On Oct 13, 9:27 am, "Mike K." <mkornecki2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:11 pm, Erik Squires <erik.squi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

In addition one thing to keep in mind aboutTaiChias a health
exercise is that thre is a large and growing body of work in peer
reviewed publications.
Greetings Erik.

Can you please list some of these peer reviewed publications?

-Mike K.

Here's a link with several. I happen to have met one of the authors
who is an assistant professor from Tufts Medical School.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515008

You can find a lot more from there.

Also, there actually IS research going on to find out whether Tai Chi
is or is not better than standing around waving your arms around. If
you want specifics of that look up Peter Wayne.

Harvard Medical School and Tufts and others have ongoing research into
the health effects of Tai Chi. Just have to google the right way. :)

Erik

Erik Squires wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:27 am, "Mike K." <mkornecki2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:11 pm, Erik Squires <erik.squi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

In addition one thing to keep in mind aboutTaiChias a health
exercise is that thre is a large and growing body of work in peer
reviewed publications.  
Greetings Erik.

Can you please list some of these peer reviewed publications?

-Mike K.

Here's a link with several.  I happen to have met one of the authors
who is an assistant professor from Tufts Medical School.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515008

You can find a lot more from there.

Also, there actually IS research going on to find out whether Tai Chi
is or is not better than standing around waving your arms around.  If
you want specifics of that look up Peter Wayne.

Harvard Medical School and Tufts and others have ongoing research into
the health effects of Tai Chi.  Just have to google the right way. :)

Erik

When the results get published, I've little doubt that whatever benefits
Tai Chi has to health will be explicable in well understood
bio-mechanical terms, and no different from other exercises undertaken
in other activities.

GDS

"Let's roll!"

On Oct 15, 12:02 am, Greendistantstar <Greendistants... at (no spam) iinet.net.au
wrote:
Erik Squires wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:27 am, "Mike K." <mkornecki2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:11 pm, Erik Squires <erik.squi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
In addition one thing to keep in mind aboutTaiChias a health
exercise is that thre is a large and growing body of work in peer
reviewed publications.
Greetings Erik.
Can you please list some of these peer reviewed publications?
-Mike K.
Here's a link with several. I happen to have met one of the authors
who is an assistant professor from Tufts Medical School.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515008
You can find a lot more from there.
Also, there actually IS research going on to find out whether Tai Chi
is or is not better than standing around waving your arms around. If
you want specifics of that look up Peter Wayne.
Harvard Medical School and Tufts and others have ongoing research into
the health effects of Tai Chi. Just have to google the right way.
Erik
When the results get published, I've little doubt that whatever benefits
Tai Chi has to health will be explicable in well understood
bio-mechanical terms, and no different from other exercises undertaken
in other activities.

GDS

"Let's roll!"

I feel your way of looking at Tai Chi is backwards.

It's not what we
can explain about Tai Chi that makes it interesting and worthwhile,
it's what Tai Chi can explain about us.

Surely, someday they will
have all the models and simulations to explain why Tai Chi works,

but
on the way there they will have learned more about the body than they
did before.

I'm sure by that time many will have forgotten the
contributions made by Tai Chi

and instead praise themselves and their
"scientific methods" for explaining it all.

For instance, many who
practice Tai Chi have done so at a very moderate level for years.
Only recently have western sports medicine done research showing that
moderate exercise has very beneficial effects and should be done.

About 5 years ago these same scientifically based experts

were
chanting the mantra of 2 hours of aerobic exercise 2-3 times a week

being the only way to reduce risk factors for diabetes and heart
disease.

Also, to whoever was arguing semantics about whether I provided a
couple or several links, dude, don't be such a lazy bastid.

I sent
you to that page because it has a search engine. There are others.
Use them. Anyone who is arguing that Tai Chi has not gone and is not
going under serious scientific study for it's benefits to health needs
to learn to type "google."

I'm not going to argue the point myself
because I'm going to end up arguing the point against conspiracy
theorists.

Last thing, not all Tai Chi studies are positive or
conclusive.

However, I'm not aware of any study which shows it has
serious negative side effects, and my own reading of the overall
results are positive.

I'm currently enrolling students to be
randomly selected
for 30 minutes of Tai Chi 2x a week or sitting on
the couch to watch "30 Rock".

