn the way.

[Joseff Lea]

It's also worth noting that Eastern and Western medicine have the same success/failure rates. On this scale, that means that either BOTH work, or NEITHER work.

Now I'm afraid your wrong here, the way western science works is that you observe some phenomena, you make a hypothesis as to how this process works. You then test your hypothesis using a experiment, very importantly the results of these experiments must be repeatable. If the test proves your hypothesis wrong then you change your hypothesis.

Eastern science hasn't ever applied this level of rigour to itself, they take more the approach of if something works once then it works always (e.g Chinese medicine reflects this, from 1000s of cures they have for a cold only around 400 (I think) actually have any effect). This is the reason why western science has made the most progress recently (past 200 years or so) with regards to medicine, engineering etc.

Both appear to me to be different cultures models as to how the body works. If you ignore everything you "know" about the nervous system then the theory of chi is a pretty good alternative theory as to how the nervous system works, and for certain situations is actually better. Who knows eventually we may have some theory which combines aspects of the chi theory into the western theory, a bit like the wave-particle theory in physics, two seemingly contradictory models put together as that is a better way to think of the processes involved.

In the end however both sciences are just imperfect models as to how the world works, we will never know exactly what is happening as we cant observe everything and even if we could it still wouldn't be perfect as our brains aren't capable of conceiving some concepts e.g infinity (although we have developed tools to deal with these shortcomings in certain situations).

I wonder how chi relates to being in "the zone". You know that feeling when you can in a activity seemingly do anything effortlessly and everything goes a little slow motion. I've experienced it a few times and they have all been in skill related situations, does anyone know if it applies to strength situations? Does anyone know any way to train getting into the zone?

[Aaron Griffin]

Now I'm afraid your wrong here, the way western science works ...

Huh? For the sake of that statement, I don't care how they work. And also, I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about medicine. When taken as a black box, with similar inputs and outputs, the results of both Eastern and Western medicine are the same (statistically, mind you). Remember that thousands of people die each year from malpractice, drug reactions, and failed surgeries. But we're taking the whole thing as a hand-waving black box - sick person goes in, something comes out.

[RatioFitness]

Now I'm afraid your wrong here, the way western science works ...

Huh? For the sake of that statement, I don't care how they work. And also, I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about medicine. When taken as a black box, with similar inputs and outputs, the results of both Eastern and Western medicine are the same (statistically, mind you). Remember that thousands of people die each year from malpractice, drug reactions, and failed surgeries. But we're taking the whole thing as a hand-waving black box - sick person goes in, something comes out.

Well, I'd love to see where you're getting your statistics from.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying that people have the same survival rates for cancer whether they are treated with western or eastern medicine?

[Aaron Griffin]

Well, I'd love to see where you're getting your statistics from.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying that people have the same survival rates for cancer whether they are treated with western or eastern medicine?

Yeah, I was trying to find the stats I found. This was a few years ago, so I don't recall where I got this from.

And I'm not sure if extremes such as cancer, organ failure, and the like were covered. Western medicine has a significant leg up there, if I had to guess

[RatioFitness]

Well, I hope you find your sources. But you'll understand that I can't believe you until I see them.

[Gavin Strelitz]

This discussion is a very interesting one. I am a natural sceptic and have a logical and scientific mind. That said, I have practiced Zen meditation for some time (around 10 years). I also trained in Kung-fu for 7 years and have practiced Tai Chi as well. Chi, in my experience, is a real thing, as it is quite unmistakeable when you tap into the energy flow moving through your body. I don't really have any major point to make, just that through experience I am a believer.

Spinelli, in terms of creating "Zone" experiences there are two books you may want to read. The first is Timothy Galway's, The Inner Game of Tennis. This is a classic text in sport psychology but has applications to other aspects of life. The other, maybe not so accessible though, is called Trading in the Zone, by Mark Douglas. It's focussed around trading financial markets but he goes quite heavily into the psychology of the zone state.

[Quick Start Test Smith]

RatioFitness, I don't think cancer is a good example. I could be wrong, but I believe that cancer is faaaar less common in the East anyway.

[RatioFitness]

RatioFitness, I don't think cancer is a good example. I could be wrong, but I believe that cancer is faaaar less common in the East anyway.

If eastern medicine is just as good western medicine then you can't cherry pick which types of diseases you compare. That seems fair to me. Of course if eastern medicine is only good at treating certain types of pathologies then that's fine, but I was responding to the claim that it was equal in general.

