Pressure points?

[Xue Sheng]

Xue, the trouble with your response is that it doesn't adress the OP's concern with explaining TCM in concrete "Western" terms. According to what I've come accross (and my knowledge in this area is admittedly very shallow) there really aren't any conclusive studies (oustside China) that support the whole TCM theoretical construct of qi, meridians, points, and so on. At least that is the upshot of the following summary taken from the Wikipedia entry on accupuncture. After a lengthy discussion of many aspects of Accupuncture, the article considers the fundamental question of effectiveness as measured in controlled studies:

Effectiveness[edit]
The application of evidence-based medicine to researching acupuncture's effectiveness is a controversial activity, and has produced different results in a growing evidence base of research.[14] Some research results suggest acupuncture can alleviate pain but others consistently suggest that acupuncture's effects are mainly due to placebo.[3] It is difficult but not impossible to design rigorous research trials for acupuncture.[63][64] Due to acupuncture's invasive nature, one of the major challenges in efficacy research is in the design of an appropriate placebo control group.[14][15] For efficacy studies to determine whether acupuncture has specific effects, "sham" forms of acupuncture where the patient, practitioner, and analyst are blinded seem the most acceptable approach.[63] The under-performance of acupuncture interventions in such sham controlled trials may indicate that therapeutic effects are due entirely to non-specific effects, or that the sham treatments are not inert or systematic protocols yield less than optimal treatment.[65][66] A 2012 review found "A common control procedure has been the use of sham acupuncture where needles are inserted on either meridians not specific for the condition under study, or in areas outside meridians; often this is coupled with a more superficial needle insertion than what is performed in the true acupuncture group."[67] The research seems to suggest that needles do not need to stimulate the traditionally specified acupuncture points or penetrate the skin to attain an anticipated effect (e.g. psychosocial factors).[5] A 2012 review found "acupuncture was not better than sham interventions or conventional therapy in the longer term."[67] The evidence suggests that any benefits of acupuncture are short-lasting.[16]
Any evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture is "variable and inconsistent, even for single conditions",[11] and publication bias is cited as a concern in the reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture.[11][68][69] A 1998 review of studies on acupuncture found that trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan were uniformly favourable to acupuncture, as were ten out of 11 studies conducted in Russia.[70] A 2011 assessment of the quality of RCTs on TCM, including acupuncture, concluded that the methodological quality of most such trials (including randomization, experimental control and blinding) was generally poor, particularly for trials published in Chinese journals (though the quality of acupuncture trials was better than the drug-related trials).[71] The study also found that trials published in non-Chinese journals tended to be of higher quality.[71]
A 2014 Nature Reviews Cancer article found that "contrary to the claimed mechanism of redirecting the flow of qi through meridians, researchers usually find that it generally does not matter where the needles are inserted, how often (that is, no dose-response effect is observed), or even if needles are actually inserted. In other words, ‘sham’ or ‘placebo’ acupuncture generally produces the same effects as ‘real’ acupuncture and, in some cases, does better."[72] A 2013 meta-analysis found little evidence that the effectiveness of acupuncture on pain (compared to sham) was modified by the location of the needles, the number of needles used, the experience or technique of the practitioner, or by the circumstances of the sessions.[73] The same analysis also suggested that the number of needles and sessions is important, as greater numbers improved the outcomes of acupuncture compared to non-acupuncture controls.[73] A 2013 editorial found that the inconsistency of results of acupuncture studies (that acupuncture relieved pain in some conditions but had no effect in other very similar conditions) suggests false positive results, which may be caused by factors like biased study designs, poor blinding, and the classification of electrified needles (a type of TENS) as acupuncture.[11] The same editorial suggested that given the inability to find consistent results despite more than 3,000 studies of acupuncture, the treatment seems to be a placebo effect and the existing equivocal positive results are noise one expects to see after a large number of studies are performed on an inert therapy.[11] It concluded that the best controlled studies showed a clear pattern, in which the outcome does not rely upon needle location or even needle insertion, and since "these variables are those that define acupuncture, the only sensible conclusion is that acupuncture does not work."[11]

Please don't get me wrong here. I am well aware of Wikipedia's limitations and potential for bias, and I am not personally qualified to assert any opinion on this topic. I merely included this to show the inherent difficulty in addressing what I understand to be the OP's request ...namely for information that is backed up by Western scientific research and studies..

The World Health Organization has a lot on it based on studied form Beijing University of TCM, they have a website...but it is based on "Eastern" studies and the OP limited the discussion to Western and the in-depth studies, in general, are not there. The problem with the OP post and your response, at least IMO, is that you are thinking that any study out of the east is based on Eastern mysticism and not based in science..... yeah, I'm annoyed by the whole racist tone that I am getting from this thread..... and maybe is it just me because I come across this in real life form time to time, so I'll tell you what, I will bow out and let the conversation go how ever the heck it wants to...later

 

[geezer]

... yeah, I'm annoyed by the whole racist tone that I am getting from this thread..... and maybe is it just me because I come across this in real life form time to time...

Xue? Racism? I'm sure that exists, and I'm sorry that you have experienced it. That's just wrong.

