Where is the proof that 'Bone Conditioning' isn't BS?

[Antifa]

I did some bone conditioning back a couple of years ago. Rolling pins on the shins. I did notice results

I was working in a basement adding a waterproofing masory mixture to the walls to stop leakage. To do this I had to remove the stairwell and enter and exit via a ladder. I was alone in the basement and climbing the ladder when it kicked out. I caught myself on the 1st floor of the house and pulled myself up and looked down and there was the stairwell which I had neglected de-nail, or move. Basically a big pile of boards with rusty old nails sticking out. Good thing I didnt fall.

The ladder, when it kicked out struck me in the right shin. Didnt seem to do much. didnt hurt. I pulled the ladder up (it was on a rope), re-set it, went up and down it once to make myself get back on the horse (I dont much like heights in the 1st place). Then I cleaned up my tools and went home because I was a little shaken and I worked for myself setting my own hours so who gives a ****.

I get home and go to take a shower and have trouble getting my pants off because my shin had swollen up so much my pants would not be moved. Eventaully I got them off and checked out a HUGE purple bruise that in no way hurt.

Now... I have injured that spot before but it has never been broken.

I dont know if I did no sustain injury because my bone there is more dense. I suspect I've deadened the nerves there enough that I didnt feel it in any way although I can feel with that part of my leg the nerves arent dead.

So... as a practical matter, IF this minor miracle can be attributed to IP training, the reason for doing is so that you don flinch when you get busted in your something by suprise.

That being said... my advice to people is to concentrate on ladder safety. I feel like if I had been paying attention to how I set my ladder, I wouldnt NEED conditioning.

Can somebody tell me if they suspect this was due to (a) Bone Conditioning from training (b) Bone Conditioning from a previous non-break injury (c) Nerve Damage from "Bone Conditioning" or (d) My insanely good luck?

[IMightBeWrong]

Your quote makes no sense. Galileo didn't make a claim, and demand that other people prove it for him.

The people who say you can strengthen bones with conditioning are making a claim. It's their responsibility to prove that claim, not ours.

What I'm saying is that when Galileo made his point AGAINST what most people thought through speculation, he did it by finding proof of his own and not by making everybody else prove it to him.

Since so many people for so long have been conditioning and then breaking bricks and cinderblocks publicly to show what their training has done, they do have (although not necessarily 100% accurate) evidence toward their claims. Since their claims have some backing, it is the job of the skeptic to disprove, not sit back and wait for proof when evidence has already been submitted.

[crappler]

What I'm saying is that when Galileo made his point AGAINST what most people thought through speculation, he did it by finding proof of his own and not by making everybody else prove it to him.

Since so many people for so long have been conditioning and then breaking bricks and cinderblocks publicly to show what their training has done, they do have (although not necessarily 100% accurate) evidence toward their claims. Since their claims have some backing, it is the job of the skeptic to disprove, not sit back and wait for proof when evidence has already been submitted.

You are simply misunderstanding basic logic.

[DunkelAnanas]

What I'm saying is that when Galileo made his point AGAINST what most people thought through speculation, he did it by finding proof of his own and not by making everybody else prove it to him.

Since so many people for so long have been conditioning and then breaking bricks and cinderblocks publicly to show what their training has done, they do have (although not necessarily 100% accurate) evidence toward their claims. Since their claims have some backing, it is the job of the skeptic to disprove, not sit back and wait for proof when evidence has already been submitted.

Galileo championed the idea that our solar system is heliocentric (which, if I remember my science history correctly, he was not the first to do but the most famous), which was at odds with the prevailing theory. This is different than trying to prove a negative, which is essentially what you are asking Cache to do.

Since "Bone Conditioning" is a commonly practiced, traditional, and widely believed in form of training, shouldn't it be the skeptics job to prove that it DOESN'T work and not vice versa? I mean I don't practice the crap myself, but Galileo didn't tell anybody, "The world isn't flat until somebody proves to ME otherwise!" Since you're trying to get a point across to a larger group than yourself, that being the TMA guys who actually do practice it here, you should be the one doing some research or looking for scientific evidence to back up your view, not the one sitting around with a slurpee waiting to be convinced. Too many people have already done plenty of studying and claimed that science is on their side who will argue that this kind of conditioning really does work.

So even though I'm with you, and don't believe in conditioning the bones by hitting trees or any BS like that, when it comes down to actually working to try to prove something does or doesn't work, the score reads: TREEHITTERS - 1, YOU - 0.

