So much to do with pressure points (dim mak,tcm etc.)

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Anybody wanna chat about them?
I came up with some questions that have been traveling trough my mind for a while.
1.How do you think was acupuncture (meridian theory) created?
How did they find out about them? (locations,use) I personally know somehow ancient chinese doctors learned how to affect certain organs etc. Idea of chi was created four thousand years agoin China and so on.
2.What do you say for those who pick on TCM theory saying those methods and ideas are not real and have been made up.
I have had such situations where I´ve tried to explain this but they just seem to feel it´s not scientificical enough and can´t be proven (This is not an issue for me,for I think that strong support for TCM methods in even WESTERN countries speaks by itself)
3.What do you think is especially good about pressure points “in combat”,how about what´s bad??
Here are some “points” I have come up with.
Good:
-Few know the locations of points and therefore know how to protect them.
-Does generally take little power to affect (there are points which do have multiple different effects if struck such as "light blow-knock-out hard blow-death (in some cases)
-Do have many different influences,from taking the will to fight to taking the will to live.
-Amount (there are so many)
Bad:
-Many of the points seem to be very hard to go for.This includes:
1.heavy clothing (Just try striking that lung point trough a leather jacket (of course,this also affects vital point striking in general but is especially true about dim mak)
2.Clothing in general-Hard to seek for trough any kind of clothing,requires an impressive amount of accuracy (Seeing some kyusho-jitsu instructor taking his moving student out by striking some non-vicible point from his spinal cord,get the idea?)
-Small,small size.Because of this,I personally prefer points which can be “seen”,such of the head and hands,and in this case those ones which have clear locations like between the eyebrows or right below the nose.
-Possible differences in influence between people and time cycle (they should always work in a way or another,and this is probably a minor problem,seems to share some people in two though,when it comes to opinions)
Then back to main questions:
4.pressure point,nerve or even a nerve point?
While in TCM/CMA a certain point may be called a pressure point,it is not that impossible to find out that western medicine/physiology actually “recognizes” the point but instead of calling it one notes that it is a nerve (or possibly related)
As western medicine does not still look at TCM with eyes that wide open,TCM has gained some recognition from WMS (at least that is what I´ve heard,please correct if you know else) possibly because they have to find their own way of explaining it,they can´t just dump it,don´t they?
Then about nerve points,for me these have long remained the same-pp=np np=pp see? Just slightly different spelling,but it seems that for some,these can be slightly different things (as when talking about combat application one could say “this is a pressure point it can make you die of heart failure” “Oh this is more like a nerve point it causes pain and numbness..” See?)
5.While it is generally considered that there are about over 365 points on the body (not to confuse them with other organs that much) Some seem to note different numbers,such as 700,maybe even 100 and over 200 (This may be a misunderstanding as the amount of points used in MARTIAL ARTS varies and is slightly art-based.An example:shorinji kempo-138 points etc.)
6.TCM and Japanese medicine-
I don´t know if I´m using the completely correct term here but even though it is probably not that much known,there also exists this japanese way of similar medicine.
It seems that in many cases,exactly same points are used,ying/yang theory etc. is largely supported (even though it´s “in&yo” in japanese etc.) there seem to be some differences,what do you think?
Is japanese…(way of TCM:confused: ) just a copy of tcm or does it have something else to give? Should it be studied?
(As some may know there are different pressure point sets used in chinese and japanese arts,probably same points just a different kind of collection,don´t know much about that just pointed it out that nobody mess it up with this)

That´s all for now.
Any input appreciated. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

2

Hmm

Not sure whats behind this polemic?! Conventional (Western) medicine will never totally embrace in its completness any other method of medcine for number of reasons. It is financially dangerous, it doesn’t comply (and this theory is so tired and blind!) enough to western though, because western medicine is the so called pinancle of the world and everything else must measure up to comply to its theorems and models of understanding, which is the most appalling sense of egotism and imbalance one could ever care to adhere to. TCM, Roots and Branches, 5-Element and the other lesser styles of Chinese Medicine ARE completely valid and effective, FACT!!.
By discussing apescts of it, i.e. Dian Xue is in one sense merely a single area of the whole issue of TCM. If you gonna say that TCM works you’ve got to kind of like say Dian Xue works too. Ive seen and felt both work, so Im either another dissullusioned soul or some with outsider information.