What I was attempting to point out was more about ethnocentrism than racism. Different worldviews are often hard to reconcile. So explaining pressure points according a purely "Western", mechanistic model might be difficult until knowledge progresses a bit. Sorry if my remarks offended. -- Steve

 

[Xue Sheng]

Xue? Racism? I'm sure that exists, and I'm sorry that you have experienced it. That's just wrong.

What I was attempting to point out was more about ethnocentrism than racism. Different worldviews are often hard to reconcile. So explaining pressure points according a purely "Western", mechanistic model might be difficult until knowledge progresses a bit. Sorry if my remarks offended. -- Steve

Not me, my wife, who is a highly trained TCM Doc from China. She by the way handles this much better than me....but like I said, maybe it is just me...so other than this post that I felt required clarification...I'm out

 

[K-man]

Not me, my wife, who is a highly trained TCM Doc from China. She by the way handles this much better than me....but like I said, maybe it is just me...so other than this post that I felt required clarification...I'm out

I don't blame you but I think that it is more a clash of culture than 'racist'. I have no understanding of acupuncture but am prepared to keep an open mind. I have studies vital points and most of them can be explained by the location of nerves or organs. What can't be explained in that way is the effect of sequential striking.

A similar dilemma is found in almost all discussions of Chi/Ki. Because it doesn't make sense in Western medicine it is dismissed as fake by many. Yet many of us know it works. What it is, is the question, not if it exists.

Don't go too far away. I, for one, value your input.

 

[Runs With Fire]

Please don't get me wrong here. I am well aware of Wikipedia's limitations and potential for bias, and I am not personally qualified to assert any opinion on this topic. I merely included this to show the inherent difficulty in addressing what I understand to be the OP's request ...namely for information that is backed up by Western scientific research and studies..

That is it exactly. From my personal research, much information is distastefully wrought with seemingly unfounded presuppositions that one is expected to digest as complete and legitimate. I know there is a myriad of both valuable and varying vernacular involved. I am trying to "cut the crap" or 'sift the sand" in order to circumvent non-conclusive compilations and primeval practices.

 

[Runs With Fire]

You do realize there are medical schools in China right? And the Harvard of TCM is in Beijing and has a lot on points. As a matter of fact those who graduate from there have to know good and bad points...but those who graduate from there will also tell you there are points that are pretty much only used in martial arts.

Why of course.

 

[thanson02]

That is it exactly. From my personal research, much information is distastefully wrought with seemingly unfounded presuppositions that one is expected to digest as complete and legitimate. I know there is a myriad of both valuable and varying vernacular involved. I am trying to "cut the crap" or 'sift the sand" in order to circumvent non-conclusive compilations and primeval practices.

It is possible too that different pressure points work not because of some unified system but because of some physical structure in the location or the effects of trauma at that spot to your biochemistry.

I am also in the boat that I know pressure points are real and they work but the nature of why they work is what is debated. It would be nice if there was more cross cultural research being done. You might have to start from the bottom and build it up yourself. I know that that is what a lot of us have done.

 

[Runs With Fire]

we shall see, we shall see

 

[FriedRice]

I am looking for reputable resources on such matters.

Pressure points are way over rated. Punching someone really, really hard in their face, makes their entire face, a pressure point. Especially when they're flattened and mounted on the ground and you rain punches and elbows straight into their face, non-stop. All forms of pressure point attacks were legal in the early UFC's and no forms of attacks disqualified anyone or even stopped the fight. Early UFC's, you really could've done whatever you want in trying to kill your opponent and win the Night's Prize of $60,000, which was an astronomical amount of money for any Martial Artist, in 1993 (who probably made $10,000/year). Even today it's huge, as that's about $100,000 for a single night's fight. And there were no time limits. Royce Gracie proved what was supreme, as BJJ dominated continuously for many years. Then came the Wrestlers. TMA never did well.

 

[K-man]

Pressure points are way over rated. Punching someone really, really hard in their face, makes their entire face, a pressure point. Especially when they're flattened and mounted on the ground and you rain punches and elbows straight into their face, non-stop. All forms of pressure point attacks were legal in the early UFC's and no forms of attacks disqualified anyone or even stopped the fight. Early UFC's, you really could've done whatever you want in trying to kill your opponent and win the Night's Prize of $60,000, which was an astronomical amount of money for any Martial Artist, in 1993 (who probably made $10,000/year). Even today it's huge, as that's about $100,000 for a single night's fight. And there were no time limits. Royce Gracie proved what was supreme, as BJJ dominated continuously for many years. Then came the Wrestlers. TMA never did well.

Obviously spoken by someone who has no knowledge or training in vital points. They have nothing to do with the ring and they would have no part in the training of someone who was training to fight professionally. I presume from your comment you are another jumping on the "BJJ is great, let's bag TMAs" bandwagon.