I believe what you are doing is an "argument from ignorance", basically stating that it is true because it hasn't been proven false.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[Petter]

I think this falls into the (admittedly over-used) “can’t prove a negative” category. If there’s a rational reason to believe that it does work, there must be evidence for it. If no good evidence for it can be produced—

Besides, any study that shows a negative result will be dismissed by True Believers on the basis that “their study participants didn’t do it right”. The only way there’s any chance of shaking beliefs is by examining the best evidence and showing it to be wanting (if such be the case).

Judging by the fact that there are a ton of competitions to see who can break the most bricks/cinderblocks/boards/etc, and many people break stacks upon stacks without breaking a single bone is pretty good evidence I think. There are a lot of people whose hands would break under those circumstances, and I mean a LOT.

Are there? How do you know? I would argue that once again, you have not separated two distinct variables in this argument (and it may not be possible to separate them): The people who participate in breaking competitions have proper technique for breaking. It may very well be that their success (and lack of fractures) is simply because they hit in the right way—that is, they hit hard enough, in ways that put no undue lateral stresses to the bones, don’t collapse the wrists, etc. I think we’ll all agree that without proper technique, it doesn’t matter how conditioned your bones are: You’re liable to **** up your hands.

But with proper technique, does this conditioning matter? How could you possibly tell, when in the breaking contest example, the very practice of proper technique also comprises this purported conditioning? In order to agree with your claim—“a lot of people would break their hands in these contests because their hands are unconditioned”—I’d have to be convinced that people with similar degrees of skills at breaking, varying only in hand conditioning practices, exhibit systematically different rates of hand fractures.

And let’s not forget that learning proper punching technique requires hitting something—it doesn’t have to be concrete; I’d much rather advocate the heavy bag; but without tactile feedback, you’ll never lean to hit right. Some people here seem to be a bit in love with mumbo-jumbo like chi, meridians, midichlorians, and such, but let’s not for a second dispute the claim that air punching will leave you incompetent at actually hitting things.

On a side note, I’m not convinced that hitting hard things is worthless for bone conditioning—I don’t claim to know (maybe it increases bone density in a manner similar to that gained from weights; maybe it doesn’t). You might call me agnostic on this. What I’m saying is that your argument fails to convince me, and the example is insufficient to prove your point.

tl;dr: That’s not evidence.

[Hedgehogey]

as I stated before.

My door is always open.

We are not neighbors. And a standing offer of man2man gong sau isn't a magical force field that deflects criticism.

Does noone else see anything wrong with this? Is your internal culture so messed up that you'll fall in a squirming heap to polish the balls of anyone who says he aliveicises his TCMA even if he thinks he can knock people out with his fingers?

[migo]

Re meridians. Something I've recently come across that makes more sense is the fascia. It connects in some pretty interesting ways, like from the feet to the diaphragm, so it's conceivable that an injury to the extremities could have some effect on internal organs, although I'm not sure that would cause death. Specifically with regards to conditioning training of Karateka leading to death due to stomach problems, I'd suspect that has more to do with the part of conditioning that involves taking punches to the stomach than with hand conditioning. This is of course assuming their deaths were due to stomach problems that could be attributed to training, but either way that's another variable that needs to be accounted for when making such a claim.

Also, Dale was called on that numerous times and didn't respond to it at all. That's not something that would make me a believer about it.

[Gezere]

karate people have no idea how to condition their bodies or their hands correctly.

many karateka die from stomach and heart issues as those meridians are messed up with insane external only conditioning.

BBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHIIIII IIITTTTTT!!!!!!

I have baby soft hands and can twiddle my digits with ease.

I can also break concrete and heads.

Go figure who has a better conditioning program.

Breaking concrete is a parlor trick. I've done it many pple do it with no condititiong needed.

I would have to request proof of breaking schools because even with conditiong the human skull is harder than the hand.

[maxthegeek1]

First off I think it's undeniable that this type of training can result both in the deadening of nerves, and the strengthening of bones, its a medical fact. When you cause small fractures in bone, the bone recalcifies stronger. Not only that, but its evident that this type of training is beneficial to many fighters. We can see that simply by looking at the training practices of kyokushin karate, and muay thai, and boxing, and pretty much any other striking art. In KK they condition their fists, in muy thai they condition their shins, in boxing they work on the heavy bag for their hands. I agree that breaking contests aren't the best measure of this type of conditioning. But at the same time I still think bone conditioning is necessary for elite level strikers, especially ones that use less padding (not knocking boxing at all)

i agree with hedgehogey btw

[migo]

Muay Thai shin conditioning is of questionable benefit. I've only ever seen Muay Thai fighters break their shins.