3

answering only to point 2

Because I need to stay within the realm of my experience and thinking on it. Maybe I ‘know’ more, but…

Anyhow: TCM is not ‘made up’. It can be profitably compared to the ‘humoral’ medicines of Galen, Hippocrates, and the medieval era. Before anyone flames me: 1- I know the difference. 2- it ALSO saved lives; it worked for it’s time.

This medical form for the West is best regarded as traditional for us. That we eventually rejected it wholesale means nothing: our current practices evolved from it.

So: not scientific? Depends on your POV. Perhaps more ‘philosophic’ (in the older sense of science) is a good description.

4

Thanks for the answers.
Yep,I personally believe TCM works well too.
Thanks again.
:slight_smile:

5

Not sure whats behind this polemic?! Conventional (Western) medicine will never totally embrace in its completness any other method of medcine for number of reasons. It is financially dangerous, it doesn’t comply (and this theory is so tired and blind!) enough to western though, because western medicine is the so called pinancle of the world and everything else must measure up to comply to its theorems and models of understanding, which is the most appalling sense of egotism and imbalance one could ever care to adhere to.

Or, alternately, it might be that the appropriate studies haven’t been done to demonstrate that it does what it says it does. God forbid people require real experimentation rather than anecdotal evidence passed word of mouth for years until somebody decided to write it down–nevermind that different pressure points do different things completely, depending on who you talk to.

Research, experiment, document, publish, allow the results to be examined and repeated by others. It’s not too much to ask. And I’m not talking about self-serving fringe studies. I’m talking about real double-blind trials conducted under appropriate guidelines.

Gosh, what temerity to insist on real evidence instead of hundreds of years of hearsay. You do know that TCM used to call for a “longevity pill,” composed primarily of cinnabar ore–which (naturally) eventually killed its victims from mercury poisoning? Or shall we discuss the use of tiger ***** to cure impotence problems?

I’m as willing to admit TCM has benefits as anyone, and if it works for you, great. But until there’s some REAL research out there, don’t tell me that it’s universally better or that you know it works because your elbow felt better and mommy’s migraines went away. All sorts of reasons for BOTH of the above other than the effects of TCM.

How about we do a little searching for what’s really going on? Maybe it’s the TCM methods… and maybe it’s not. But it would be nice to know rather than wonder, or is that part of the draw?

6

While I agree with many of your points, the history of Western medicine is fraught with error and death even with its base in experitmentation and replication.

Run around in the Reuters Health posts and you find all kind of problems with prescription drugs that have supposedly gone through rigorous scientific examination. At the University of Pittsburgh, cancer researchers have faked their data in order to receive more funding on research grants. The grant game really limits the so-called objectivity of the scientific community. I know we like to believe that it is self-correcting but if you look over the history of Western medicine, its had major problems, too.

Doctors are not scientists and there often is a big communication gap between the researchers (Ph.D.) and MDs. Doctors often rely far too much on what the drug companies report in their experimental results. Drug companies often court MDs with travel junkets.

Although there is much to be applauded in Western medicine but it also has its limits.

7

Repulsive Monkey

You seem to have a narrow, reactionary, and largely incorrect concept of western medicine. For one thing, you are confounding ‘western scientific’ with ‘western medicine’ models of understanding. Only the former is directly concerned with things conforming to theorums, or even for their being an explanatory aspect to knowledge at all. ‘Western medicine’ is quite content to use things it doesn’t understand. Moreover, if you examine the history of western medicine, you’ll find it to be extraordinarily progressive. Psychotherapy is an ideal example of something which was an utter paradigm shift to the western mind, yet nonetheless became the pinnacle of ‘medical academia’ within a single generation. There are hundreds of other excellent examples as well, which aren’t as well known to the layman. Your critique also doesn’t seem to be based upon a reasonable grasp of the current situation, as western medicine is in fact accepting methods from traditional chinese medicine.

MerryPrankster

There’s actually been quite a bit of western research on acupuncture. I’m not sure about work on other methods of TCM.

8

There are undoubtably elements in all folk medicines that contain effective methodologies. However, current medicine is based upon scientific principles that have stood the world in good stead for hundreds of years.