Also, you're right that cancer is more prevalent in west but I'm not sure I see the relevance here.

[Tarun Suri]

I wonder how chi relates to being in "the zone". You know that feeling when you can in a activity seemingly do anything effortlessly and everything goes a little slow motion. I've experienced it a few times and they have all been in skill related situations, does anyone know if it applies to strength situations? Does anyone know any way to train getting into the zone?

Are you referring to Maslow's highest hierarchy of needs: Self-actualisation? I guess you can use a bunch of different terminology to describe it.

[RatioFitness]

While we're on the topic of non-western medicine, I was wondering what everyone's opinion of homeopathy is? I've been thinking of keeping some homeopathic supplements around but wanted some opinions first.

[Quick Start Test Smith]

RatioFitness, I don't think cancer is a good example. I could be wrong, but I believe that cancer is faaaar less common in the East anyway.

If eastern medicine is just as good western medicine then you can't cherry pick which types of diseases you compare. That seems fair to me. Of course if eastern medicine is only good at treating certain types of pathologies then that's fine, but I was responding to the claim that it was equal in general.

Also, you're right that cancer is more prevalent in west but I'm not sure I see the relevance here.

What I'm saying is that, generally, the more common the disease, the more research and study is put into preventing and curing it. Cancer is quite common here in the West, so naturally the West would be more interested in curing and preventing it. In the East, however, cancer is not so common and the same amount of time and energy will not be spent in curing it.

Western medicine is chock full of problems because of much of the core philosophy (and the American attitude in general) is about treating the symptom instead of the actual root of the problem. Doctors also wait until the problem is staring them in the face before treating. They have to, because they're trained to treat symptoms instead of preventing the root problem. Prevention is the cure for all diseases.

Eastern philosophy seems to be a little different in that it concentrates more strongly on preventing and curing diseases on a whole body approach, instead of breaking the body into small parts like Western philosophy.

I'm not arguing with you, my friend. I'm not saying the eastern medicine is perfect and that western medicine is the devil. I am saying, however, that eastern medicine has many advantages that western medicine does not.

Regarding homeopathy, I believe the way it is theorized to work is through electricity as well. I've actually used homeopathy to great benefit before for taking care of severe stomach aches, bad digestion, and things like that. I've also observed it being used on goats and dogs to great effect. It's a touchy subject for many, though.

[Joshua Naterman]

RatioFitness, I don't think cancer is a good example. I could be wrong, but I believe that cancer is faaaar less common in the East anyway.

If eastern medicine is just as good western medicine then you can't cherry pick which types of diseases you compare. That seems fair to me. Of course if eastern medicine is only good at treating certain types of pathologies then that's fine, but I was responding to the claim that it was equal in general.

Also, you're right that cancer is more prevalent in west but I'm not sure I see the relevance here.

As a broad system the overall effectiveness is equivalent. That is an average across many different areas. There will always be certain areas where one school of medicine does better than another, and that's to be expected. The right thing to do is to start working on taking the things that work best for each condition from all of the available schools of medicine and creating a more integrated approach so that if you have a problem that is treated more effectively with Eastern methods then that's what you get treated with, and if you need chemo to maximize your chances of surviving cancer then you get that. If there are herbal treatments that can decrease the negative health effects of chemotherapy those should be put into practice as well.

Any kind of either/or discussion is counter-productive, we need to be focusing on how to use the best tools for each job, regardless of where these tools come from. Everyone is good at something.

[RatioFitness]

Slizzardman, you wouldn't happen to have references that show overall they are equal, would you?

[RatioFitness]

Western medicine is chock full of problems because of much of the core philosophy (and the American attitude in general) is about treating the symptom instead of the actual root of the problem. Doctors also wait until the problem is staring them in the face before treating. They have to, because they're trained to treat symptoms instead of preventing the root problem. Prevention is the cure for all diseases.

Mr. Smith, I can't say I agree here. But we'll just have to agree to disagree!

[Joshua Naterman]

Western medicine is chock full of problems because of much of the core philosophy (and the American attitude in general) is about treating the symptom instead of the actual root of the problem. Doctors also wait until the problem is staring them in the face before treating. They have to, because they're trained to treat symptoms instead of preventing the root problem. Prevention is the cure for all diseases.

