Flexibility

[Omicron]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking lately about flexibility, and how it might affect Shorinji Kempo technique. How important do you think flexibility is? Obviously a certain degree of muscular flexibility is required to perform anything correctly, but just how much is needed? How much emphasis should we place on stretching and warming up before practice? I took a kinesiology class last semester, and we learned that flexibility is one of the five components of physical fitness; that is, it is an attribute that makes an appreciable difference in our everyday lives and plays a role in increasing our quality of life. Is there an ideal level of flexibility? Among the kenshi at our dojo there is a huge range of flexibility, from the almost freakishly-flexible to people (like me) who are very inflexible. Does one gain an advantage through greater flexibility? A disadvantage? What about practicing things like yoga outside the dojo? Is flexibility a useful pursuit, or are there more important things to focus on?

[jailess]

Being able to kick above your head is no use if your opponent kicks you in the balls. In the days of martial arts being practiced purely for fighting application, people almost never kicked above head height. Being on one leg is dangerous (direct quote from my sensei), and very few people are quick enough to kick above head-height and hope to reach the target, even with fast SK-style technique. I can only kick to waist height effectively, but I think in a self-defense situation that's all I'd use.

As for flexibility, I'm not all that flexible either - I seem to have this point I can get to, then can't go any farther no matter what I do. Yoga'd be good, if you have the time to do it; Pilates, as well, improves flexibility through proper scientific means (Don't know about Canada, but over here it's seen as a girl's exercise, so you might be the only guy in the class - hang on, that doesn't sound too bad!).

If I was really serious about getting more flexibility, I would stretch every morning before going to work, but to be honest I'd rather have 5 more minutes in bed!

Lastly, never stretch hard before something where you'll be using your legs in a high-impact situation, such as running - it leads to joint instability, as the tendons (which play a part in joint stabilisation) are relaxed. SK is a moderate-impact activity, so during class it's best not to stretch yourself to the limit, for fear of ending up like poor Raul. To this end, my sensei stretches the class dynamically.

Oh, and Kinesiology has been reviewed extensively in medical literature. I'll spare you the details: it's bollocks.

[Omicron]

I agree that high kicks don't have as much practical application as lower ones, but they're fun to do, and look cool in embu! I've been meaning to try yoga for a long time now (I think my girlfriend has finally convinced me to actually get out and do it), and pilates is something I'm quite interested in as well. I couldn't care less if it's seen as a girl's thing (which it is here as well), and in my limited experience with pilates I've found it both effective and enjoyable. I have a stretching routine that I do every morning when I wake up and every night before bed, and it really helps. I've seen lots of improvement in the last little while, especially in my legs.

What about flexibility and ukemi? I often feel like I'm close to having pretty nice ukemi, but that I can't quite curl myself up tight enough to make my rolls as small as I'd like them to be.

Oh, and as for my kinesiology class: it was just an elective I had to take. The teacher was kind of a funny guy, but I didn't enjoy the class all that much. It was pretty much like PE class with a bit of pseudo-science behind it...I never really took it all that seriously (probably why I didn't do very well...)

[David Dunn]

Flexibility is crucial, and doesn't have much to do with self-defence. In the first place, relaxed muscles are elongated muscles, so if nothing else good flexibility and good posture are better for chilling out. I think about it in the long term - when (if) I reach a ripe old age, I'd rather that I'd spent my earlier years keeping flexible rather than allowing the stiffness to settle in. I also think sitting on the floor is very important for this. Being able to maintain long spells in seiza, hankafuza, anza require a good straight back, relaxed shoulders and strong, flexible hips and legs. Who cares if you never have to kick someone in the head - you might benefit from working towards it anyway? You could think of correct posture, gait and movement as something necessary for martial arts, or alternatively you could see them as the purpose of martial arts. (See Louie's posts about bujutsutekishintai on budoseek).


Oh, and Kinesiology has been reviewed extensively in medical literature. I'll spare you the details: it's bollocks.

See also: chiropractic, reflexology, homeopathy, ayurveda and anything else that includes the words 'holistic', 'alternative' or 'complementary' in it's description :)

[paul browne]

Gassho,
Hi Dave,
'See also: chiropractic, reflexology, homeopathy, ayurveda and anything else that includes the words 'holistic', 'alternative' or 'complementary' in it's description'

Out of curiosity, where does that leave Seiho, Osteopathy or Accupuncture?

Paul
Kesshu

[David Dunn]

Out of curiosity, where does that leave Seiho, Osteopathy or Accupuncture?

For accupuncture, the World Health Organisation did a meta-survey some years ago (I'll try to find a link later). The conclusion was that it is "harmless", in that it has no negative effects as a treatment. I seem to remember that it had a slightly beneficial effect on autoimmune problems such as allergies. As medicine, I wouldn't recommend any of the above - see you doctor. For massage and joint manipulations, the benefits are the same as any similar systems - they may speed recovery from training stress, and they may promote well-being.



Ordinary massage and the legitimate practice of massage therapy should not be categorized as quackery. Massage can help people relax, relieve aching muscles, and temporarily lift a person's mood. However, many therapists make claims that go far beyond what massage can accomplish. And even worse, massage therapy schools, publications, and professional groups are an integral part of the deception.