What I think that would be required for any practice to be accepted would be that it is:

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.

The small amount that I have researched folk/new age hasn’t borne much of this out.

On acupuncture, from a subjective standpoint I have seen results with acquaintances. What it APPEARS to do is remove discomfort (pain, feelings of pressure, etc.) for a short period of time. I have never actually seem it cure anything.

On the other hand, most modern medicine doesn’t seem to cure anything either…it simply helps the body fix itself.

9

Croaker - I’m not sure where you have been doing your research on the subject, but there is an abundance of research on acupuncture showing significant results. Do a medline search, periodical search, or even a Google search will turn up days worth of reading on the topic.

10

I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water regardless of whether we are washing Western medicine or TCM. I am more interested in paying attention to its limitations.

In both systems, there is a significant socio-political-business clouding which we have to sort out.

I have been lucky to have interacted with TCM Chinese practitioners that trained in both Western and Eastern medicine. They recognize the limits and pluses of both systems and use them pragmatically to solve the problem at hand.

Antibiotics are definitely one of the pluses in Western medicine which I wouldn’t give up for a moment when needed.

However, I have been around too many grant writers and know how data gets fudged in order to receive a grant. There is a lot of “guan xi” in the world of grant writing and that spurs a lot of our research.

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.

I really wish it worked that well outside the lab.

I am sure TCM will soon face its own distortions and exploitation. Its one of the biggest expanding industries in China and it will be exploited for its potential cash flow. When the shi(e)t hits the fan, even the TCM industries in China respond to economic profit.

11

TRUTH!

I can sum up in one word WHY Western medicine is at once so far advanced AND so much more deadly and devious than TCM, etc.: DENTISTRY.

The difficulty in doing research is that, how are you going to test for chi? We can show that, for instance, the triple burner does not exist, but does that mean the concept is useless? Possibly the best area to check for result is the diagnostic regime: pulse taking, etc.

12

Much of TCM’s “medicines” are environmentally destructive, even more so than western meds. Bear Gaul, Rhino Horn, Shark Fin, etc. Notice how it has to cause something a grisly death so they can be “virile”?

13

AGH! One more, then class

There’s a kind of movement afoot to export more viagra to asian countries, after noticing that the killings of endangered species went down after it’s introduction. If I can find the verdammt link, I will send it.

Ah, yes, the irony…animal experimentation saves the endangered species…!

14

I should have been more clear–I agree that Western Medicine is rife with errors too. But it’s the ongoing process, the willing to admit mistakes (sometimes forced to…thalidomide anyone?) and the continuing quest for ever better treatment and methods. Examining TCM should be part of that exploration.

15

Anybody for Snake Head fish?

16

dim mak

It was made from the sun shining on the body, certain times of the day you will have a shadow appear on the muscle with trail and error.
i THINK!? LOL

FT :slight_smile:

17

Re: So much to do with pressure points (dim mak,tcm etc.)

Originally posted by Former castleva

1.How do you think was acupuncture (meridian theory) created?
How did they find out about them? (locations,use)

Probably from observation of what happened in their bodies during meditation and by seeing what happened when they rubbed sore points.

2.What do you say for those who pick on TCM theory saying those methods and ideas are not real and have been made up.

TCM theories are no more or less “made up” than molecular theory. They are both models. Neither one of them is real.

A big part of the problem is that nobody knows what to measure. If there is chi flowing through meridians, we need to find a way to measure it. If it’s a neurologic phenomenon, we need to find a way to measure what the nervous system is doing. I think there has been some work done with PET scans showing changes in brain activity during acupuncture.

We won’t see any double-blind studies of acupuncture for the same reason that we don’t see double-blind studies of surgery. The guy with the needle or knife in his hand needs to know what he’s doing.

Single blind is just about impossible to do with acupuncture, too. You can’t needle some people, not needle others, and expect them not to know the difference.

The easiest thing is to do outcome studies. Take a group and give them a particular treatment, and see how many of them get well compared to no treament and compared to other known treatments. As more of these get published, acupuncture will become more mainstream.

3.What do you think is especially good about pressure points “in combat”,how about what´s bad??

I like the fact that there are places on the human body where I can hit someone and they’ll feel it, even if they’re much bigger and stronger than I am.