I'm not funded, so I have to charge you
to participate, price is $3/lb of body weight, however I am pretty
sure what the results will be.....

As for the fibro study, I don't know how up to date that website is
and I don't have first hand knowledge of that particular study. I
have met some of the researchers from Tufts Medical School on that one
which is how I found it. For all I know the study is long closed.

On Oct 23, 12:15 am, Erik Squires <erik.squi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

I feel your way of looking at Tai Chi is backwards.  It's not what we
can explain about Tai Chi that makes it interesting and worthwhile,
it's what Tai Chi can explain about us.  Surely, someday they will
have all the models and simulations to explain why Tai Chi works

You're making a very strong assumption. One very likely possibility is
that they will discover that 95% of it doesn't work, and the other 5%
is easily explained as being part of "living" right.

Claims about modern science snipped

Also, to whoever was arguing semantics about whether I provided a
couple or several links, dude, don't be such a lazy bastid.  I sent
you to that page because it has a search engine.

Yeah, google is great too. You calling me lazy for *you* not providing
concrete links to *your* claim is ludicrous.

Use them.  Anyone who is arguing that Tai Chi has not gone and is not
going under serious scientific study for it's benefits to health needs
to learn to type "google."

You might not be familiar with aspects of logical fallacy, so I will
elucidate. The mere existence of a study does not validate what is
being studied. There are plenty of things being studied all the time.
The results are what matters.

theorists.  Last thing, not all Tai Chi studies are positive or
conclusive.  

Why do you discount those?

serious negative side effects, and my own reading of the overall
results are positive.

You have proven that you filter the results of your readings...i.e.
you find what you are looking for.  

As for the fibro study, I don't know how up to date that website is
and I don't have first hand knowledge of that particular study.  I
have met some of the researchers from Tufts Medical School on that one
which is how I found it.  For all I know the study is long closed.

Yeah, for all I know too. I wonder where the data is.

You threw down the study, right? You know the guys right?

You're giving me grief because the results of a study, that YOU
provided are lost in the wisps of time? Looking at that website, it
sure looks like they threw down that abstract as soon as humanly
possible. The study has been over for like a year, yet now the
webisite somehow has a case of the "slowsies".

It indicates to me, once again, that you give the mere existence of a
study is more indicative of validity than the RESULTS of the study.

If it were only that easy.

-Mike K.

If you were truly interested in knowing what you are talking about you
would do your own research based on the links I've provided and come
up with the following conclusions:

1. That Tai Chi has been researched for it's health benefits for at
least 20 years in China and the west by hollistic and traditional
researchers (i.e. epidemiological studies).
2.  That Tai Chi has been shown effective in improving the health of
many, especially the elderly who are otherwise very fragile population
to treat and dose with exercise effectively
3.  That there are little or no negative side effects
4.  That Tai Chi has shown unique and unexpected benefits which are
contributing to the body of knowledge (no pun intended) we have about
health and exercise, not the other way around.
5.  That research on understanding WHY Tai Chi works is now underway

The whole point of science is to discover new things and then try to
understand what we find.  It is especially important for scientists to
realize when they see things they did not expect, and use that
discovery to improve their models and knowledge which I'm happy to say
is what most researchers have done.  To discount Tai Chi because you
are convinced it has nothing to offer when the evidence says otherwise
is a terrible shame.  That is a type of arrogance which is not
science, it is stagnation and leads nowhere.

Perhaps some day I will have my own radio show where I can get paid to
debate the commonly understood.  Until then, I leave you to find some
one more interesting to debate with.

On Oct 25, 3:18 am, Erik Squires <erik.squi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



If you were truly interested in knowing what you are talking about you
would do your own research based on the links I've provided and come
up with the following conclusions:

1. That Tai Chi has been researched for it's health benefits for at
least 20 years in China and the west by hollistic and traditional
researchers (i.e. epidemiological studies).
2.  That Tai Chi has been shown effective in improving the health of
many, especially the elderly who are otherwise very fragile population
to treat and dose with exercise effectively
3.  That there are little or no negative side effects
4.  That Tai Chi has shown unique and unexpected benefits which are
contributing to the body of knowledge (no pun intended) we have about
health and exercise, not the other way around.
5.  That research on understanding WHY Tai Chi works is now underway

The whole point of science is to discover new things and then try to
understand what we find.  It is especially important for scientists to
realize when they see things they did not expect, and use that
discovery to improve their models and knowledge which I'm happy to say
is what most researchers have done.  To discount Tai Chi because you
are convinced it has nothing to offer when the evidence says otherwise
is a terrible shame.  That is a type of arrogance which is not
science, it is stagnation and leads nowhere.