 

[Tez3]

Pressure points are way over rated. Punching someone really, really hard in their face, makes their entire face, a pressure point. Especially when they're flattened and mounted on the ground and you rain punches and elbows straight into their face, non-stop. All forms of pressure point attacks were legal in the early UFC's and no forms of attacks disqualified anyone or even stopped the fight. Early UFC's, you really could've done whatever you want in trying to kill your opponent and win the Night's Prize of $60,000, which was an astronomical amount of money for any Martial Artist, in 1993 (who probably made $10,000/year). Even today it's huge, as that's about $100,000 for a single night's fight. And there were no time limits. Royce Gracie proved what was supreme, as BJJ dominated continuously for many years. Then came the Wrestlers. TMA never did well.

I think you need to look up your UFC history and see what really happened. If you actually think it was the way you say then you are in for a disappointment I'm afraid. Of course BJJ won through, it was meant to, the early UFC was a showcase for BJJ and everything was angled to sell it and the Gracies. Sadly the early UFC's didn't prove anything other than it could sell.
This also has nothing to do with pressure points.

 

[FriedRice]

Obviously spoken by someone who has no knowledge or training in vital points.

Obviously, this person is yourself.

They have nothing to do with the ring and they would have no part in the training of someone who was training to fight professionally.

You further prove that you're this ignorant person that you're complaining about, as MANY of the fighters in UFC 1-4 and even up to 10 or 15, were the average TMA non-sports fighters, let alone Pro Fighters. And they showed the world how bad their TMA was.

I presume from your comment you are another jumping on the "BJJ is great, let's bag TMAs" bandwagon.

You presume way too much and are way out of touch with the times and should venture outside of your comfort zone in order to catch up. It's been way over 20 years since the UFC 1 now, just to fill you in. BJJ isn't even very dominant in the UFC for the past 10 years now, and was on the decline from being of such dominance by maybe 15 years or so, ago. BJJ is certainly an essential element however.

 

[FriedRice]

I think you need to look up your UFC history and see what really happened. If you actually think it was the way you say then you are in for a disappointment I'm afraid.

I already know what happened and I'm right.

Of course BJJ won through, it was meant to, the early UFC was a showcase for BJJ and everything was angled to sell it and the Gracies. Sadly the early UFC's didn't prove anything other than it could sell.

Can you prove this. List your arguments, rather than just post a blanket statement.

This also has nothing to do with pressure points.

It certainly does if the UFC allowed ALL FORMS of pressure points attacks and they all failed miserably vs. Grapplers or even strikers. There's usually not much ninja pressure point attacks going on when someone's punching you in the face, really, really hard and not stopping.

 

[Tez3]

Sorry but you are wrong as well as rude. As I said, learn your UFC history, what the purpose behind it and what happened

 

[Tez3]

I already know what happened and I'm right.



Can you prove this. List your arguments, rather than just post a blanket statement.



It certainly does if the UFC allowed ALL FORMS of pressure points attacks and they all failed miserably vs. Grapplers or even strikers. There's usually not much ninja pressure point attacks going on when someone's punching you in the face, really, really hard and not stopping.

Whatever. Just do your research.

 

[FriedRice]

Sorry but you are wrong as well as rude. As I said, learn your UFC history, what the purpose behind it and what happened

So your argument is that you disagree, but if I disagree back then I'm rude? Funny.

 

[Tez3]

So the argument is that you disagree, but if I disagree back then I'm rude? Funny.

Your comments to K Man were rude. There was no need to write what you did, disagreement is one thing, insults another.

 

[FriedRice]

Your comments to K Man were rude. There was no need to write what you did, disagreement is one thing, insults another.

I responded in kind towards him. You obviously are biased.

 

[MJS]

Folks,

Let's keep things civil please!

 

[Noah_Legel]

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no conclusive Western scientific studies of "pressure points" from a combative perspective. There have hardly been any from a health perspective, and those have mostly been inconclusive or have shown that any health benefits seem to be due to the placebo effect.

Now, that said, "pressure points" (I'm not personally fond of that term) do work. Not all of them work as advertised, and not all of them work on all people, but they certainly exist. I prefer to think of them as "vulnerable points," and that includes all kinds of biological structures that are particularly vulnerable to negative stimuli. This means that I include obvious targets like the eyes, throat, groin, temple, floating ribs, joints, etc., along with more esoteric ones like nerve plexuses and the carotid sinus. A friend of mine has put together this article on his view of vulnerable points from a Western perspective, and while he is not a professional researcher or medical expert, he does have extensive training in classical Okinawan arts--be sure to check the comments, too, where he addresses a common complaint regarding combat sports: Ryukyu Martial Arts A Neurophysiological Approach to Kyusho

In the end, at least to me, vulnerable points are extra credit. A punch to the head is a punch to the head, certainly, but a punch to the temple works a bit better than a punch that lands on the forehead. The key is to never put yourself in a vulnerable position trying to access a vulnerable point, in the hope that it will end the fight. Follow sound principles, and the appropriate targets will be evident. If you attack a vulnerable point and it doesn't have an enhanced effect, it should still have been better than doing nothing. Kyusho-jutsu is a component of martial arts, not an art in and of itself, like some snake-oil salesmen like to claim. It is present, but it isn't its own fighting system--people who treat it as such tend to lose sight of reality.