# Hand Conditioning-Internal/External



## LawDog (Feb 28, 2007)

Hand conditioning:
Internal - how does it work.
The bone structure inside of your hand is designed to support the grasping by your fingers or holding etc. This type of structure is not effective against a frontal type of impact against the knuckle / finger tip area or impacting through any of the four main sides of the hand - knife, ridge, palm and backfist. The tissue around the hand bones are not dense enough to support the bones during these types of impacts.
This is very important to understand, if you take your hand and place it into a body of water it will pass through the water with ease. Now if you make your hand go faster you will feel a sharp impact as your hand enters the water. If you swing your hand very fast the water will feel like concrete. The reason for this is water will not compress. For your hand to pass through the water the water must move around your hand. The faster your hand moves the faster the water must move.
As I stated earlier, the tissue/matter in your body is made up of a high percentage of water. When you work on internal hand conditioning your body will make the tissue/matter inside of your hand denser. Higher density means a higher fluid level. If you slowly squeeze a hand that has been internally conditioned it will feel soft. When you take a conditioned hand and strike it against something the hand will become hard inside. The fluids inside the hand will not compress and will try to move. The faster the hand goes, on impact, it will become harder. The outer skin acts like a pool liner and keeps the tissue/matter in place. 
What an internally conditioned hand will do,
* slows down or stops the object being impacted upon from hitting or damaging the hands internal bone structure,
* The denser the hand the more will it weigh,
* Encases the bones, like concrete, thus supporting them.
This is a short explaination, the full version takes a long time to type out, for me anyway.
External hand conditioning.
Makes the skin around protruding bones denser. This denser skin will act as a cushion between a bone and the impact point.
Note - Hand conditioning is a slow development process, done properly it will take years to complete. Short cutting the process will cause damage to your hands or to other parts of the body that you may want to condition


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 28, 2007)

Very interesting. What are some methods to internally condition the hand?


----------



## LawDog (Feb 28, 2007)

I just finished a double shift, right now I am on the double vison thing. I will write it out later on.


----------



## Carol (Feb 28, 2007)

I hear ya loud and clear on that one!   Looking forward to hearing more


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 28, 2007)

Same for me too! Looking forward to hear it sir! Go get some rest. :asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

Can you provide references to any sort of medical evidence on this?  SOunds rather pseudo-scienceish to be honest.

Skin scars and calluses, microfractures in bones rebuild a little stronger.  Those things I am aware of.  Increased water density that is soft when squeezed and hard when hit, that I'm skeptical about.


----------



## Gufbal1982 (Mar 1, 2007)

If you want to see some good Iron Palm training DVD, check this one out...it definately conditions the hand internally and externally.

http://www.bolawkungfu.com/index.php?sec=products


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Can you provide references to any sort of medical evidence on this?  SOunds rather pseudo-scienceish to be honest.



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.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 1, 2007)

What I was referring to when I stated that the tissue will thicken, my meaning was that the inside of the hand will become thicker. My use of the word tissue in general might have been incorrect by proper medical terminology. 
As far as the properties of water when exposed to various speeds, check it out.
I was instructed in the art of hand conditioning by chinese masters and grandmasters during the 70's & 80's. I have full trust in what they have told me, they and their instructors instructor have been doing this for a long time. Nothing pseudo-scienceish about them. 
I will stand behind what they have told me and what I wrote.
Respectfully,


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Nothing pseudo-scienceish about them.



I think you are rather mistaken, and I think you would have a hard time finding a scientist that agrees with you.  But if you can cite some sort of medical document to back this up I will be much more open to the idea. But I have heard far too many completely fictional claims made by old martial arts guys to take something like this for granted.

It is explaining an effect without following the scientific process.  There hands might get tougher from what they do, but this is not why.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 1, 2007)

LawDog said:


> I was instructed in the art of hand conditioning by chinese masters and grandmasters during the 70's & 80's. I have full trust in what they have told me, they and their instructors instructor have been doing this for a long time. Nothing pseudo-scienceish about them.



Certainly then, the masters have histological sections of conditioned and non-conditioned tissue to back up their claims?  Specific gravity measurements, as well as a mass-spec analysis of the tissue to confirm changes in water content?


----------



## Carol (Mar 1, 2007)

My instructor got me started on some specific exercises for hand conditioning as well as posture/body mechanics today at my private lesson.  We use a pair of sackloth bags filled with mung beans.   Guro may described that there are properties of mung beans that help stimulate the nervous system.  I can't speak for the science behind it but...it's several hours later and my hands are still stinging a bit.  Not sure what any of that means but I'm looking forward to more of what LawDog has to say.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 1, 2007)

