Skipping training out of laziness

JowGaWolf said:
I read this and did some research on it and I'm not sure how you think this supports what you are saying. The theory has been discreditied. And if you are referring to Phantom limb pain being all in your mind. Here's what is said about why that happens

What Causes Phantom Pain?:

This is a common statement about Specificity Theory:

"while the specificity theory was an early model of pain perception, it has been discredited by empirical evidence and our evolving understanding of pain."
Basically it no longer holds value beyond historical. Which is probably why it's still a Theory. One that was proven incorrect.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about "discredited. By whom.

This is pain theory 101 and it's still taught for good reasons. I hoped giving you some reading would help you understand.

More reading.

 
Gyakuto said:
I have to admit, I’m taking 3-4 months off MA training because I’m wasn’t enjoying it, or rather training with my teacher at his dojo (for complex reasons and not laziness!). I think and read about my art continually but I’m not missing training which my teacher warned might be the case as it was for him, until I start training again.

There’s a young lady from my old dojo, up north who’s moved to near me down south (I’ve never met her) who wants me to teach her Iaido one-to-one and I was going to use this to get back in the dojo. But she seems to be busy with her studies to organise anything, so that looks like it‘s unlikely to happen.

In the meantime I’m weight training really hard and trying a few unusual classes such as ‘functional fitness’ to improve my balance, flexibility and stamina. I’m informally personally training a lovely woman from the functional fitness class in weight training which I enjoy very much. But swinging my sword….🤷🏾
Click to expand...
Love this response. Great attitude here. Sometimes we need to switch things up. Not everyone is content with heading to the same training hall with the same teacher year-in year-out. Stagnation is a real thing, as is burnout.

Taking a short break was mentioned in a previous response and it can be a real boon to do so. Gyakuto's post here reminds us that, even if we are taking a break, we can continue to think and read about our chosen art. Seeking out another martial art can also reignite your passion for training too, even if just for a short period of time before returning to your original practice.

Heading to the gym and building your strength, stamina and flexibility is also a worthwhile approach and good way of stimulating new skills and growth as Gyakuto mentions above. There are so many different ways we can keep ourselves active and inspired, we needn't put pressure on ourselves to keep attending the same training hall and following old patterns... changing direction now and again can definitely bring new energy to our lives and martial arts practices.
 
Last edited:
Glaeken said:
Not ready to share that yet. Sensitive subject, between me and my therapist, but thanks for asking.
Click to expand...
No worries. Just thought that our paths may have crossed.
 
Glaeken said:
What are you talking about "discredited. By whom.

This is pain theory 101 and it's still taught for good reasons. I hoped giving you some reading would help you understand.

More reading.

Click to expand...
All it takes is a little reading this is from the same source that you posted.
"

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMPETING PAIN THEORIES​

Each of the major pain theories discussed in the previous sections adequately described a series of observations about the nociceptive system and pain perception. However, none adequately accounted for the complexity of the pain system. For instance, although the Specificity Theory appropriately described sensory receptors that are specific to nociceptive stimuli and primary afferents that show responses only to suprathreshold stimuli, it did not account for neurons in the central nervous system (CNS) that respond to both non-nociceptive and nociceptive stimuli (e.g., wide-dynamic range neurons). Although these neurons are well characterized, their function in pain perception has yet to be determined.

Another shortcoming of these theories is that they focus on cutaneous pain and do not address issues pertaining to deep-tissue, visceral, or muscular pains. " Source- https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00457.2012

The phantom limb pain discredits the specificity theory because people feel pain where there is no limb. Based on that theory "Brain Freeze" also probably discredits it as well, since the area that is being affected is in the mouth, but the pain is felt in the head.

Accupunture is probably something else that would discredit the specificity theory.

The pain specificity theory is from the 1800's so it only makes sense that it doesn't apply today. The reason it's Pain 101, because of its historical value and the role that it played in the advancement of pain research.

