Hand Conditioning-Internal/External

[John Bishop]

Moderators Note:

There are many things in the martial arts that people believe or disbelive. There are many things that we believe may be true, but won't believe until we see or experience it for ourselves.
And lastly, there are some things that we believe are total crap, and wouldn't believe even if we did see or experience it ourselves. We'd be looking for the hidden wires or trap doors.

So what I am saying here is, if you have beliefs pro or con, please feel free to present your arguments. But do this without attacking the person presenting the opposing view.

 

[Carol]

Thanks John! :asian:

 

[Carol]

Wait a sec!

I just had a major revelation!

All those chubby soke's running around that we make fun of, they aren't fat and out of shape, they are retaining more water to increase there body density. Sure, they might jiggle a little when you poke them, but try to punch them in that gut and it's like hitting a brick wall, instant broken fist. Those sneaky buggers :lol:

I think my EPAK instructor called it "backup mass" :lol:

Has anyone had any luck with hand conditioning? Anyone incorporated it in to their training?

 

[tellner]

John, I appreciate what you are saying. Truly. But the "attack" in this case is on his argument. The argument from authority is an illegitimate one in any sort of reasoned debate.

The first part was "I believe the ancient Chinese masters". That is fine as far as it goes. The clear implication, since it was in response to a challenge, was "Because I believe them, you should believe them." That's the argument from authority.

The second part was "I've been doing martial arts for forty years". This may well be true, but it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's a closely related fallacy - that expertise in one field gives one authority in another. Martial arts is the science of hitting people at the most exact level. One may well learn other things, but no number of black belts makes one a physiologist, a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant or a diesel mechanic unless one has acquired the specific training to be considered proficient in one of those disciplines. Bolstering one's argument about biology with reference to one's experience in martial arts clearly says that one is using an irrelevant fact to bolster one's argument.

The next part, the police officer bit, is an extension of the previous point. Experience in one profession does not imply experience in another. It was added for the sake of illustration in the same manner. That which is relevant is relevant. That which is not is not, no matter how praiseworthy.

Those with training in biology and physiology may certainly use that experience to speak with on the subject with some expectation that others will consider their opinions at least worth listening to. They are informed opinions coming from someone with some known expertise in the subject. Those who use irrelevant statements or well-known logical fallacies to support their views must expect to be greeted with somewhat more skepticism on those grounds if no other.

I must add further, that physical evidence, when well gathered and impartially presented, trumps pretty much any logical construction or theoretical belief. In the case of TCM we know for irrefutable fact that much of the theory is garbage. The example of the spleen is simply one of the most glaringly obvious. We know that many of the techniques do not work. Therefore, its claims must be accepted with greater care than those which have a firmer foundation in physical reality. There is certainly much of value, and there are huge areas which are still mysterious. One may see many strange things and record the observations accurately. Correct interpretation of the results is another thing altogether and depends much more on particular expertise in the relevant disciplines.

To quote one of my favorite authors:

"It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy - it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable."

 

[John Bishop]

Tellner:

My post wasn't entirely directed to you. It was basically to remind everyone to present arguments without attacking the person with the opposing argument.
There are many ways to prove theorys. And some people have proven them to themselves and others through means that may not be totally scientific. But I think a wise person at least listens and considers other means of proof.
To automatically discount other means of proof because it's not scientific is very limiting to your knowledge.
Even in the scientific fields, experience is learning. Scientists are always looking at ancient cultures to see if what they are doing that brings about a certain effect is scientific and proveable. Many times they find no scientific basis for what is happening. And sometimes they find very solid scientific proof to support what the primitives were doing.
One recent example close to home happened on a Navajo Reservation in Arizona. People were starting to die from a virus that they couldn't explain. When the CDC researchers went in to locate the source of the virus, they couldn't understand why some people in close proximity got the virus, and some didn't. Then they started looking at the ancient customs and histories of disease on the reservation, and found another similar outbreak in the early 60's. They also talked to a lot of old timers and heard from a medicine man the term "when a mouse runs across your blanket, or clothes, you burn them". The medicine men couldn't explain why the precaution about mice, but that it was a long standing tradition passed down from medicine man to medicine man. Anyway, to make a long story short, the disease was found to be hanta virus spread by an explosion in the mouse population after a uncommon wet year. Some people died, some who followed the old superstition of burning clothes and bedding that came in contact with mice didn't.
So, in my mind there are many ways to prove a theory, and experience and application is one.
Lets say you have a medic who never attended a day of medical school, but treated hundreds of wounds in a war. And you have a Doctor who completed his training at one of the best medical schools in the world, but never actually treated a bullet wound yet. Wouldn't the medics practical experience count as some expertise on the subject of tramatic wounds, their effects, and treatment?
So, for at least me, I consider someones law enforcement experience of observing tramatic injury, observing fights, engaging in fights, of some value in whether a martial arts technique works or not.
I can get in a fight, hit someone on the collar bone, hear it break, and then form the opinion that if someone does the same strike to the same area with enough force they will break a collar bone. Or, I can follow him to the hospital, and have a doctor look at his X-ray and tell me that hitting his colar bone caused it to break.

