Tai Chi practitioners should know about mitochondria.

[ReturnDragon]

Hello, TDB
 It has been quite awhile we talk about Chi with the ancient Chinese concepts. I was wondering is anyone would like to relate these concepts to modern science. IMO There must be a co-relationship between them. To me, the first thing comes into my mind when speaking about energy is mitochondria. Please read this article and see what you think? Do you think Qigong, ZZ or Tai Chi practice has anything to do with the mitochondria in our body cells?

Ref: https://coachcalorie.com/increase-mitochondrial-density/

Edited February 16, 2020 by ReturnDragon

[Earl Grey]

1 hour ago, ReturnDragon said:

Hello, TDB
 It has been quite awhile we talk about Chi with the ancient Chinese concepts. I was wondering is anyone would like to relate these concepts to modern science. IMO There must be a co-relationship between them. To me, the first thing comes into my mind when speaking about energy is mitochondria. Please read this article and see what you think? Do you think Qigong, ZZ or Tai Chi practice has anything to do with the mitochondria in our body cells?

Ref: https://coachcalorie.com/increase-mitochondrial-density/

 

Go study TCM at least. It will make much more sense. 

[Cleansox]

3 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

 

Do you think Qigong, ZZ or Tai Chi practice has anything to do with the mitochondria in our body cells?

I would widen my perspective:

Jing-Qi-Shen, Blood, Jin-Ye (fluids). 

Then you have mitochondria, epigenetics, breathing, bio wave harmonics, a couple of regulation systems,... .... 

[ReturnDragon]

Actually, we only have one system which is our body. However, we do have two ways to describe its internal function. Agree?

[Cleansox]

Just for the sake of argument:

We have the body-mind-spirit continuum, and we have different cultural approaches to describing this. In the Western societies, the quantitative approach has been dominating for quite a long time. That in its turn is the result of the christian church which claimed monopoly on spiritual matters. 

 

This is starting to change, for example we can now prove that the mind/brain doesn't experience that the body ends with the skin, but maps the area around the body thus validating the qualitative experience of the energy body. 

 

Seeing it from another perspective, hindu and chinese descriptions differ, as (as far as I can tell, haven't gone deep into this) does different shamanic traditions. 

 

In the end we are describing the living body, so it is natural that the different traditions will converge. 

[Walker]

Spoiler

I got ten dollars says this is all leading towards "qi energy is stored in ATP so you have to breathe deep to get qi and reverse breathing is the whole point of qigong because it makes you get the most energy from ATP."

 

Nah, make that $20...

 

[Cleansox]

Any attempt I have ever seen in the last 20 years when someone have tried to fit "qi" in to one specific physiological process have failed miserably. 

 

It doesn't work like that, chinese medicine does not fit in a reductionalistic (can you say so?) model. 

[ReturnDragon]

59 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Just for the sake of argument:

We have the body-mind-spirit continuum, and we have different cultural approaches to describing this. In the Western societies, the quantitative approach has been dominating for quite a long time. That in its turn is the result of the christian church which claimed monopoly on spiritual matters. 

 

This is starting to change, for example we can now prove that the mind/brain doesn't experience that the body ends with the skin, but maps the area around the body thus validating the qualitative experience of the energy body. 

 

Seeing it from another perspective, hindu and chinese descriptions differ, as (as far as I can tell, haven't gone deep into this) does different shamanic traditions. 

 

In the end we are describing the living body, so it is natural that the different traditions will converge. 

In the Chinese Taoist's mind, in order, to invigorate the body; it needs three treasures to function as a whole. They are jing-chi-shen(cell-energy-soul). It seems converge to support your argument.

[Cleansox]

There is more, like how you can measure what happens when you are meditating (slow breathing combined with awareness) and how that allows for hierarchial organisation of bio-frequences which allows for better bodymind communication. 

 

Or how the enteric nervous system affect functional networks in the brain, networks that (probably) have a lot to do with how the mind senses and regulates the body. (Again, breathing slowly and placing your attention in the belly.) 

 

There is a lot of this now, making bridges between chinese thought and physiology. 

[alchemystical]

Magnets.

[ReturnDragon]

No, my alchemystical friend:
It is by cell respiration.

[Limahong]

8 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

I was wondering is anyone would like to relate these concepts to modern science.

 

Hi ReturnDragon (henceforth as RD?) 

 

Thank you ChiDragon for initiating this thread ~ timely from an experiential perspective for me.

.... and hopefully like-minded others.

 

I can embrace quite comfortably ~ these from you...

Wu Wei(無為) is to let Nature take its course.
Dealing with facts of science is my nature. There is nothing hidden nor argue about.
Fallacies are not worth to be mentioned. I forbear Insults but they are welcome to show someone's ignorance.

 

May I add... ?