4.pressure point,nerve or even a nerve point?
While in TCM/CMA a certain point may be called a pressure point,it is not that impossible to find out that western medicine/physiology actually “recognizes” the point but instead of calling it one notes that it is a nerve (or possibly related)

A lot of acupuncture points correspond to common trigger points in muscles. See the book Acupucture Osteopathy by Mark Seem for a thorough explanation. Others are in places where nerves are near the surface, and some are in hollow places where a needle will fit nicely.

5.While it is generally considered that there are about over 365 points…

I think that’s the number of points found on the main channels, but there are a bunch of extra points that aren’t on channels. A lot of these extra points have been discovered in the last few hundred years.

Differences between ma styles regarding which points to hit could be a reflection of someone’s favorite points, or the points that work with their favorite techniques.

6.TCM and Japanese medicine-

Japanese acupuncture has some different ways of approaching treatment that are worthwhile. I’m glad my acupuncturist got some extra study in Japanese needling techniques. I don’t think there’s much difference in the basic theory, though. Japanese tend to use 5 element theory for treatment more than the Chinese, who rely on 8 principles (yin/yang, hot/cold, interior/exterior, deficiency/excess).

18

Hmmm, who first…

Braden:

“…Croaker - I’m not sure where you have been doing your research on the subject, but there is an abundance of research on acupuncture showing significant results. Do a medline search, periodical search, or even a Google search will turn up days worth of reading on the topic…”

Read again, please. I said subjective standpoint: i.e. what I have seem happen several times. Acupuncture was widely used in Japan (lived there for several years). I personally never saw it ‘heal’ anything, despite word of mouth reports. It did seem to blck discomfort/pain. However, if several well-run studies do show a curative effect then I’m open for it. Of course, I would like to also know if they can set up the same experiment for understanding the root causes, too.

RAF said…

Repeatable
Reprodicible
Verifyable
Statistically significant
Statistically relevant
Performed on a significant population sample.

I really wish it worked that well outside the lab…"

(Hmm, I spelled reproducible wrong, first of all :mad:)

I am familiar with grant writing, and with what happens in the lab. Remember, the number one joke in the lab is knowing what data to ignore :wink:

On the other hand, it is eminently logical to assume that successes using closed trials, trials where as many variables as possible are either held constant or blocked upon, are of greater use in understanding the validity of a treatment than simple word of mouth.

From some of the examples given in this thread there are elements in TCM that don’t seem effective. What I would like to see is the research supplying some foundation to the simple belief that a ‘thing’ has a desired effect on this other ‘thing’. In the last twenty or so years there has been some serious work done on various folk medicines (remember St. John’s Wort). On the other hand, does anyone still use stumpwater to remove warts?

19

Thanks a bunch everyone!
This is growing into a great discussion.:slight_smile:

20

MerryPrankster

“Examining TCM should be part of that exploration.”

I’m not sure whether or not you intended this to be an implicit statement of reality. TCM is part of that exploration.

PLCrane

“TCM theories are no more or less ‘made up’ than molecular theory. They are both models. Neither one of them is real. A big part of the problem is that nobody knows what to measure. If there is chi flowing through meridians, we need to find a way to measure it.”

You correctly identified it as a model, but failed to properly conclude from this identification. You don’t measure models, you measure their effects. And you go from effect to model, not model to effect. These concepts are being confused here (not just by you). If you identify ‘chi’ as a model, then you don’t go looking for it. You look for [whatever sorts of observations it’s supposed to model] and then decide if it’s a useful model thereof. The chinese tradition, both the formal written and informal by-mouth tradition, are quite adamant on this concept - one does not feel qi, but rather qigan ‘qi sensations.’

“We won’t see any double-blind studies of acupuncture for the same reason that we don’t see double-blind studies of surgery…Single blind is just about impossible to do with acupuncture, too…”

I know of dozens of these kinds of studies of acupuncture (in legitimate north american journals) off hand. This research has become so pervasive that you can’t help but stumble on some legitimate stuff with even the most cursory search. (which is why it’s so confusing to me to hear so many people say it doesn’t exist) As simple a method as searching on Google for acupuncture+research will turn up hundreds of these studies from the first two links.

Croaker

“Read again, please. I said subjective standpoint”

And you also said “The small amount that I have researched”.