|
 Here we review what western science has learned about Tai Chi. This section will
be updated as new studies are published and existing studies are discovered. A search of the major scientific journals
going back to 1976 yielded 33 studies concerning Tai Chi. This was disappointing, at first: out of hundreds of
thousands of studies, only 33 focused on Tai Chi, a centuries-old health-enhancing martial art. Once we started
reading, we were glad there were only 33. We've done some wading for you. Brief reviews appear in italics following
the abstract; noteworthy observations of interest to Tai Chi practitioners are noted & quoted. At the bottom
of each entry is a summary line containing information about the subjects of the study (BEGINNERS vs PRACTITIONERS)
as well as the focus and relevant findings.
"Ye who fear text, abandon all hope, and/or enter here":
Abstracts of Tai Chi studies: 1997-1998
Abstracts of Tai Chi studies: 1976-1996
STATE OF THE SCIENCE
Early
studies of Tai Chi focused on the physiological effects of Tai Chi, comparing a group of practitioners to an age-matched
control group, and looking for differences in blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen utilization, stress hormones,
and other physical differences. Many of these studies focused on people who have been practicing for several years,
but most were small, involving only a few dozen subjects, and focused on getting a physiological snapshot of the
effects of Tai Chi practice.
In the 1990's, the pace and direction of research on Tai Chi changed. Studies of practitioners
continue, but on a much smaller scale than studies of beginners. In an effort to reduce injuries and frailty in
the elderly by the year 2000, the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute for Nursing Research jointly
sponsored a multicentered study called Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques (FICSIT);
Tai Chi was one of strategies employed by the Connecticut and Atlanta groups. These studies focused on what an
abbreviated form of Tai Chi can do for septegenarian beginners in a few short months. This is measuring the abilities
of the caterpiller, not the butterfly. You can't draw conclusions about Tai Chi from studies of geriatric beginners.
Most serious Tai Chi practitioners will concur that you have no idea what you're doing the first year, when you're
learning the form, and if you're not practicing for 10-15 minutes without pause or distraction, you're not really
doing Tai Chi. The continuity of practice is as important as the practice itself. As a beginner, you're figuring
out how to step out, how to shift weight smoothly, how to turn at the waist without raising your shoulder, how
to keep your balance even in extreme stances, how to stay relaxed while you move...you're blurring through transitions
without realizing they're as important as the named elements of the form whose sequence you're struggling to remember.
If you practice a lot, there will be moments when it all comes together, but they'll only be moments. Tai Chi for
a beginner is a different entity than Tai Chi for a long-term practitioner.
What the science needs is a FICSIT-scale program that compares Tai Chi to Yoga to Aerobics
to Long Walks to Channel Surfing, on a national scale. Science needs to look at people who practice a lot, over
a number of years, not months, and what happens in their lives as a result. Compare Tai Chi to Yoga to Aerobics
to Long walks, and focus on people who have kept up the practice. Let's see what these various health practices
do. Let the new Office of Alternative Medicine know you'd like to see this kind of large-scale, national study
of alternative health practices.
>>>>> Link to home
page of Office of Alternative Medicine - - - http://www.altmed.od.nih.gov/oam/clearinghouse
The OAM web site is not interactive--there's no way to leave suggestions by e-mail--but you can call their toll-free
number 1-888-644-6226 to make suggestions.
|