Anyway, present your argument, and if it's a good one, it will stand on it's own merit. You seem to communicate well, so I'm sure you can present strong well thought out arguments, without sniping at anyone.

 

[Empty Hands]

Anyway, to make a long story short, the disease was found to be hanta virus spread by an explosion in the mouse population after a uncommon wet year. Some people died, some who followed the old superstition of burning clothes and bedding that came in contact with mice didn't.
So, in my mind there are many ways to prove a theory, and experience and application is one.

In reference to the original post, no one is saying that the hands don't condition and get tougher. This is the "experience" part, similar to the superstition of burning clothes that mice had contact with. What we are taking issue with is the proposed explanation - the mechanism. An observed outcome (less disease, tougher hands) can still be had with an incorrect proposed mechanism - for instance, those tribal superstitions may have had it that mice spread plague through contact with evil spirits. That I am aware of, there is no method of proving a mechanism apart from the scientific method - repeated empirical observation, testing and experiment. Apart from that, you can still be right for the wrong reasons, and have no tools to determine the correct explanation.

I could certainly be missing something though. What other forms of non-scientific proof of mechanism did you have in mind?

 

[Flying Crane]

There is no elixir of immortality that works by virtue of the toxin containing the anti-toxin.

Anti-venom for a particular snakebite is manufactured from that same snake's venom. In modern medical science, venomous snakes are milked regularly for their venom, to manufacture a supply of anit-venom for use in treatment of the various snakebites that one might encounter in a region.

 

[Empty Hands]

Anti-venom for a particular snakebite is manufactured from that same snake's venom.

Yes and no. The venom is used in increasing doses over time to develop immunity in an animal, such as a horse. The anti-venin antibodies are then purified from the blood, and are what is used in treatment. So, the anti-venin is not contained in the venom or even directly manufactured from it - it is the result of a living immune system reacting against it.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=575961

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes and no. The venom is used in increasing doses over time to develop immunity in an animal, such as a horse. The anti-venin antibodies are then purified from the blood, and are what is used in treatment. So, the anti-venin is not contained in the venom or even directly manufactured from it - it is the result of a living immune system reacting against it.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=575961

ah, that is interesting. I knew the venom itself was used in the manufacture, I didn't realize it was thru a third party like this. thx, i learned something today.

 

[Empty Hands]

thx, i learned something today.

Whenever you need a piece of particularly useless trivia that is clogging out more relevant information in my brain, just let me know.

 

[Carol]

Empty Hands, I'll take you up on your offer.

Just my opinion only...I think some of misunderstandings of naturopathic treatments come from either an improper presentation or an improper understanding.

There is a principle of "like produces like" when dealing with homeopathics. Tellner rightly said, a toxin cannot contain its own anti-toxin, however, a toxin can be an anti-toxin against similar symptoms.

Example: Nux Vomica, or "The Vomiting Nut" of the Indian subcontinent is a nut that, as its name indicates, produces gastric distress when eaten. However, in small doses, the compound can be used to help treat symptoms of gastric disturbance. However, Nux Vomica cannot be used to treat someone suffering from an overdose of Nux Vomica, and shouldn't be seen as an appropriate treatment for all cases of nausea.

Same goes for microdoses of green coffee beans used to treat sleeplessness with racing thoughts at bedtime and phorphorus being used to treat certain types of headaches. Too much green coffee can aggrevate the sleepless condition and too much phosphorous can cause or worsen a headache.

Some naturopathic treatments were used as medicines in an earlier day, but have since fallen out of favor since modern technology has developed altrenatives that are safer in extreme situations, such as accidental overdose. An accidental overdose of Dramamine is likely to be better tolerated than an accidental overdose of Nux Vomica, which contains strychnine alkaloids. That doesn't mean that Nux Vomica doesn't work, it simply means that there is a choice that has gained wider acceptance.

But...that's my opinion, and I'm not a scientist. What do you think?

 

[distalero]

Increased "water" in any human tissue is called edema. If it doesn't resolve (gets diffused back into return circulation), it's a problem with potential risk, depending on what tissue is under discussion. In hands, it's called "swollen hands" . Perhaps having had a "swollen" area on your body after sparring sounds familiar? Did it make you think you had gain something positive? Did it feel like you had become stronger?

