"minimum effective dose"

[everything]

probably already discussed to death before, but what would you think is the "minimum effective dose" (smallest dose for desired outcome, e.g., you don't need to get water past 100C to boil it) for "internal development"? let's just call it yi->qi->jin for conciseness. is it really 8 hours per day? 6? 3? 5 minutes? for a decade? 3 decades? 10,000 hours?

[origami_itto]

You've basically got to be born in San ti.

[johnwang]

yi->qi->jin

If you train for

- health, you don't need that.
- combat, you need more than that.

[origami_itto]

Being serious, one days effort is one day's result. Stack a bunch on too and you get something. Where are you starting from? What's the goal?

Minimum of one hour every day targeted exercises to start.

[ParadoxTeapot]

One consideration is the difference between "development" and "maintenance".

5 pushups a day may not develop more strength, but it might help with maintenance or slowing down the decline.

[Appledog]

If you guarantee a daily practice I supposes ten minutes a day could produce some sensations. With the right chi kung, you could get the job done.

Don't worry about 8 hours a day, you will injure yourself long before you get there. Just keep things simple imo.

[Graculus]

In teaching (in schools), ‘time on task’ is an important concept. In terms of martial arts training, a key question would be ‘what is the task?’, or what are you actually trying to train? A lot of what people spend their time doing seems to be de-training rather than training - repeated movements poorly done will not lead to quick improvements. Different styles of training are also necessary for learning, mastering and (pressure) testing techniques and movements, and the mental component is different, too.

People often compare the time professional athletes put into their training to time spent training by martial artists, but even then, things are not so simple. Take the example of Nedo Nadi and Edoardo Mangiarotti, two of the greatest fencers of the twentieth century. In his book, "By the Sword", Richard Cohen describes how both men were trained by their fathers, who were also fencers of some skill. While Nado was made to train two, then three sessions daily, always fencing against the senior fencers of the club, Mangiarotti's training was far more relaxed - he rarely trained more than a couple of hours a day. Both men went on to win many Olympic and world championship medals, with Mangiarotti following on from Nadi as the leading competition fencer of his day.

I’m not sure what the message here is, except that it is not as easy to train effectively as one would like, and time is not always an accurate measure of effectiveness.

Graculus
https://ichijoji.blogspot.com

[wayne hansen]

Must be sad to want to minimize your training
I enjoy mine

[origami_itto]

Some of us still have jobs and families and more responsibilities and tasks than time.

When I'm old and unimportant and nobody needs me for anything I'll have all the time I need for the training I want to do, in the meantime I have to get the most bang for the buck

[everything]

I’m not sure what the message here is, except that it is not as easy to train effectively as one would like, and time is not always an accurate measure of effectiveness.

yes realistically everybody (else) is probably doing it wrong, including myself. but only for the sake of (theoretical) discussion, let's assume one can actually "sink qi" and "mobilize qi" to work on "jin" using "yi". of course that may be meaningless, woo-woo, a translation or history question, or "some other made up thing" that forms a red herring for most people, but let's assume it means what it says for a moment, lol, and people have some rough idea that the "what" question is answered. if it were a fairly concrete thing like "boil water", or "lift x amount of weight", we know a certain dose gives us a certain result. time is not the input, but we know with absolute certainty at least for now the earth will spin and travel around the sun, time will pass whether we train or not, and we have a hard limit on it, it's a "non renewable resource". plus we do have other priorities.

[windwalker]

I’m not sure what the message here is, except that it is not as easy to train effectively as one would like, and time is not always an accurate measure of effectiveness.

yes realistically everybody (else) is probably doing it wrong, including myself. but only for the sake of (theoretical) discussion, let's assume one can actually "sink qi" and "mobilize qi" to work on "jin" using "yi". of course that may be meaningless, woo-woo, a translation or history question, or "some other made up thing" that forms a red herring for most people, but let's assume it means what it says for a moment, lol, and people have some rough idea that the "what" question is answered. if it were a fairly concrete thing like "boil water", or "lift x amount of weight", we know a certain dose gives us a certain result. time is not the input, but we know with absolute certainty at least for now the earth will spin and travel around the sun, time will pass whether we train or not, and we have a hard limit on it, it's a "non renewable resource". plus we do have other priorities.

"it is concrete" for those that follow it...reinforced and tested everyday they practice

"one can actually "sink qi" and "mobilize qi" to work on "jin" using "yi". of course that may be meaningless, woo-woo,"

All things that many, many, are doing, can do, agree on what it is ,
by those that can do it do, or are actively practicing to do.

not so much with those seeking an academic understanding..
or with practices having no history of the same outcome.

woo-woo,,gotta love the term

As to the OP, question...


As to time it takes....depends

might start from the premise that all things listed one is doing and can do...the question might be better framed

if true "why can't one do what they see others do"

While it may be innate, its not developed out side of what is already happening within the body conditioned by
what ever it needs according to need .....

what would be the need that would drive the development..

"the sound of one hand clapping"

[charles]

probably already discussed to death before, but what would you think is the "minimum effective dose" (smallest dose for desired outcome, e.g., you don't need to get water past 100C to boil it) for "internal development"? let's just call it yi->qi->jin for conciseness. is it really 8 hours per day? 6? 3? 5 minutes? for a decade? 3 decades? 10,000 hours?

There is no answer to the question as posed.

There are also different practices that achieve "similar" results. Some practices, I was taught, are "passive" - like sitting meditation - while others are "active" - that involve physical motions to help "guide" qi. I was taught that the "passive" methods tend to be slower but take one further, while "active" methods are quicker and easier but tend to plateau.

Then there is the question of what one means by "internal". There are different definitions and different goals depending upon the art, the lineage, the teacher and the individual.

[wayne hansen]

Some of us still have jobs and families and more responsibilities and tasks than time.

When I'm old and unimportant and nobody needs me for anything I'll have all the time I need for the training I want to do, in the meantime I have to get the most bang for the buck

Far too late by then
I had a job I did 49 days straight worked double shifts took care of my family and farm and still trained
Some people just don't get it and never will

[origami_itto]

What is it you're trying to get? Maybe I can help you find it.

[everything]

What is it you're trying to get? Maybe I can help you find it.

this is mostly just idle chit chat, but maximum effect from minimum dose.

the other issue we tend to overlook in these discussions is the talent input. if you ask john lennon after few to zero hours of any kind of instruction, he'll probably output a better song than you (the asker) could. if you ask me, after many hours of instruction, my song will still be absolute non-sensical garbage.

when I coached futbol to little kids, I tried to give them all the same training as much as I could. there is probably a "minimum effective dose" of certain kinds of inputs (controlling the ball) because everyone improved a lot. relative to other teams not doing this "dose", i'd say our kids improved way more due to that "dose", but the kids with incredible talent improved to an extraordinary degree (and learned on their own). they would come back after a few days and show me technique variations i never showed them and that i couldn't personally do. but we cannot really control the "god given talent" we have, so we just have to accept it.

in an art that's less well understood (and people here don't even agree on the "it" or the "what"), it seems things may have to be more variable. I think charles' anecdotes on some different timings are quite interesting. 20 min in a week doesn't seem like enough for anything. 4 hours per day might not be viable for a lot of people with other duties.