The theory also highlights the limitation of the tools available in order to study pain. 1800 technology vs 2024 technology is what we are looking at.
 
gyoja said:
What branch and when, if you don’t mind me asking.
Click to expand...
Not ready to share that yet. Sensitive subject, between me and my therapist, but thanks for asking.
JowGaWolf said:
All it takes is a little reading this is from the same source that you posted.
"

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE COMPETING PAIN THEORIES​

Each of the major pain theories discussed in the previous sections adequately described a series of observations about the nociceptive system and pain perception. However, none adequately accounted for the complexity of the pain system. For instance, although the Specificity Theory appropriately described sensory receptors that are specific to nociceptive stimuli and primary afferents that show responses only to suprathreshold stimuli, it did not account for neurons in the central nervous system (CNS) that respond to both non-nociceptive and nociceptive stimuli (e.g., wide-dynamic range neurons). Although these neurons are well characterized, their function in pain perception has yet to be determined.

Another shortcoming of these theories is that they focus on cutaneous pain and do not address issues pertaining to deep-tissue, visceral, or muscular pains. " Source- https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00457.2012

The phantom limb pain discredits the specificity theory because people feel pain where there is no limb. Based on that theory "Brain Freeze" also probably discredits it as well, since the area that is being affected is in the mouth, but the pain is felt in the head.

Accupunture is probably something else that would discredit the specificity theory.

The pain specificity theory is from the 1800's so it only makes sense that it doesn't apply today. The reason it's Pain 101, because of its historical value and the role that it played in the advancement of pain research.

The theory also highlights the limitation of the tools available in order to study pain. 1800 technology vs 2024 technology is what we are looking at.
Click to expand...
You are completely misunderstanding pain theory, which is why I mentioned it in the first place and suggested you start at the beginning.

Charles Bell's work formed the grounding of the last 200 years of empirically based pain medicine.

It is not a "discredited" theory at all. It may not explain everything but it's still foundation work in the field.

Charles Darwin's early theories also fell short under further scrutiny, that's how the process works.

I suggest you read this again, but with an open mind rather than cherry picking statements that seem to support whatever argument you think you're making. I'm trying to educate you, and you're trying to win some Internet argument.
 
JowGaWolf said:
I think it started with Post #36 "No pain no gain." but for me it started with "pain doesn't serve purpose."

Someone said something that sounded really crazy to me and I couldn't let it pass lol.
Click to expand...
Someone sugested that "soldiering on" was some sort of cultural male toxicity thing, and that "no pain no gain" means to train through injury, neither of which is true. Enduring pain and suffering is an important part of life, and conditioning yourself to stop whenever you feel pain is wrong.

And you just don't understand what I mean about pain being purposeless. This is a philosophy of medical science statement. If I cut off your arm, you'll feel it and it's definitely a sign of something wrong. But there are many forms and modalities of pain (hence all the competing theories).

But the idea that pain itself is just an evolutionary self defense system is highly debated even today.

And humans happen to be one animal that can resist almost any pain, which is why we are the alpha species on the planet.

Once again, birthing mother experiences extreme pain, but soldiers on because it's not a sign anything is wrong, in fact if all goes well it'a beautiful, bloody event.

You have a very novel perception of pain (which is normal for most people). You're also some sort of boxer, so is feeling the sting from a jab a sign something is wrong, or is that sting just part of the environment you need to overcome? Are you going to stop as soon as you feel it? I hope not, you'll make a poor boxer.

All of these theories are still valuable, and not just historically. If you treat Specificity Theory as if it's Flat Earth or Copernicean Heliocentrism, you're just wrong. Specificity still explains a hell of a lot, and even in the 1800s we were doing science pretty well. Dissection had been around a long time.

I can only log on a couple times a day, the site is really slow, but I hope you reread this and come back with a better understanding

 
Glaeken said:
Not ready to share that yet. Sensitive subject, between me and my therapist, but thanks for asking.

You are completely misunderstanding pain theory, which is why I mentioned it in the first place and suggested you start at the beginning.

Charles Bell's work formed the grounding of the last 200 years of empirically based pain medicine.

It is not a "discredited" theory at all. It may not explain everything but it's still foundation work in the field.

Charles Darwin's early theories also fell short under further scrutiny, that's how the process works.

I suggest you read this again, but with an open mind rather than cherry picking statements that seem to support whatever argument you think you're making. I'm trying to educate you, and you're trying to win some Internet argument.
Click to expand...
Again, no worries. I met a lot of people while associated with DOD for 30 years. Just thought that we may have shared the same dirt.
 
Also, it helps to know a little about a groundbreaking scientist's work before you start making claims that their theories are somehow wrong. This man dissected spinal nerves and did early work on Bell's Palsy.