The thing about human physiology is that it's the same for all (except for the bizarre), over centuries, and in every culture, country, and, this includes everybody's hands. You can create whimsical descriptions or theories, out of ignorance, or based on a outdated model, or to smoke newbie students for a laugh, but none of it means anything if it diverges from the universal truth of human physiology.

The other issue to point out is that a number of the older MA guys, who used to practice hand conditioning in the '50's and '60's, will now lecture you bigtime on staying away from the whole idea (I remember a certain book that showed the traditional buckets of fine sand, progressing to coarser material, ending in pea gravel. I also remember a story told by a certain GM about the power of folding and unfolding butcher paper many thousands of times). Assuming you don't want to have to hire a small boy to hit the buttons on your cell phone every time you need it, then I, too, would suggest staying away from this kind of stuff.

 

[tellner]

Some anonymous person, and I do wish such people had enough courage of their convictions to speak honestly rather than hiding in pseudo-anonymity, seems to think that statements like "The spleen is not the governing organ" or "we know infinitely more now about the physical world" or even questioning why someone would run the very real risk of serious injury show "anger".

Hardly.

A person who wishes to hurt himself is exercising his inalienable right to hurt himself. There's no reason to be angry about him doing so.

And frankly, the facts I've laid out are pretty inarguable. We know a lot of what people believed then is simply wrong. There is no rabbit in the Moon. Jade does not glow in the presence of female energy. The kidneys filter blood, plain and simple. The heart pumps blood. The triple heater is not an actual organ. People born in the year of the Fire Horse do not bring particular misfortune on their families. And so on. That's just a few from China. One could add at least as many things which we know to be errors from anywhere on the planet. The reason we can say such things, and the thing that lifted much of the world out of superstition and blindness, is the rejection of authority and its replacement with investigation as the premier tool for investigating the physical universe.

That insistence is not anger. It is the most basic foundation of honesty. Science and truth begin when one can ask the question "How do you know?" and receive the answer "Here is the evidence" rather than "Because I said so."

There are still mysteries out there, but the territory shifts constantly. And more is brought into the realm of the understood, the testable, the predictable.

 

[LawDog]

In due respect to all readers,
My posting on Hand Conditioning was done as a request from another forum member. This posting was not done as an "I know it all" write. Many responded to this posting with much ridicule, anger, hate and obvious distain towards the old guard. Both my full time profession and martial arts backgroud were attacked. Some have flaunted their professional background in a manner so as to "talk down" to those who have a less than educational background. I, at no time, have talked down to someone who has a "less than" martial arts background.
A few of you even took shots at the very masters who have gone against their own masters wishes so that we round eyes can learn their so called "secrete stuff". Do you realize the courage it took to do this while living in a very closed society? It matters not if you agree with what and how they teach it is the fact that they broke their cultural bonds and did it for us. My hat is off to them.
Within your professional fields as in my martial arts field there are both truths, myths and falsehoods. A person who is confident with himself will debate an issue and if shown to be wrong will correct the incorrect and move on. Those last few postings have indicated to me that the people writting them have no interest in seeking a truth but instead were enjoying, like a pack of wolves, beating up on one.
In the martial arts there are long time students who have the same professional backgrounds as all of you. If these professionals had questions about certain things most would take a different approach than some of the posters here have. They would reseach it extensively over a long period of time and after they came to a conclusion they would offer a suggestion on how to properly correct this problem area. Because of these types of studies many martial arts training programs have inserted a simple form of kinesiology(spelling?) into their instructors training programs. To condem without offering a solution has little or no meaning.
To come to a conclusion about the medical implications resulting from hand conditioning a sort of base line has to be established. A large amount of fully conditioned hands vs non conditioned hands has to be examined. This has to be done over a long period so as to show both the short term and long term effects. Have any of you professionals done this?
The debate of hand conditioning is not new, it was going on when I started in the martial arts. I have researched this subject for many decades and have found that some of the conclusions are correct and others are incorrect.
It was stated on this thread that most of the old timers who did hand conditioning way back are now speaking out against this practice. Back then, like now, it was not an uncommon practice for someone to self train or to be trained by unqualified instructors in the art of hand conditioning. Those self trainers were the ones who usually ended up with the medical problems. Today many martial artists self train by DVD, back then it was by paperback or by cheap 8 mm film.
Boxers and kickboxers wrap their hands for a reason, to protect their hands. In the street a person cannot walk around with their hands wrapped, please, offer and alternative to hand conditioning.
There are those who preach that there is little likely hood of their getting into a fight. They state that they would risk breaking their hand during a fight instead of doing hand conditioning. Have you ever broken your hand and tried to continue the fight? Or are you training in the martial arts just for the sport end of it?
Your attacks on me and what I do are also attacks on all those who have trained with me. They are family to me. So in view of this--------
Have a good life.