Mr. Smith, I can't say I agree here. But we'll just have to agree to disagree!

You do realize that Western medicine is based on a disease model, right? That they look for things to be wrong, and that if nothing looks wrong then everything must be fine? I mean, that's a darn important part of medicine but that isn't the whole picture. We don't check for everything, we check for the most common problem indicators. We don't check for impaired lymph flow, we don't check for fibrous adhesions of soft tissue unless you're seeing a trained specialist, we don't always consider the enormous impact that stress has on our bodies and we certainly aren't concerned (we meaning Western medicine) with making sure everything is optimal. We are concerned with making sure nothing is going wrong, and that is not the same thing.

When you go to the doctor and you have a cold, you get something to dry up your mucus. Why aren't you being given some simple xylitol mixtures to spray up your nose so that the bacteria lose their grip on the cells and get flushed out with the mucus?

When you go to the dentist and you have a tooth ache and you're told you have a soft spot, why aren't you given xylitol gum so that your mouth can re-calcify the area?

When you have back pain, why is your doctor giving you a prescription for chemicals that block your body's ability to communicate pain until you have to have surgery instead of saying "hey, you're limping and your back is twisted all funny, go see this specialist so that gets taken care of?"

It happens all the time. It is not an evil conspiracy, it is simply a very narrow perspective that is very stubborn in opening its eyes to other possibilities.

If you don't believe me, look up the Medical Model. It's the Disease Model. It is not a wellness model. That's not an insult, it is a simple fact. That is why there is so much push for regulation of "complementary" medicine and "integrated practice" so that the gaps can be filled.

[Sternford]

While we're on the topic of non-western medicine, I was wondering what everyone's opinion of homeopathy is? I've been thinking of keeping some homeopathic supplements around but wanted some opinions first.

Don't bother

[Joshua Naterman]

While we're on the topic of non-western medicine, I was wondering what everyone's opinion of homeopathy is? I've been thinking of keeping some homeopathic supplements around but wanted some opinions first.

I would find out who the most reputable governing body is and only ask a practitioner who has gone through that program for advice. Homeopathic schools are getting more standardized but they are still not 100% legit all over the place. It pays to be cautious.

[RatioFitness]

You do realize that Western medicine is based on a disease model, right? That they look for things to be wrong, and that if nothing looks wrong then everything must be fine?

What does eastern medicine do when nothing wrong is found?

We don't check for everything, we check for the most common problem indicators.

It's possible that there are good reasons for this. For example, everything has trade offs so it might not always be worth it to test everyone for unlikely problems all the time.

We don't check for impaired lymph flow, we don't check for fibrous adhesions of soft tissue unless you're seeing a trained specialist, we don't always consider the enormous impact that stress has on our bodies and we certainly aren't concerned (we meaning Western medicine) with making sure everything is optimal. We are concerned with making sure nothing is going wrong, and that is not the same thing.

Most people aren't health nuts who care about being optimal. If there is evidence for the benefit for all those things you listed, well, studies show that doctors are very poor at following evidenced based guidelines.

When you go to the doctor and you have a cold, you get something to dry up your mucus. Why aren't you being given some simple xylitol mixtures to spray up your nose so that the bacteria lose their grip on the cells and get flushed out with the mucus?

Because that probably doesn't make you get better sooner. Last I heard there are no cures for the common cold.

When you go to the dentist and you have a tooth ache and you're told you have a soft spot, why aren't you given xylitol gum so that your mouth can re-calcify the area?

When you have back pain, why is your doctor giving you a prescription for chemicals that block your body's ability to communicate pain until you have to have surgery instead of saying "hey, you're limping and your back is twisted all funny, go see this specialist so that gets taken care of?"

I don't know, but you're cherry picking examples. When doctors give people vaccines they are treating the root cause - viruses. Anti-bacterial medication targets the root cause - bacteria.

Medical organizations counsel people to eat better, exercise, and reduce stress, which along with genetics, are root contributors many diseases. I think the pronouncements of various authoritative medical organizations would be a better indicator of what "western" medicine proposes as opposed to what doctors actually do in practice because, as I said, they have been found to poorly adhere to evidenced based guidelines.

I'm sure there are many times when only the symptoms are treated, but the idea that western medicine doesn't believe in treating root causes or prevention is false.

