No, You Do NOT F*cking "Do Karate".

[crappler]

...or just a dumbass.

[Matt Phillips]

Effects of different sports on bone density and muscle mass in highly trained athletes.

Andreoli A, Monteleone M, Van Loan M, Promenzio L, Tarantino U, De Lorenzo A.
Human Nutrition Unit and Orthopedic Clinic, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. delorenzo@uniroma2.it
PURPOSE: It is known that participating in sports can have a beneficial effect on bone mass. However, it is not well established which sport is more beneficial for increased bone mineral density (BMD) and appendicular muscle mass (AMM). This study investigated the effects of different high-intensity activities on BMD and AMM in highly trained athletes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-two male subjects aged 18--25 yr participated in the study. The sample included judo (J; N = 21), karate (K; N = 14), and water polo (W; N = 24) athletes who all competed at national and international level. Twelve age-matched nonathletic individuals served as the control group (C). All athletes exercised regularly for at least 3 h x d(-1), 6 d x wk(-1). Segmental, total BMD, and AMM were measured with a dual-energy x-ray (DXA) absorptiometry (Lunar Corp., Madison, WI). DXA analysis also includes bone mineral content (BMC) and fat and lean masses. RESULTS: Total BMD(C) was significantly lower (mean +/- SD: 1.27 +/- 0.06 g x cm(-2), P < 0.05) than either judo or karate athletes (total BMD(J) (1.4 +/- 0.06 g x cm(-2)) and total BMD(K) (1.36 +/- 0.08 g x cm(-2))) but not different from the W athletes (total BMD(W) (1.31 +/- 0.09 g x cm(-2))). AMM was significantly lower in the C group compared with the three athletic groups (P < 0.05). Fat mass was higher in the W versus J and K athletes but not different from the C group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study has shown that athletes, especially those engaged in high-impact sports, have significantly higher total BMD and AMM than controls. These results suggest that the type of sport activity may be an important factor in achieving a high peak bone mass and reducing osteoporosis risk.

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

[DerAuslander]

So, two degrees in physiology, the subject at hand, is an appeal to authority...but quoting an anthropology prof is not.

Please tell me you're not a trial lawyer.

Objection your honor! The prosecution is idiotic.

[crappler]

So, two degrees in physiology, the subject at hand, is an appeal to authority...but quoting an anthropology prof is not.

Please tell me you're not a trial lawyer.

Objection your honor! The prosecution is idiotic.

The purpose of quoting the anthropology professor, an advanced degree requiring deep understanding of biology, was to provide one opinion and whether you accept or reject the opinion and the scientific basis upon it is not relevant to the issue of whether he is an anthropology professor. I presented it as valid because of the basis for his opinion, not because of his background. You are incapable of discerning the difference. I would suggest that, rather than attempting to engage in debate, which you actually have yet to do in this thread, you simply resort to name-calling and claim it is because of your in-depth understanding of zen.

[crappler]

[b]
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Yeah, I already read this same thing a few days ago WW and I am not sure it is specifically speaking to the issue of bone-conditioning, especially because it talks about Judo players.

[willaume]

Yeah, I already read this same thing a few days ago WW and I am not sure it is specifically speaking to the issue of bone-conditioning, especially because it talks about Judo players.

Hello
Some judo player kicks tires to train for sweep, they are the exeptions and if most judo players do not kick as had as MT but you usually notice where it lands.
As well muscles contraction produces a similar effect. Bracing yourself for impact is a long contraction in a very short time and does stress the bone that supports the muscle.
Typically swimming requires shorter contraction over a long period of time, so for the same muscle mass you do not put the same stress on the skeleton.

For example skeleton of archers found in the Marry rose, showed a significant bone growth on their bow arm and shoulder.
If you shoot longbow over 60-80 lbs you will see that it does put stress on you bone and require strong muscle.

We would need a test/experiment but it seems reasonable to believe that the bones affected are the one that placed under stress.
I think that from that article, it seems that there does not seem to be a difference with muscle stress and direct conditioning of the bone.
And that according to what you want to condition direct impact is really the only way.
For example shooting longbow does not really condition you to punch.
So hitting heavy bag (or/and progressively hard object) bare knuckled or with your shin seems to be the most efficient way to do so.

phil

[Vieux Normand]

[quote=crappler;2118523]There's an "underlying issue" now?
=================

Not really. It's the obvious point of the entire discussion.