As I stated before, I will stand by what I wrote. I have been in the martial arts for over forty years and have found that what the chinese masters have taught me to be correct. It was not long ago that the science community call the chinese acupuncture masters frauds. Acupuncture is now being accepted by the science community. Even Chinese herbal medicine was scoffed at, now I am told that this view point is changing.
I do what I do and have produced some top of the line black belts, most of whom have been with me from twenty to thirty four years. One of my long timers is a retired physics teacher. I do not believe that she would attend any of my theory instruction classes if I was not correct.
If you wish to discuss science the next time you are in the area I will introduce you to her and you may ask her anything you want about what teach. I will even introduce to a few of those chinese masters and you may converse with them freely.
I will not try to convince anyone of anything on a forum, this never works out. If you wish to converse with me in person, please do, then there can be no miscommunication between us.
Till then have fun in your chosen arts.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

Now, I could be wrong on this, but I believe that although acupuncture is accepted, the traditional reasons that where said to make it work have not been accepted.  Same thing here, we aren't going to argue that it doesn't work, just that the reasons given are not what is really going on.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 2, 2007)

The old mystical stuff has not been however the physical reason's as to why have been, by most but not all. Most of the modern day masters do not believe in the mystical end of it either. 
Take care and have a good day.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Now, I could be wrong on this, but I believe that although acupuncture is accepted, the traditional reasons that where said to make it work have not been accepted. Same thing here, we aren't going to argue that it doesn't work, just that the reasons given are not what is really going on.


 
Hey, maybe there really are meridians etc. Who knows? Maybe they're only allegories to explain something scientifically unknown at the time. Point is: if it works, use it.


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

And maybe a lot of this really is hogwash. The spleen is not the master governing organ. You can take it out and live a perfectly normal life. It is impossible to distill qi from the air. The traditional remedy for snakebite, soaking a cucumber in your urine for three days and eating the resulting nasty pickle, will not work. There is no elixir of immortality that works by virtue of the toxin containing the anti-toxin. I could go on. At length.

We know infinitely more about the physical and biological sciences now than we did then. "I've spent forty years learning to hit people" and "I arrest criminals and give out parking tickets" are completely irrelevant and do not constitute a basis for an informed opinion let alone qualifications in histology, physiology or biochemistry. The argument from authority, i.e. "The Ancient Chinese Masters say so, and I believe them" holds even less water.

It also begs the question of why you would want to risk traumatic arthritis in an age where fine motor control and finger sensitivity are so important. The reason so many of the bare-knuckle boxing punches were backfists and hammerfists was to protect the hands. Elbows, knees, forearms and shins are much sturdier. You can train them to really impressive density without taking a chance at crippling yourself. I've seen before and after x-rays of a guy who did hardcore Cimande training. His ulna and radius were much more radio-lucent afterwards.


----------



## Ray (Mar 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> And maybe a lot of this really is hogwash. The spleen is not the master governing organ.


I agree.  I can't put into print what my master governing organ is, though.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 2, 2007)

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:


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

Let's put it this way, Ray. In the Talmud the Sages state that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the man a magnificent brain and a versatile male member but not enough blood to supply both at the same time


----------



## John Bishop (Mar 2, 2007)

*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 (Mar 2, 2007)

Thanks John!  :asian:


----------



## Carol (Mar 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

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 (Mar 2, 2007)

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 (Mar 2, 2007)

John Bishop said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2007)

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 (Mar 2, 2007)

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 (Mar 3, 2007)

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 (Mar 3, 2007)

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 (Mar 3, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


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



Uh-oh. :uhohh: 




Carol Kaur said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2007)

LawDog said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2007)

Danjo said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2007)

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 (Mar 4, 2007)

distalero said:


> 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.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 4, 2007)

Distalero,
I agree with you, a persons fingertips are one of the most sensitive areas on the human body. On many of dates I have appreciated that medical fact.:ultracool 

I am not against science, those who know me will state that I am very pro science. When I have been taught something and I have questions about it I will go to the appropriate specialists and ask them if the subject in question has been researched or not. If there was scientific research in the area and it produced conclusive results I will adjust accordingly. If there has been no real reasearch I will then place any scientific opinon about the subject into the area of personal opinon.
The Pro Mad Scientist,
Al C.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 4, 2007)

Dajo,
for my personal use I believe in,
Hard to Soft,
Hard to Hard,
In a free fight on an uninjured opponent, the doorways for the soft targets change to rapidly, suddenly your soft target could become a hard target.
My students choose their own perferred striking weapons.


----------



## Doc (Mar 4, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think you are rather mistaken, and I think you would have a hard time finding a scientist that agrees with you.  But if you can cite some sort of medical document to back this up I will be much more open to the idea. But I have heard far too many completely fictional claims made by old martial arts guys to take something like this for granted.
> 
> It is explaining an effect without following the scientific process.  There hands might get tougher from what they do, but this is not why.



I agree.


----------



## Bob Wright (Mar 5, 2007)

Lots of good points here, in a nutshell I firmly believe that in a scenerio of two people with all things equal, those with conditioned knuckles will inflict more damage against an attacker(s). Just my thoughts! Regards.

_*Bob Wright*_
_*Black Dragon Kempo*_
_*Melbourne AUSTRALIA*_


----------



## bakxierboxer (Mar 6, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


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




keratosis is not the same as a callus/callosity.
Medically, keratosis is usually known as the result/symptom of a disease or malign "condition".

