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

[Dr. Sleepless]

So, Judoka aren't fat; they're big boned?

I have some disorder with my thyroid that has made my bones super dense. My baby sister has a thyroid disorder that makes her bones very not dense. :(

[FictionPimp]

Judoka do not typically engage in explicit "bone conditioning" exercises.

Just callous creation and tear down on feet and fingers. And bone breaking of toes and fingers. Which doesn't make them tougher, just harder to use and funny looking.

[Matt Phillips]

Someone posted a study recently (within the past month). It was a peer-reviewed study of judo, karate and something else.

That was me. It is here:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...ne#post2118606

I am in no way endorsing this study, as I have yet to read the actual article, but it looks ok at the level of the abstract.

[crappler]

Until someone proves otherwise.

And by "prove" I don't mean "Anecdotal story about a guy punching something hard"

I don't mean unfounded assertions about thick bones based on alchemy from the year 1000 bc

I don't mean ads for or arguments over the properties of any stinking lotion that don't have some sort of proven scientific validity

I don't mean references to something in a language no one reading speaks

I don't mean solo experimentation uncontrolled for other factors - ie the value of exercise, the conditioning of skin vs bone, the natural starting density of the person's bone, the effects of secondary exercise such as weight lifting, etc.

I also, before conceding that bone condition is not BS, demand someone show both that it actually occurs, that it actually occurs from the specific training in a given bone conditioning regimen, and that it does so in a manner and amount that somehow adds combat effectiveness.

Also, while you're at it, it wouldn't HURT to categorize the number of hours it takes to achieve these effects for comparison to other, less BS methods of training.

Will anyone rise to the challenge of finding or making the science to test the hypothesis, "repeatedly striking surfaces at escalating levels of force eventually produces a change in bone structure useful in a martial arts context" and associated specifics, or will this thread sink like a fucking stone?

I got into a similar discussion in the TMA area and was met with a lot of resistance. I researched the subject as best I could and could not come up with any definitive research indicating that the bone-conditioning resulted in a significant increase in combat effectiveness. I did find that it apparently is not necessarily harmful if done properly, but a lot of the arguments were not convincing to me. I admit some bias because of the insults, but that is because usually people cover for their ignorance with ad hominems.

If you research Professor Chaplin at Penn State, he has an interesting article on the subject. He teachers biological anthropology and has apparently been in the MA for along time.

http://www.uechi-ryu.com/chaplin.htm

[crappler]

The theory is, as someone earlier stated, that thicker bones and conditioning results in harder blows and less likelihood of injury to the striker. The anecdotal evidence provided by pro-conditioning folks states that they notice their hands don't break as easy when hitting people, and are more effective. This may be true, but it's hardly a substitute for a real study. I have read the main reason for broken hands is because of the hook punch. An ER doctor noticed a specific type of injury from the hook created by the oblique angle of force hook punches create. I would image proper punching technique decreases the chance of injury more than bone-hardening would, and it may be difficult for the experienced fighter to know the difference.

[kenpostudent]

I suppose in theory it's a hit harder thing. If your bones are denser and stronger, you'll be able to hit harder than someone who's bones are not. You'll also be less likely to damage bones that are stronger if you hit someone in a spot that's not a good place to hit (like the top of the skull for example?).

...Or you can just not hit people on the top of the skull... or even better, use weapons that can take the impact, ie. elbows and knees.

[Zendetta]

What about regular weight lifting? Hasn't that been shown to increase bone density?

Definitely. Bones increase in mass according to the stress put on them and their muscular attachment points.

If you want "strong bones" then do squats and drink milk.

[Gbemi]

Just trying to think what kind of study it would take to actually prove any of this.

33-100 kick boxers (train mainly with gloves, no makiwara training) enter Kyokushin tournaments. Then we see if there is a higher occurence of breaks in the kb'ers.

Do breaks happen more frequent amongst KK white belts (less time on the makiwara) than on black belts? (I'm only using KK as an example b/c they don't use gloves)

The few serious boxers that I know have knuckles as large as any karate guy I know.

As an aside, bone conditioning sucks. the stupid 'toe tip kick' has my doctor recommending surgery to remove the calcification on my big toes (I saw it on the x-ray). She says that if I keep it up, my toe will be completely rigid in 20 years or less.

[Mr. Mantis]

I mean the concept of "kicking the tree" or "iron palm" or any of that stuff.

Iron palm is not a bone conditioning program per se. Certainly, "impact" conditions for "impact". Take football players, they do what they do to prepare for contact. Impact leads to conditioning.

I can't tell you what's happening to bones in this sort of thing.

I would think that muscles and bones would work similarly. When muscles heal, they heal through fibrosis, and the muscles become stronger. Bones heal through calcification, by laying down more bone. Perhaps they become stronger?

But, what I do know is, Iron Palm is not a bone conditioning program. It's all about the chi baby! WooHoo!

[IMightBeWrong]

Until someone proves otherwise.

And by "prove" I don't mean "Anecdotal story about a guy punching something hard"

I don't mean unfounded assertions about thick bones based on alchemy from the year 1000 bc

I don't mean ads for or arguments over the properties of any stinking lotion that don't have some sort of proven scientific validity

I don't mean references to something in a language no one reading speaks

I don't mean solo experimentation uncontrolled for other factors - ie the value of exercise, the conditioning of skin vs bone, the natural starting density of the person's bone, the effects of secondary exercise such as weight lifting, etc.

I also, before conceding that bone condition is not BS, demand someone show both that it actually occurs, that it actually occurs from the specific training in a given bone conditioning regimen, and that it does so in a manner and amount that somehow adds combat effectiveness.

Also, while you're at it, it wouldn't HURT to categorize the number of hours it takes to achieve these effects for comparison to other, less BS methods of training.

Will anyone rise to the challenge of finding or making the science to test the hypothesis, "repeatedly striking surfaces at escalating levels of force eventually produces a change in bone structure useful in a martial arts context" and associated specifics, or will this thread sink like a fucking stone?

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.