BOOK REVIEW: Bruce Lee: The Art of Expressing the Human Body by John Little

Bruce Lee: The Art of Expressing the Human BodyBruce Lee: The Art of Expressing the Human Body by Bruce Lee
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Amazon page

Even by today’s standards in which movie stars have personal trainers and scientifically formulated diets, Bruce Lee’s physique compares favorably to the most buff of leading men. In the 70’s there was no one even close. Consider “Way of the Dragon” in which Lee fights a character played by Chuck Norris. At the time Norris was the World Middleweight Karate Champion, a top-ranked athlete, but he looks comparatively doughy set across from Lee. What makes Little’s book intriguing for those interested in fitness is that it answers the question of how Lee achieved such a physique without the benefit of the last few decades of exercise and nutrition science. Sure, he had favorably genetics, but he also had—by all accounts—a sterling work ethic and a conscientious approach to fitness.

I wouldn’t recommend that one follow the programs described in this book wholesale without careful evaluation of the details. While Lee was impressive, he wasn’t free of athletic injuries. Best practices have shifted here and there with regard to the science of human performance. This isn’t meant to denigrate Lee’s approach. In fact, Lee, himself, followed the science of his time and recommended his students do the same. (For those unfamiliar with Lee’s martial art, Jeet Kune Do, its central tenet is to take what is of value and let go of what is not—i.e. never rigidly hold onto set notions.) It should also be noted that Lee—perhaps because of this philosophy—was often ahead of his time on issues like cross-training. I don’t want to leave the impression that there isn’t a lot that holds up well in this book. I’m saying that this is a book about how one man achieved spectacular results, but shouldn’t necessarily be taken as one’s one-and-only guide to fitness (though it does cover much of the relevant territory.) Intermediate and advanced fitness practitioners should know what to take and what to leave, but beginners should proceed with caution.

The book addresses Lee’s approaches to isometrics, weight training, calisthenics, flexibility, nutrition, cardio, and what would today be called functional training (i.e. fitness activities designed to better one’s performance of movements of the sort that one will use in one’s intended activity—in this case martial arts.) It’s important to note that Lee’s approach was optimized to the martial arts. For martial arts one needs a balanced approach to fitness, and it’s not all about aesthetics like it is for bodybuilders. One must be flexible as well as strong and be mobile more than muscly.

The books 24 chapters and ancillary matter are logically arranged. The chapters at the fore provide general information on weightlifting and related topics, the middle of the book is gets into specialized exercises by body part as well as special topics like stretching and nutrition, and the final few chapters get into sequencing and other information about how Lee arranged his fitness activities. Little draws heavily on Lee’s notes, often using his words verbatim.

The one way in which I think the book could be substantially improved would be more relevant photos and graphics, particularly in the sections that deal with specialized exercises. Don’t get me wrong, there are many photos in the book. However, they are all of Lee, and, of course, he had a great deal more photos taken either in action sequences (e.g. flying kicks, etc.) or in candid moments. There are few photos of Lee engaged in “sausage-making” activities like lifting weights or doing calisthenics. However, the subject in the photo need not be Lee. Photos would also allow the author to make the text in those chapters a little less heavy and more readable, and—therefore—it wouldn’t necessarily add to page count as much as one might think.

I’d recommend this book for fitness enthusiasts and martial artists. From beginner to advanced, there’s something for everyone to take away from this book.

View all my reviews

Animals Forms and Poses in Martial Arts

Snake

Snake

Part of the most basic of basics that I’m learning in Kalaripayattu class are 8 animal poses (Wild Boar, Elephant, Cat, Lion, Snake, Rooster, Peacock, and Horse.) While animal forms and postures are common enough in martial arts, this is an entirely new concept to me and one that I’m trying to wrap my head around.

Animal forms are most commonly associated with Chinese Kungfu. There are entire styles devoted to five animals (i.e. tiger, leopard, crane, snake, and dragon [yes, I realize dragons aren’t really animals.] Of course, from Kungfu Panda we know there are also Monkey style and Mantis style, but that’s only just the beginning.  There are many different animals that play a role in martial arts, some–like tigers–are not unexpected and others–like peacocks–are harder to imagine.

As I’ve mentioned before, old style Japanese martial arts–at least the one’s I’ve studied–invoke nature commonly, but in a more subtle form. In Japanese budō one does not imitate animal movement or positioning–except in a very limited and general sort of way.

I’m interested in why one should imitate the postures or movement of animals. After all, it’s hard to argue that a human being can move more efficiently or effectively imitating a [non-human] animal. We are uniquely bipedal mammals, and to imitate–for example–a legless reptile (for example) doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

One explanation I’ve heard is that these animals are natural fighters, and are, therefore, to be emulated. I don’t put a lot of stock in this explanation. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that humans are less naturally capable of close-quarters fighting than pretty much any other animal. But it’s got nothing to do with the nature of our bodies and everything to do with the condition of our minds. Humans are emotional beasts and have trouble living in the moment. That’s why we aren’t natural fighters compared to a tiger–which doesn’t get paralyzed by fear, doesn’t get plagued by guilt, and never walks through dangerous territory with iPod earbuds in its ear, thinking about how it needs to update its Facebook page. Humans excel at making weapons that allow us to stay as far away from the enemy as possible–preferably on another continent. But close-quarters combat is an uphill struggle all the way.

Wild Boar

Wild Boar

There is an explanation that I find to be more sound, and that’s that these postures are meant to facilitate a certain mindset. Just as people condition themselves to associate certain hand mudra with certain states of mind (I know that’s not necessarily how they see it), one may use these postures to invoke a certain state of mind. This is somewhat related to what I was discussing in the preceding paragraph. Human’s are challenged to get into the right frame of mind for combat, and animal forms and postures might be one way to hasten that state. For humans there are two aspects of the problem. First, people are naturally scared of being injured or killed, and for many this becomes debilitating. Second, except some psychopaths, humans really don’t like to kill. This is true of other species by the way, we are genetically hardwired against killing our own kind. However, other animals can’t worry about it like us. (Here I mean worry in the sense that W.R. Inge described, “Worry is interest paid on trouble before it comes due.”)

Another explanation that I think has some merit is that some of these poses and forms are more about the exercise than combat effectiveness. In essence, they are like yoga; they build range of motion and strength in core muscles. One can certainly see this in the exceedingly low animal stances that require a great deal of flexibility.

The only other reason that’s popped to mind is that animal imitation is used to try to create a feeling (e.g. fear) in one’s opponent. This is closely related to the first point. One wants to create a perception of ferocity (or otherwise) in the eyes of the opponent as well as internally.

Rooster

Rooster