Furthermore, proper MA conditioning is not merely superficial.
Over time, any developed superfical callosities are eventually "backed up" by "in depth"  (hopefully orthopaedically neutral) callus/callosities on the bones.

Pete


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 7, 2007)

bakxierboxer said:


> Over time, any developed superfical callosities are eventually "backed up" by "in depth"  (hopefully orthopaedically neutral) callus/callosities on the bones.



Yes, I already indicated that bone increases density and trebecular alignment upon repeated stress.  The question at hand is whether the soft tissue changes density, specifically by changes in water content.  To my knowledge it does not.  For one thing, increased solute content in the tissue would increase the colloidal pressure, probably leading to edema.


----------



## bakxierboxer (Mar 7, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, I already indicated that bone increases density and trebecular alignment upon repeated stress.  The question at hand is whether the soft tissue changes density, specifically by changes in water content.  To my knowledge it does not.  For one thing, increased solute content in the tissue would increase the colloidal pressure, probably leading to edema.



Taking "first things first"...
My post was a response to your assertion that it was:



> Probably keratosis of the skin....


and that "first thing" response was



> keratosis is not the same as a callus/callosity.
> Medically, keratosis is usually known as the result/symptom of a disease or malign "condition".


As for colloidal pressure within the tissues, callused skin generally has *less *than "normal" non-edematous tissue.

Keratosis is also usually confined to the upper/outer layers of the (epi)dermis.
Callus/callosities frequently become a good deal "thicker" over time.

Keratosis is an immune system response.
Callosities are a function of the body's adaptive/maintenance systems.

Pete


----------



## distalero (Mar 9, 2007)

So, in summation (and to beat the issue to death, with whatever condition our hands are in):

1. Keratosis is a clinical issue, ie generally an abnormal condition

2. Keratin, a substance that forms in the upper cell layers of epidermis as it cornifies is the usual condition, only requiring us to look down at a body part and wave "Hi" in order to acknowlege it

3. Callus is the tissue/structure/condition resulting from repeated stress to a tissue that can respond in this particular manner.

4. Time, which heals all wounds in the short term , can cause conditions which compromise function in the longer term, if you go a beatin' your joints and kha-nuckles against enough resistance.


----------



## Carol (Mar 9, 2007)

distalero said:


> 4. Time, which heals all wounds in the short term



And as any lady can affirm, time wounds all heels. :roflmao:


----------



## bakxierboxer (Mar 10, 2007)

distalero said:


> So, in summation (and to beat the issue to death, with whatever condition our hands are in)



A nice synopsis.
Some of your wording even prompted the return of some few memories
 of the earlier days of Kajukenbo on the mainland.



> 2. Keratin, a substance that forms in the upper cell layers of epidermis as it *corn*ifies is the usual condition, only requiring us to look down at a body part and wave "Hi" in order to acknowlege it


The "corn" in cornify is one such prompt.



> 3. Callus is the tissue/structure/condition resulting from repeated stress to a tissue that can respond in this particular manner.


Also reminds me that the current methods of conditioning are 
not as inclusive as they used to be.



> 4. Time, which heals all wounds in the short term , can cause conditions which compromise function in the longer term, if you go a beatin' your joints and kha-nuckles against enough resistance.


My first Sifu had no malformations of his hands.
I do not... excepting a couple from youthful work-incidents 
involving automobiles & servicing them.
While I was never big on hard conditioning, I've done a 
reasonable amount of soft conditoning, and my dexterity 
remains unimpaired.
If anything, my hands are still almost "too flexible".

Pete


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm still interested in hearing the techniques for hand conditioning described.

thanks mr. C

-David


----------



## Ray (Mar 12, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> I'm still interested in hearing the techniques for hand conditioning described.


I'm pretty sure you can find a description in one of two books by Mr. Parker: Secrets of Chinese Karate or Kenpo Karate: Law of the Fist and Empty Hand.  I don't recall which one though.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> I'm pretty sure you can find a description in one of two books by Mr. Parker: Secrets of Chinese Karate or Kenpo Karate: Law of the Fist and Empty Hand. I don't recall which one though.


 
Thanks, Ray, I also have a guy who has completed Iron Palm through is Yi Li Quan training (and does the most impressive rock breaking), and has offered to get me there too...

But I was specifcially interested in what Mr. Cunningham had to say on the subject (him being a Senior in my particular branch of the tree and all   (and I'd be happy to compare it to what Mr. Parker wrote - I bet they are similar having come from similar sources)


----------



## Ray (Mar 12, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> Thanks, Ray, I also have a guy who has completed Iron Palm through is Yi Li Quan training...


One of my students attended Yi Li Quan in your area when he lived in Nebraska.  

I'll have to ask him is he had any of that conditioning.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 13, 2007)

I'm working with Sifu Tim H. ... when I can find the time  which is not much lately


----------