 

[Empty Hands]

Empty Hands, I'll take you up on your offer.

Uh-oh. :uhohh:

But...that's my opinion, and I'm not a scientist. What do you think?

I'm going to be a good scientist, and tell the truth - I don't really know enough about naturopathy as a whole to say whether all of it is good or bad. I can say a few things though. First of all, homeopathy is garbage. When you can demonstrate that the dilutions used are so extreme that no or only a few molecules of the original substance remain, then there remains no reasonable material explanation for any perceived effect other than the placebo effect.

As for naturopathy more generally, I will say that there is a general lack of controlled, reproducible evidence showing efficacy for the treatments in question. This isn't to say that none work, or that someone taking naturopathic remedies won't notice any effect. This is merely to say that it hasn't been well studied. It should be IMO, especially with so many people spending so much money on these treatments. We should work out whether or not these treatments work, how they work physiologically, and any potential interactions with "modern" medical treatments. Until that research is in, my attitude is "caveat emptor."

As for the general principle of treating "like with like", there is no overriding biological principle in physiology that validates this. It may work in specific cases due to the vagaries of the systems involved, but it won't work for everything.

Hope there aren't any homeopaths reading. :uhohh:

 

[Empty Hands]

Many responded to this posting with much ridicule, anger, hate and obvious distain towards the old guard... Some have flaunted their professional background in a manner so as to "talk down" to those who have a less than educational background.

In case you are thinking of me with this, I wish to make it clear that I intended no attack or offense to anyone here, either yourself or the masters. Questioning someone on the evidence for their beliefs is not disrespectful IMO.

 

[Danjo]

I strongly agree. I am a biologist, and I know of no process as described for tissue. Bone and ligaments/tendons will get denser under conditioning, but not tissue.

Mine gets thicker the more I condition the hands. The thickness over the knuckles creates a padding over the bones. In fact, this forms before the bones etc. get denser.

 

[Empty Hands]

Mine gets thicker the more I condition the hands. The thickness over the knuckles creates a padding over the bones. In fact, this forms before the bones etc. get denser.

Probably keratosis of the skin. This is different from a density change via water in the tissue itself.

 

[distalero]

As long as we scientists are a chuckin' that dreaded "science" around, it may be appropriate to mention that the human hand, and more specifically the fingertips of the human hand, are considered some of the most sensitive areas of perception on the human body; perhaps THE most sensitive. Fine touch perception, and the information gained from this perception, is of an incredible range.

This of course belies, and is the great irony, in "tough" MA, and in unarmed combat in general, for most of us: attempting to use an anatomical/physiological structure of this sort to try to weak physical damage on an opponent. It's a weapon, but it's one that is really of last resort. In the real world, it's just that simple.

 

[Danjo]

As long as we scientists are a chuckin' that dreaded "science" around, it may be appropriate to mention that the human hand, and more specifically the fingertips of the human hand, are considered some of the most sensitive areas of perception on the human body; perhaps THE most sensitive. Fine touch perception, and the information gained from this perception, is of an incredible range.

This of course belies, and is the great irony, in "tough" MA, and in unarmed combat in general, for most of us: attempting to use an anatomical/physiological structure of this sort to try to weak physical damage on an opponent. It's a weapon, but it's one that is really of last resort. In the real world, it's just that simple.

Unless you mean that fighting is a last resort, I have to disagree. When I have had to fight, I have nearly always used my fists. They have always been effective and they do not get injured even when striking someone in the head. Once, in fact, I hit a guy with an overhand right that caught hit directly between his eyes. His eyes rolled up into his head and he dropped like a stone. My hand was fine as I hit him properly. All of my body weight was behind the blow. I have also broken bricks and boards with my punch, as have many others I have seen.

So I think that the argument against using a fist in a fight is a modern thing. Choki Motobu said that the first thing one should do in a fight is to punch them in the face. I think that modern training that rarely concerns itself with hand conditioning and proper punching is why people avoid it nowadays and say that it shouldn't be done. If a modern boxer never trained with a punching bag but merely shadow boxed and sparred, they would be in real trouble when they got in the ring and tried to really hurt their opponent. The same holds true with martial artists.

I think that soft targets are ideal and that learning how to manipulate an opponent in to the position so that you can strike these areas effectively until they are incapacitated is preferred. But, I still want to be contitioned so that no matter what target is in front of me, it's going to get hurt when I hit it and I won't.