In and Up
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:28 pm
"In and Up" has been the first thing that I´ve heard, many years ago, from Philippe Taupin (Romana´s lineage).
In my martial arts practice, I´ve came to a similar concept.
The so called "internal martial arts" are linked, in my understanding, to the ability to displace the visceral mass "in and up" (for "in" = to the back).
And as so, to stabilize the spine optimizing the transmission of force in the whole body.
It also requires a different intent when moving, like the intent of "moving inside" when applying force outside.
I know, Javier, that you say that Contrology is NOT a "core method".
And also, that there are scientific studies that show that "bracing of the core" can be counter-productive.
That the "core" should activate reflexively and according to the amount of force applied.
Do you endorse the saying "in and up", and if so, what does it mean to you?
Eventually, how different from the (various) core concepts?
For myself, I don´t use the core concept(s) even if the control of the visceral mass is important to me.
The dynamics encompass the "core" but also the periphery in reciprocal expanding, to the whole body, "in and up".
Perhaps that "in and up dynamics" is only useful under certain conditions, like when a more or less perpendicular resistance is applied to one´s body, and as so compromising one´s balance.
But perhaps detrimental under other conditions.
I don´t know.
Greetings,
Alain
In my martial arts practice, I´ve came to a similar concept.
The so called "internal martial arts" are linked, in my understanding, to the ability to displace the visceral mass "in and up" (for "in" = to the back).
And as so, to stabilize the spine optimizing the transmission of force in the whole body.
It also requires a different intent when moving, like the intent of "moving inside" when applying force outside.
I know, Javier, that you say that Contrology is NOT a "core method".
And also, that there are scientific studies that show that "bracing of the core" can be counter-productive.
That the "core" should activate reflexively and according to the amount of force applied.
Do you endorse the saying "in and up", and if so, what does it mean to you?
Eventually, how different from the (various) core concepts?
For myself, I don´t use the core concept(s) even if the control of the visceral mass is important to me.
The dynamics encompass the "core" but also the periphery in reciprocal expanding, to the whole body, "in and up".
Perhaps that "in and up dynamics" is only useful under certain conditions, like when a more or less perpendicular resistance is applied to one´s body, and as so compromising one´s balance.
But perhaps detrimental under other conditions.
I don´t know.
Greetings,
Alain