[Joshua Naterman]

I have to cherry pick examples. If I listed every single one this would be twenty thousand page post, and none of us can handle that. I don't even know if the server can handle that. It is important that we understand the limitations of our system as well as its broad applications.

Let me start by saying you have some excellent points. It is not practical to check for every problem, because that's an awful lot of tests. The interesting thing about eastern medicine is that they tend to look for a lack of wellness. I do not pretend to understand their intricacies, I am not formally educated in the subject and I have done virtually no reading into the diagnostic routines they use. I do not have time to learn everything, which I am not happy about. I like to learn, but everything takes time and I am quite busy. I would love, as I am sure many of us would, to hear a simple explanation of eastern medicine diagnostic practices. It may be as simple as a different perspective. If we are looking head on and they are looking from the left, they will see things we cannot and we will see things they cannot.

Doctors, by and large, get tired of constant self-education. They deal with people with all kinds of complaints day inand day out, and if I saw 10,000 people over the course of 3 years and 4-6,000 of them just wanted pills and didn't care what I had to say, it would probably mess with my willingness to keep reaching out as well. When all people want is a bottle, why should they waste their time trying for something better? Then you have the ego of many MDs, as you mentioned, and they can be quite stubborn and unwilling to be open to new ideas even when they are from their own field of study! Amazing. I don't understand that.

Because that probably doesn't make you get better sooner. Last I heard there are no cures for the common cold.

Do you know why you have not heard about what xylitol does? Because it costs 6 bucks a pound at the vitamin shoppe and that is enough for you to use for months at least. The drug companies can not make any money with it. Go to pubmed and search for xylitol and sinusitis. Read about how it works and what it does. There has been solid research since the '70s at the very latest, and I believe even earlier than that, that consistently and conclusively shows that xylitol is effective for a variety of issues. It is not a cure per se, but it literally reduces bacterial counts to the point where the body can overwhelm them much more quickly. It is more of an enabler that allows our own biological mucus systems to function more efficiently. I made my own xylitol and saline mix for 6 bucks and I haven't even gone through one bottle in the past 12 months. I have enough for 15-20 refills. Who's going to make money off of that? Why would they give us something that makes them no money when they can keep selling us chemicals with higher mark ups? That's what I would do if I was a business that was concerned with the highest profit margin.

Did you know that marijuana smoke is an effective treatment for athsma? That came out of either Harvard or Stanford Medical School in the late '70s. It was considerably more effective than the prescription medicines available at the time.

Did you know that putting honey, chewed up plant leaves, or simple sugar on a burn helps it heal 33% faster than our best drugs? Did you know that there is a 90%+ reduction in fungal infection when using sugar instead of the silver whatever the hell they use in burn units? You know why you haven't heard about that? Because honey is at the store. Sugar is at the store. Plant leaves are all around us. If there is glucose in it, it helps your body heal faster and somehow prevents infection.

The list really does go on forever. I will type no more after this post is finished, I promise!

Aspirin. We got it from native americans who chewed willow bark. Drug companies send headhunters, specialists in finding medicine men, out into native cultures around the world so that they can refine the active chemical compounds in the local remedies and sell them. This was a Discovery Channel special! Drug companies are essentially refining herbal medicine and reselling it at a premium. Now, it is perfectly fair to say that there are advantages to that outside of the obvious monetary ones, but think about what is actually going on. It's a money game.

If it wasn't a money game, why are 90% of spinal fusions done with a technique that is only best for 20-30% of patients? The answer is because it costs twice as much money. This was an NPR special. A huge scandal up in the northeastern US.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm lambasting you, because that's not my intention. I want you to be aware of what is going on around us and start looking into it on your own because you have good questions and you deserve good answers. The major limitation of medicine in the US is that most research funding is from pharmaceutical companies and they are not going to fund research unless it has the potential to produce future profits. That is good business, plain and simple. That's money. It's not evil, it's not good, it's just how things are done. That is why there will always be stiff resistance from the big players in American medicine to the adoption of other alternative methods, at least until there is a way to make money off of the alternatives in equivalent quantities.

I have not provided any links because these are simple searches to make. Google and pubmed have it all. I encourage everyone to find their own answers. If I did not go find MY own, I would have nothing to contribute here. We need to each be responsible for our own self-education.

[Joseff Lea]

Slizz

You are right here, the drug companies wont do anything if there isn't money for them involved. I remember hearing how there is some evidence to support eating tomatoes as a additional treatment for some cancers, unforunately no full blown trials into it have been done even as trials are costly and the drugs companies aren't going to make any money selling tomatoes.