Your fresh perspective (read; willingness to educate) is interesting,
Erik. But Mike and GDS and so forth have been told all this before.
They claim to tust in, or promote science, and speak out against
frauds and charlatans - but what this really means is that they claim
their own personal beliefs are based on science while those whom they
disagree with are frauds and charlatans.

Yes, there's mountains of evidence for evetything you've said. For
example, just one tiny example, one poster here claims that there are
no special health benefits of tai chi that are not also benefits of
other exercises - thus making the claim that any benefits tai chi has
may be reproduced by constructing a program of "non-tai chi exercise",
shall we say. Yet, the medical studies which have proven Tai Chi has
certain benefits also show that said benefits are not available from
other forms of exercise.

What you are really looking at here is people's cognitive dissonance.
Save yourself the trouble. You won't convince them because they aren't
really looking for a discussion on the matter. Yes, it's
intellectually dishonest to pretend to question the subject matter or
to pretend that "if only there was some evidence", etc. but that's how
it is.

Perhaps some day I will have my own radio show where I can get paid to
debate the commonly understood.  Until then, I leave you to find some
one more interesting to debate with.

Well, I hope so. Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing more of your posts
here, but it took me quite a few years to realize the people here were
more interested in making personal attacks than understanding the
truth. I'd hate to see someone suffer trying to convince the brick
walls here like I did.

-

If you were truly interested in knowing what you are talking about you
would do your own research based on the links I've provided and come
up with the following conclusions:

1. That Tai Chi has been researched for it's health benefits for at
least 20 years in China and the west by hollistic and traditional
researchers (i.e. epidemiological studies).

2.  That Tai Chi has been shown effective in improving the health of
many, especially the elderly who are otherwise very fragile population
to treat and dose with exercise effectively

3.  That there are little or no negative side effects

4.  That Tai Chi has shown unique and unexpected benefits which are
contributing to the body of knowledge (no pun intended) we have about
health and exercise, not the other way around.

5.  That research on understanding WHY Tai Chi works is now underway

The whole point of science is to discover new things and then try to
understand what we find.  It is especially important for scientists to
realize when they see things they did not expect, and use that
discovery to improve their models and knowledge which I'm happy to say
is what most researchers have done.  To discount Tai Chi because you
are convinced it has nothing to offer when the evidence says otherwise
is a terrible shame.  That is a type of arrogance which is not
science, it is stagnation and leads nowhere.

Perhaps some day I will have my own radio show where I can get paid to
debate the commonly understood.  Until then, I leave you to find some
one more interesting to debate with.

Your fresh perspective (read; willingness to educate) is interesting,
Erik. But Mike and GDS and so forth have been told all this before.
They claim to tust in, or promote science, and speak out against
frauds and charlatans - but what this really means is that they claim
their own personal beliefs are based on science while those whom they
disagree with are frauds and charlatans.

Yes, there's mountains of evidence for evetything you've said.

For example, just one tiny example, one poster here claims that there are
no special health benefits of tai chi that are not also benefits of
other exercises - thus making the claim that any benefits tai chi has
may be reproduced by constructing a program of "non-tai chi exercise",
shall we say. Yet, the medical studies which have proven Tai Chi has
certain benefits also show that said benefits are not available from
other forms of exercise.

What you are really looking at here is people's cognitive dissonance.
Save yourself the trouble. You won't convince them because they aren't
really looking for a discussion on the matter. Yes, it's
intellectually dishonest to pretend to question the subject matter or
to pretend that "if only there was some evidence", etc. but that's how
it is.

Perhaps some day I will have my own radio show where I can get paid to
debate the commonly understood.  Until then, I leave you to find some
one more interesting to debate with.

Well, I hope so. Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing more of your posts
here, but it took me quite a few years to realize the people here were
more interested in making personal attacks than understanding the
truth. I'd hate to see someone suffer trying to convince the brick
walls here like I did.