Work continues on and using Specificity to this day. Bell's research was a keystone...he wasn't some alchemist you know.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Charles Bell - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Glaeken said:
I suggest you read this again, but with an open mind rather than cherry picking statements that seem to support whatever argument you think you're making. I'm trying to educate you, and you're trying to win some Internet argument
Click to expand...
lol I'm the one that told you that it was foundational work.
These are my words not yours.
"The reason it's Pain 101, because of its historical value and the role that it played in the advancement of pain research."

I didn't have to cherry pick. I just had to ask the right question.
1711818943275.png
-
 
Glaeken said:
Someone sugested that "soldiering on" was some sort of cultural male toxicity thing, and that "no pain no gain" means to train through injury, neither of which is true. Enduring pain and suffering is an important part of life, and conditioning yourself to stop whenever you feel pain is wrong.
Click to expand...
It seems that you misunderstood, and misquoted the post :confused:
 
Last edited:
JowGaWolf said:
lol I'm the one that told you that it was foundational work.
These are my words not yours.
"The reason it's Pain 101, because of its historical value and the role that it played in the advancement of pain research."

I didn't have to cherry pick. I just had to ask the right question.
View attachment 30863-
Click to expand...
No. That answer is wrong. Engel's model is far from "the accepted pain theory today". This is what happens when someone with no theoretical grounding and a bias to scratch checks the internet.

You are one hair away from all those people who suddenly became experts on mRNA and gain of function.

My 15 years of postgraduate schooling, years of residency, and 30 years of practicing medicine overall were not just trumped by your Bing Search.

You are still cherry picking. You just asked Bing was "the accepted pain theory is today". The correct answer is "none of the above".

Here, read more about why doctors are debating whether to "abandon pain as a “useless concept.”

mediaspace.msu.edu

Pain But No Gain: Pain as a Problematic and Useless Concept?

Technical issues arose during this event that resulted in no audio in some places. Audio begins about 8 minutes in.Marleen Eijkholt, JD, PhD Assistant Professor Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology Michigan State...
mediaspace.msu.edu mediaspace.msu.edu
 
More reading. Still can't believe you're trying to lecture me. It's annoying that it takes 3 minutes to post anything, but I really don't want you convincing anyone that Bell or any other modern theory has ever been thrown out.

Here's an actual trusted source that slam dunks on your Bing Search, which produced a relatively controversial and alternate pain theory that is far from the "accepted" model.

I recommend letting your bias go and just reading, rather than trying to debate a doctor on science. It's a waste of your time, you don't have the full context for understand.

"The biopsychosocial model outlined in Engel’s classic Science paper four decades ago emerged from dissatisfaction with the biomedical model of illness, which remains the dominant healthcare model. Engel’s call to arms for a biopsychosocial model has been taken up in several healthcare fields, but it has not been accepted in the more economically dominant and politically powerful acute medical and surgical domains. It is widely used in research into complex healthcare interventions, it is the basis of the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Functioning (WHO ICF), it is used clinically, and it is used to structure clinical guidelines. Critically, it is now generally accepted that illness and health are the result of an interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Despite the evidence supporting its validity and utility, the biopsychosocial model has had little influence on the larger scale organization and funding of healthcare provision"

 
Taiji Rebel said:
It seems that you misunderstood, and misquoted, the post :confused:
Click to expand...
I think if you post it again, I would have the same disagreement. Post it again, maybe i missed something, but maybe I was offended by the use of "soldiering on" being a bad thing.

And no pain no gain never means train through injury. Pain is subjective, it hurts to lift, but it's not a sign of wrong...those muscle fibers are microtearing as intended.

If we said "no muscle tearing, no gain" it would be true, wouldn't it.

But we've moved onto people passing around medical misinformation they pulled off Bing.

Now someone is claiming a heavily criticized pain theory is the one real one, and the last 200 years of research into pain has all been throw out? No.

In case anyone missed it, Charles Bell the doctor who developed Specificity Theory, is also who Bells Palsy is named after. His work on facial and spinal nerves is at the heart of medical understanding of pain and associated symptoms.

Engel's BPS model is not even remotely universally accepted, but all it took was one Bing searcher on a martial arts hobby wensite to prove Dr. Glaeken wrong.

It's fine, I've been dealing with this for years with anti vaxxers and hypochondriacs. Attacked on all sides by armchair experts.
 