Another example is of the mirical friut (I think that's the name) which makes sour things taste really sweet and could potentially reduce the level of sugar that pople eat and drastically cut rates of type II diabeties. Unfortunately the sugar companies saw that they were going to be losing out here and lobbied the US goverment to make it illeagle.

It does make me think that a good use of some NHS funding could be to fund trials into such things which could potentially make treatment better and in the long run cheaper but which due to not making money arnt looked into properly.

Traditionally western medicine has focused on simple chemical reactions as cure, which is why they try and isolate one active ingredient and use these as treatments. Now though a different appraoch is slowly being adopted; systems biology which tries to model the body at the cellular level. I attended the 4th annual systems biology symposium in Ireland last year and the things these guys were coming up with were incredible, potential cures for cancersand allergies by simply manipulating the feedback loops for T-cells in the body. Cures for tinutus using musical tones and a similar approach for altzheimmers. These methods should have less side effects than traditional treatments (obviously I know that the scientists try and make there findings seem as immpressive as possible, but the results of their trails were pretty impressive)

Obviously the ultimate goal would be to be to have a complete model of the body with all possible interactions modelled, this is still a long way off but I think were nearly at the point where we can model individual organs.

Thanks guys for the recommendation of the book, I will be sure to try and get hold of some.

[Felipe]

When I was younger I mastered the ability to send out rushes of endorphins whenever I wanted

Can you add something on this slizz?

I am capable of the same feat without training since forever, but was unable to explain it to anyone. Every physician I've talked to says it's not possible and I don't know or care how to demonstrate it since it's a quite internal event.

I can just raise the same rush of going down on a rail coaster whenever I want. I can also isolate the rush on the head only. Has this fenomenon a name? Is it recognized?

[Joshua Naterman]

When I was younger I mastered the ability to send out rushes of endorphins whenever I wanted

Can you add something on this slizz?

I am capable of the same feat without training since forever, but was unable to explain it to anyone. Every physician I've talked to says it's not possible and I don't know or care how to demonstrate it since it's a quite internal event.

I can just raise the same rush of going down on a rail coaster whenever I want. I can also isolate the rush on the head only. Has this fenomenon a name? Is it recognized?

I learned about a visualization later that some buddhist monks use where they imagine little flames coming out from their spine and flowing up over their shoulders. This was what they used to heat up their skin, but for me I just kind of imagined lightning starting from my upper mid-back and base of the neck region and then just letting it crackle around my ribcage, somewhat similar to a super-saiyan 2. Brooks Kubic likes to envision himself being struck by a giant pillar of lightning that goes in through the top of his head and slams into the ground after traveling through his entire body, or a pillar of fire, I forget which, when he attempts new personal bests. It's hard to remember what each person uses, but there are a number of things that can trigger the reaction.

Triggering endorphins and adrenaline isn't terribly unreasonable, you just have to associate the feeling with a visualization. Once you've done that you can use it when you need or want it.

Edit: Anything in the mind that affects the body is psycho-somatic. Psycho is in the mind and somatic is in the body. That is the general subject that these things fall under. The mind is affecting the body. Anyone who thinks these things aren't possible just needs to get their testosterone checked, think about something that makes them really sad for maybe 2 hours, and then get a second test done while they are still feeling sad. The testosterone and other hormone levels will be noticeably different. I won't waste my time trying to convince anyone that psychosoma is real, if you have felt your stomach get queasy when you are nervous and you still don't believe then you are a lost cause.

[Aaron Griffin]

RatioFitness, I don't think cancer is a good example. I could be wrong, but I believe that cancer is faaaar less common in the East anyway.

If eastern medicine is just as good western medicine then you can't cherry pick which types of diseases you compare. That seems fair to me. Of course if eastern medicine is only good at treating certain types of pathologies then that's fine, but I was responding to the claim that it was equal in general.

Also, you're right that cancer is more prevalent in west but I'm not sure I see the relevance here.

Then you can't cherry pick how the stats work. Do you know that in China, you pay a doctor to keep you well? You don't go see a doctor when you're sick - if you GET too sick, you stop paying him. They work to _prevent_ sickness.

Then if cancer is less prevalent in China than the US, and these people are being treated by doctors, then their cancer prevention rates are going to kick our asses.