Farewell ~ arrogance.

Welcome ~ true seekers.

 

- Anand

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Limahong
Enhancement

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

Actually, we only have one system which is our body. However, we do have two ways to describe its internal function. Agree?

 

Hi RD,

 

Agree? Yes to 'one'.

 

But more than 'two'?

 

Why? No one size fits all.

 

- Anand

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Limahong
Enhancement

[ReturnDragon]

49 minutes ago, Limahong said:

Why? No one size fits all

Hi, Anand

Two is too many already. To avoid conflicts, it is better to stick with true science. 

[Earl Grey]

18 minutes ago, ReturnDragon said:

Hi, Anand

Two is too many already. To avoid conflicts, it is better to stick with true science. 

Except your understanding of either science or TCM are extremely questionable.

[Limahong]

43 minutes ago, ReturnDragon said:

To avoid conflicts, it is better to stick with true science.

 

Hi RD,

 

(a) Knowledge has a shelf life tag...?

 

(b) Loss in translation?

 

(c) Experiential variations in perception?

 

(d) ?

 

What is true science????

 

- Anand

 

[Walker]

5 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

No, my alchemystical friend:
It is by cell respiration.

 

Bam! Twenty dollars!

[ReturnDragon]

3 hours ago, Limahong said:

What is true science????

At least in my mind, something which make sense and believable without any doubt.

 

Shall we continue within the subject matter of the OP? Thanks.

Edited February 16, 2020 by ReturnDragon

[Cleansox]

7 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

It is by cell respiration.

Cell respiration will happen whether you do qigong/neigong or not, so what affects that? 

 

Everyone eats, drinks, breathes. 

And even bed-ridden people have it. 

[doc benway]

9 hours ago, Cleansox said:

Just for the sake of argument:

We have the body-mind-spirit continuum, and we have different cultural approaches to describing this. In the Western societies, the quantitative approach has been dominating for quite a long time. That in its turn is the result of the christian church which claimed monopoly on spiritual matters. 

 

This is starting to change, for example we can now prove that the mind/brain doesn't experience that the body ends with the skin, but maps the area around the body thus validating the qualitative experience of the energy body. 

 

Seeing it from another perspective, hindu and chinese descriptions differ, as (as far as I can tell, haven't gone deep into this) does different shamanic traditions. 

 

In the end we are describing the living body, so it is natural that the different traditions will converge. 

 

And as you allude to above, the separation between body, mind, brain, and environment is entirely artificial.

The skin bag that surrounds our internal organs does give the strong impression of independence, but that is arbitrary and fleeting.

Any theory of Qi should accommodate this.

Here's some common sense Western science:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

 

[ReturnDragon]

8 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Cell respiration will happen whether you do qigong/neigong or not, so what affects that? 

Everyone eats, drinks, breathes.

Good question. Thanks!

This is where we begin. Mitochondria decompose the glucose from the food by oxygen we breathe to produce ATP(energy) . Our body is an oxygen dependant. Normal people do not breathe as much oxygen as Qigong or Taiji practitioners do. The practitioners increase the number of mitochondria in their bodies. That means they can produce more energy.

[ReturnDragon]

6 hours ago, Limahong said:

Thank you ChiDragon for initiating this thread ~ timely from an experiential perspective for me.

You are quite welcome. Would you kindly give me a little elaboration of your experiential perspective?

[doc benway]

15 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

Do you think Qigong, ZZ or Tai Chi practice has anything to do with the mitochondria in our body cells?

Yes

 

10 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

Actually, we only have one system which is our body.

Where does our body end and our environment begin?

How independent is the body?

Can you give me an example of a body existing without its environment?

 

10 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

However, we do have two ways to describe its internal function.

Only two?

Please define those two and demonstrate that all other ways to describe internal human function are incorrect.

 

10 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

Agree?

Let's see how you respond above first...

 

5 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

Two is too many already.

You mentioned two but never defined them.

 

5 hours ago, ReturnDragon said:

To avoid conflicts, it is better to stick with true science. 

The current foundation of biological thought starts with organsim-environment. 

The two are inseparable. 

Any discussion of taijiquan, qigong, and zhan zhuang should be in a greater context, IMO.

 

Here are some articles coming from publications of "true science" 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333975

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10333976

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10485609

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10885546

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12795206

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, ReturnDragon said:

At least in my mind, something which make sense and believable without any doubt.

 

Making sense does not define science.

Science has nothing to do with being believable or beyond doubt.

In fact, science is rooted in doubt. 

If you want to define science, maybe begin with the scientific method or model.

By definition, the scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, ReturnDragon said:

Shall we continue within the subject matter of the OP?

 

Hi RD,

 

Yes... the translation/perception of knowledge linked to the subject matter.

 

- Anand