No. You suddenly decided to make it the point. Your first contention stated that hand-conditioning exercises are BS (the "are" emphasized to remind you that positive contentions need to be backed up...which you have yet to do). This was contradicted both by basic exercise-physiology (again, go take a course or two in it: bone-changes in response to exercise-stress are as basic to that discipline as cardio changes or muscular hypertrophy, in response to cardio and weight-lifting, respectively) and by one of your own "citations", the one penned by Mr. Uechi-Anthro, which stated that bone-density and periosteal adaptations DID occur.

When this came to light, you decided to change the goal-posts and claim that the REAL question, all long, had actually been "how significant are these bone-changes?"

Dunno. You tell me: how "significant" are changes in cardio for a mid-distance runner? How "significant" are core-changes for a grappler? Do you need others to do your homework to show you the obvious? Can a cardio-trained heart beat more efficiently? Duh. Can a stronger core help in grappling? Duh. Can a denser bone, covered with more callused skin, withstand an impact more readily than an unconditioned fist? Is the sky blue? Duh. How much adaptation is "significant" depends on how much one trains towards that adaptation, and how much one uses its effect. In my job, I do. Maybe you don't.

You also wrote of neurological changes (becoming accustomed to hard impacts) as if this had not been mentioned before. This despite the fact that I had already referred to it as part and parcel of hand-conditioning (look up "losing the cringe-factor"). Adaptation is both mental AND physical. That ring a bell?

The question is whether bone conditioning actually increases the combat effectiveness of the fighter by making his bones stronger. While you point to numerous studies which indicate that bone density is increased by weight training, you are nonetheless unable to cite a single scientific study which provides any evidence that conditioned bone is significantly stronger than unconditioned bone and that, in turn, makes it so that someone who has conditioned bones can strike harder and more effectively.

"It needs to be proven that denser bone is stronger and harder than bone that is less dense." Are you actually taking this position?

I simply entertain the possibility that, in fact, the conditioning really only serves to eliminate the pain. Pain which more than likely would not be felt anyway in the midst of an actual scuffle.

Even if this claim has merit, given the choice between feeling pain AFTER the scuffle--due to a lack of conditioning--or NOT feeling pain after the scuffle--due to conditioning...which is the better option? You're talking to a bouncer who has to deal with his share of "actual scuffles" on a near-nightly basis. Even if your above contention were true, why would I want sore hands after shift?

There is a lot of mythology and orthodoxy surrounding the martial arts.

Basic adaptation-related exercise physiology does not equal mythology--except, perhaps, in the imaginations of some.

I know I'm asking for trouble coming to a traditional martial arts forum and posing these questions, because I might sound like an MMA dumbass.

No trouble at all. One might disagree with the "MMA" part of your last phrase, but otherwise...

[crappler]

[quote=Vieux Normand;2118893]

There's an "underlying issue" now?
=================
You said:

No. You suddenly decided to make it the point. Your first contention stated that hand-conditioning exercises are BS (the "are" emphasized to remind you that positive contentions need to be backed up...which you have yet to do).
====================
I said:
I didn't "suddenly" decide to make it my point. The issue is whether bone-conditioning actually aids the fighter by make his bones sufficiently strong enough to make a difference. If a fighter who does not condition meets a fighter who does condition, you believe that it gives the non-conditioned fighter an edge. Are you saying this is not the issue here? Since this is a rather extraordinary claim, and sounds a lot like a thousand other martial arts myths which various true believers bandy as proven fact (usually under the mantle of "science") while simultaneously ferociously attack all who disagree, then you need to back it up. If you have to resort to the "it's obvious to those with the truth revealed unto us" then forgive me I'm nonplussed. The burden is upon those who make extraordinary claims to prove them. I don't have to prove anything. I'm surprised someone with a science background like yours doesn't understand this.
================
YOu said:
This was contradicted both by basic exercise-physiology (again, go take a course or two in it: bone-changes in response to exercise-stress are as basic to that discipline as cardio changes or muscular hypertrophy, in response to cardio and weight-lifting, respectively) and by one of your own "citations", the one penned by Mr. Uechi-Anthro, which stated that bone-density and periosteal adaptations DID occur.
=====================
"I said"
Again with the "go take a course" argument. I will stipulate to the argument that exercise increases bone-density. What you fail to address, again and again, is whether these changes are significant, which "Mr. Uech-Anthro" stated is NOT significant. He did state that they occur, but if you bothered to read the article he stated they probably make little difference. Is there any way out of this twilight zone conversation?
==============
"YOu said:

When this came to light, you decided to change the goal-posts and claim that the REAL question, all long, had actually been "how significant are these bone-changes?"
===================
I said:
I'm sorry, why exactly would we be arguing about this if that wasn't the issue?
==============
YOu said"
Dunno. You tell me: how "significant" are changes in cardio for a mid-distance runner? How "significant" are core-changes for a grappler? Do you need others to do your homework to show you the obvious? Can a cardio-trained heart beat more efficiently? Duh.
==============
I said:
Your lame reasoning by analogy isn't going to carry the day here.
=================
YOu said:
Can a stronger core help in grappling? Duh. Can a denser bone, covered with more callused skin, withstand an impact more readily than an unconditioned fist? Is the sky blue? Duh. How much adaptation is "significant" depends on how much one trains towards that adaptation, and how much one uses its effect. In my job, I do. Maybe you don't.
================
I said:
Here you simply restate your point.
=============
you said:
You also wrote of neurological changes (becoming accustomed to hard impacts) as if this had not been mentioned before. This despite the fact that I had already referred to it as part and parcel of hand-conditioning (look up "losing the cringe-factor"). Adaptation is both mental AND physical. That ring a bell?
===============
I said"
Your point?
==========
you said:
"It needs to be proven that denser bone is stronger and harder than bone that is less dense." Are you actually taking this position?
=============
I said:
straw man. Got any others?

====================
you said:
Even if this claim has merit, given the choice between feeling pain AFTER the scuffle--due to a lack of conditioning--or NOT feeling pain after the scuffle--due to conditioning...which is the better option? You're talking to a bouncer who has to deal with his share of "actual scuffles" on a near-nightly basis. Even if your above contention were true, why would I want sore hands after shift?
==============
I said:
Is that your fallback position? That injuries don't HURT as much? Where did that come from?
=========
you said
Basic adaptation-related exercise physiology does not equal mythology--except, perhaps, in the imaginations of some.
No trouble at all. One might disagree with the "MMA" part of your last phrase, but otherwise...

==============

I think the real problem here is anyone attempting to argue against the orthodoxy. If you wanna preach to the choir then have at it. But if you want me to join your Karate-circle jerk and numbly nod my head like you, basing it upon your "of course" and "it's obvious" arguments, then have it. You wouldn't be the first, or the last, martial arts guy to cling to his cherished beliefs to the bitter end. There is a long history of selling **** for a nickel a ton, and going "well, it's obvous". Guess what? It ain't.

[Vieux Normand]

[quote=crappler;2118914]

==============

I think the real problem here is anyone attempting to argue against the orthodoxy. If you wanna preach to the choir then have at it. But if you want me to join your Karate-circle jerk and numbly nod my head like you, basing it upon your "of course" and "it's obvious" arguments, then have it. You wouldn't be the first, or the last, martial arts guy to cling to his cherished beliefs to the bitter end. There is a long history of selling **** for a nickel a ton, and going "well, it's obvous". Guess what? It ain't.

The problem is the imagined perception of an orthodoxy.

It is well-known (no doubt you'll want others to do your homework for you in this as well), that those who do not wish to condition their hands are perfectly free to use open-hand strikes, available weaponry, throws and sweeps...or they can, if they so wish, take their chances and use unconditioned hands, minus gloves and tape, for headhunting fist-strikes when defending themselves, and risk the consequences.

For those of us who must betimes defend ourselves with bareknuckle strikes, it makes basic sense to condition the hands in preparation. It works for us.

That it makes basic sense to do so does not make it, in any way, mandatory. Those who do not wish to harden their hands are by no means required to do so.

How is this freedom of choice "orthodoxy"?

While we're on that particular term, almost none of the non-KK Karate schools I've observed outside of Japan do much--if anything--in the way of hand-hardening. Makiwara boards seem to be rarer and rarer these days. If it's such a minority practice, then how can hand-conditioning be termed the result of "othodoxy"?

[DerAuslander]

Because he's gone from appeal to authority to strawman & ad hom.

Anthropology requires a deep knowledge of biology? Deeper than physiology?

Where did you get your law degree from?