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

**Bobby 3 Hooks** · Posted On: 6/14/2009 4:37pm

why do you keep quacking sifuabel its quite strange to pretend to be an animal.

**searcher66071** · Posted On: 6/14/2009 7:57pm

I am a personal trainer by profession and I have degrees in biology and human physiology. The bone hardening is a result of "Wolff's Law." More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf's_law or http://www.jvsr.com/researchupdate/20021001/

It is a pretty simple principle and it can be checked or studied through bone density scans, but we would need an individual to be checked prior to conditioning and then periodicly throughout the training and after training has stopped. I don't have the time or research funding to perform this series. The big thing to remember is that if you stop the training, your bones will revert back to a less hardened state.

**SifuJason** · Posted On: 6/14/2009 8:43pm

Originally Posted by NJM

If it were possible to increase muscle/fat/ligament tissue mass wouldn't that increase faster and in larger amounts than bone density?

We're just talking speculation right now btw.

How so, and it depends?! Bone is more dense than any other tissue, so it can store more mass per unit volume. I suppose you could get really fat, but that doesn't seem to be ideal for fighting...

**SifuJason** · Posted On: 6/14/2009 8:44pm

Originally Posted by SifuAbel

The basic flaw with most EVERY argument that comes up here that includes IP is the irrelevant comment made from people that don't do it, have never seen it, and don't know anybody who has it. (except for Dale etc. ) Its all speculation and supposition.

Quackery.

You want to know about the different IP results? Go to someone that has it. Instead of making this some lame mental exercise, go out and see for yourselves, FIRST HAND.

"...to the skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Oh here I go again. ta ta.

My instructor does IP, and I am well aware of the results.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 6/14/2009 9:20pm

Originally Posted by SifuAbel

The basic flaw with most EVERY argument that comes up here that includes IP is the irrelevant comment made from people that don't do it, have never seen it, and don't know anybody who has it. (except for Dale etc. ) Its all speculation and supposition.

Quackery.

You want to know about the different IP results? Go to someone that has it. Instead of making this some lame mental exercise, go out and see for yourselves, FIRST HAND.

"...to the skeptic, no evidence will suffice."

Oh here I go again. ta ta.

And this is exactly why I got up at 6:30 on a Sunday and went out in the rain to meet Dale in a park.

P.S. MD's are IMO not so bright when it comes to science. There are several Biologists and other scientists on this thread. That'll do.

**mkornecki** · Posted On: 6/15/2009 7:13am

Originally Posted by War Wheel

I'm not sure this would be the case. Why would increased connectivity tend to decrease density? I can see how it might moderately increase it, but lower it? Do tell...

First off, I'm goign to ask everyone to forgive me for being inactive over the weekend. I did not know that bullshido had such an active community.

Secondly, I was ignorant about what the increased connectivity was comprised OF. I thought it was something besides "normal bone".

**mkornecki** · Posted On: 6/15/2009 7:14am

Originally Posted by SifuJason

Again, this really isn't controversial in the medical community. It is well known that weight bearing builds bone density, as does microfracturing and healing (similar to how muscle is built up, but not exactly). Stressing bones causes them to grow back bigger.

I am questioning the origin of the microfracture, tensile or compressive. Certainly muscle knows whether the origin of its damage is compressive or tensile. Muscle will not grow bigger and stronger if you whack it with a hammer, will it?

**mkornecki** · Posted On: 6/15/2009 7:20am

Originally Posted by SifuAbel

Is anybody an actual MD in here? Only they are qualified to say anything.

That is a strange statement. Your typical MD is not a research scientist.

**mkornecki** · Posted On: 6/15/2009 7:33am

I am not able to get past the abstract in the athletes-bone density study. It seems that my site does not access to as many journals as I had assumed.

Judo involves alot of things besides impact. There is a tremendous amount of pulling, gripping and lifting. I have always worked out, but after taking a few classes of judo where all we did was partner gripwork and such, my body ached in new ways. All without being tossed once.

Does the study discuss the relative increase in bone density in areas that might be subject solely to impact, perhaps the hips? (I'm not sure one can even isolate the hips and claim that they are only subject to impact stress.)

**SifuJason** · Posted On: 6/15/2009 10:17am

Originally Posted by mkornecki

I am not able to get past the abstract in the athletes-bone density study. It seems that my site does not access to as many journals as I had assumed.

Judo involves alot of things besides impact. There is a tremendous amount of pulling, gripping and lifting. I have always worked out, but after taking a few classes of judo where all we did was partner gripwork and such, my body ached in new ways. All without being tossed once.

Does the study discuss the relative increase in bone density in areas that might be subject solely to impact, perhaps the hips? (I'm not sure one can even isolate the hips and claim that they are only subject to impact stress.)

Bone density is measured in two areas; the femoral neck (the part next to the "ball" of your femur that articulates with your hip) and your spine. How much impact verses compressive forces these areas receive is rather difficult to determine.