Last edited:
Glaeken said:
Someone sugested that "soldiering on" was some sort of cultural male toxicity thing, and that "no pain no gain" means to train through injury, neither of which is true. Enduring pain and suffering is an important part of life, and conditioning yourself to stop whenever you feel pain is wrong.
Click to expand...
This is why I asked about your age. People my age and older grew up where those phrases mean "Push through the pain."

Here's how Wikipedia describes it.
No pain, no gain (or "No gain without pain") is a proverb, used since the 1980s as an exercise motto that promises greater value rewards for the price of hard and even painful work.
"It came into prominence after 1982 when actress Jane Fonda began to produce a series of aerobics workout videos. In these videos, Fonda would use "No pain, no gain" and "Feel the burn" as catchphrases for the concept of working out past the point of experiencing muscle aches.[3]

It expresses the belief that solid large muscle is the result of training hard. Delayed onset muscle soreness is often used as a measure of the effectiveness of a workout."F[4
- Source: Wikipedia.

Keyword = Painful Work. If you don't feel pain then you aren't doing work. A entire generation grew up with that understanding. Which is why you have a lot of OLD martial artist telling you not to work out that way.

Again in Wikipedia
"In terms of the expression used for development, the discomfort caused may be beneficial in some instances while detrimental in others. Detrimental pain can include joint pain. Beneficial pain usually refers to that resulting from tearing microscopic muscle fibers, which will be rebuilt more densely, making a bigger muscle."

Here it is again
In the world of sport and fitness, the expression or motto “no pain, no gain” is frequently used to encourage athletes to push harder, even if it means enduring pain, in order to achieve quality - Source https://www.stamfordhealth.org/heal...aught that in,through pain can be detrimental.

Here's another article talking about "No Pain No Gain"
Why "No Pain No Gain" Is No Gym Motto
www.huffpost.com

Why "No Pain No Gain" Is No Gym Motto

How many times have you heard this expression: No pain = no gain? This isn't necessarily true. You can still get great results from a decent workout without killing yourself. Don't believe me? Take a look at fit people. They have don't kill themselves in order to be fit. They just workout regularly.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com

So the guys in here that talk about the Toxic Masculinity environment know how this term was used and where it was used, and when it was used. Which actually reminds me of a statement that you made about there being no purpose for pain. Which pretty much reflext that toxicity. Sort of like "Pain is weakness leaving the body."
 
Glaeken said:
More reading. Still can't believe you're trying to lecture me. It's annoying that it takes 3 minutes to post anything, but I really don't want you convincing anyone that Bell or any other modern theory has ever been thrown out.

Here's an actual trusted source that slam dunks on your Bing Search, which produced a relatively controversial and alternate pain theory that is far from the "accepted" model.

I recommend letting your bias go and just reading, rather than trying to debate a doctor on science. It's a waste of your time, you don't have the full context for understand.

"The biopsychosocial model outlined in Engel’s classic Science paper four decades ago emerged from dissatisfaction with the biomedical model of illness, which remains the dominant healthcare model. Engel’s call to arms for a biopsychosocial model has been taken up in several healthcare fields, but it has not been accepted in the more economically dominant and politically powerful acute medical and surgical domains. It is widely used in research into complex healthcare interventions, it is the basis of the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Functioning (WHO ICF), it is used clinically, and it is used to structure clinical guidelines. Critically, it is now generally accepted that illness and health are the result of an interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Despite the evidence supporting its validity and utility, the biopsychosocial model has had little influence on the larger scale organization and funding of healthcare provision"

Click to expand...
So what this says right after your bold print that it's widely used. Which must mean it's widely accepted? Just saying. The last bold print that you posted talks about funding.

You know what isn't stated in your post? Pain Specitivity. Took me less than 3 minutes to discover that bit. Find on page works wonders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Dojo situation? How set up?

Previous Thread

Blackbelt issuing organizations

Next Thread

Similar threads

Ivan
Struggling a lot with discipline since injury
Replies
6
Views
635
O'Malley
O
Ivan
Lethargy after competition
Replies
2
Views
762
Holmejr
H
W
What do you call it when you can't get yourself to train?
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
_Simon_
_Simon_
Manny
What to do?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
granfire
granfire
G
Is it possible to become too comfortable with one's training partner?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Aefibird
Aefibird

Latest Discussions

Back
Top