There is no evidence-based reason to believe that massage can influence the course of any disease. Yet an article on the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) Web site claims that that therapeutic massage can help with allergies, asthma, bronchitis, spastic colon, constipation, diarrhea, and sinusitis [2]. The site also suggests that "massage is to the human body what a tune-up is to a car" and that "therapeutic massage can be part of your regular healthcare maintenance." And a 1997 AMTA booklet falsely states that massage can promote easier breathing, assist with removal of metabolic wastes, strengthen the immune system, and help prevent disease [3].
Irrational Methods

The following methods are an integral part of the massage therapy marketplace. None has a scientifically plausible rationale or has been shown to favorably influence the course of any physical ailment. Several are claims to detect and manipulate subtle "energies" that have not been scientifically demonstrated. And none (except perhaps for the use of aromatic oils if clients enjoy their odor) has any rational place in the practice of massage therapy....

from http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/massage.html


That's how I treat Seiho. Anecdotally, a friend of my father-in-law had digestive problems, and decided that a "chinese" herbalist could help, since "western" medicine was no good for some reason. Many things were diagnosed, imbalances and blockages in ki, dietary deficiencies etc, but nothing helped. Then this person dropped dead of bowel cancer. In my not so humble opinion, quackery like this should be banned. Things like reiki and homeopathy are at best misguided, and at worst outright fraud. Personally, I won't take any medical advice from anyone that hasn't got a proper degree in medicine. I'm also disappointed that the medical establishment hasn't made a robust enough defence of medicine and allowed some of this crap to gain currency, and allow people with no proper qualifications to put letters after their names and appear expert in something.

Apologies for the rantiness. This is something I feel quite strongly about. I'd better be careful. It was reiki that got Kimpatsu banned from here :)

[Tripitaka of AA]

I'd better be careful. It was reiki that got Kimpatsu banned from here :)


Now there's a claim that I find hard to swallow. Who was performing this Reiki? What effect could they have had on Kimpatsu's eligibility to post on the forum? Is there a section to Reiki study that specialises in affecting people's online status? Is this why I get so many log-on problems after a heavy meal? Do my Shakra need to be open, or closed, to get the best performance from my modem?

[JL.]

Gassho!


Personally, I won't take any medical advice from anyone that hasn't got a proper degree in medicine. I'm also disappointed that the medical establishment hasn't made a robust enough defence of medicine and allowed some of this crap to gain currency, and allow people with no proper qualifications to put letters after their names and appear expert in something.
Western medicine rulz, everything else is crap - even if it apparently worked for hundreds of milllion people over thousands of years. Sorry, I'm not following here.
Of course a lot of claims by certain individuals are fraud but damning the whole systems (Accupunture, Ayurveda etc.) just because of that is simple prejudice, IMVHO.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[Martin Allerby]

Hello everyone,

Long time since I posted on the forum… Impressed over how dedicated some of you guys are.

Is flexibility important? YES! The more flexible you are the better it is.

Sometimes I think people tend to hide behind the fact that a SK-kenshi isn’t required to be extremely flexible. Some people tend to have a natural talent for flexibility and other have to work harder to get there. Everybody that put some efforts into their daily practice will improve their flexibility and with time improve a lot. Once you improved your flexibility you will see all the benefits that comes with it. Improved flexibility will be a step towards maximising your own potential.

Some reasons for improving your flexibility
* The more flexible you are the less is the risk that you strain your muscles – even if you are warm.
* If you have a good kick to jodan your kicks to chudan will most likely be even more efficient (faster, more powerful, …).
* “A lot people think it is fun to be able to be able to perform taka geri”. I agree – and on top of that it is a good balance/body control exercise.
* Improved flexibility (not only in the hip joint) will provide you with much smother, leaner and faster body movements. Something that always is beneficial, in your SK-techniques/practice as well as other daily life activities.
* If you can’t perform a powerful kick to jodan how will your fellow kenshis learn how to defend themselves against such an attack?
* If you can do a technique without warming up it gives you confidence if you ever would have to perform outside the dojo. (It doesn’t mean you have to kick high…)


I think Bruce Lee once said something like: “Kicking to the head is as stupid as punching to the foot”. There is probably a lot truth in this statement (especially in self defence situations) but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t practice it. What you actually use is a different story. Why limit yourself to only be able to perform chudan keri?

Some of my thoughts.

Kind regards,

Martin

[David Dunn]

Western medicine rulz, everything else is crap - even if it apparently worked for hundreds of milllion people over thousands of years. Sorry, I'm not following here.
Of course a lot of claims by certain individuals are fraud but damning the whole systems (Accupunture, Ayurveda etc.) just because of that is simple prejudice, IMVHO.

Jan,
sorry to be blunt here: there's "medicine" and "not medicine". If something demonstrably works in a reproducable and explicable way, through proper channels of research, it enters the realm of medicine. If it doesn't it's quackery. A lot of the stuff I've mentioned doesn't even allow itself to be tested in proper double blind trials. A lot of the stuff I've mentioned has been unequivocally shown to be wrong, and yet people are allowed to practice it as if it were medicine.

As for being around for thousands of years, well, so what? If it works, it works and enters the realm of medicine proper. Sure a lot of medicine has derived from folk medicine. However, folk medicine is based on superstition, a shaky foundation. In any case, claims of ancient knowledge are often themselves not accurate.

Acupuncture has received an inordinate amount of research in clinical trials. Have a search around the net to find out what the results are.
http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

Ayurveda was "rediscovered" (i.e. made up) after hundreds of years being lost, by that phillistine the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the 1980s - that's the same guy that the Beatles and the Stones visited, of Transcendental Meditation fame. It's been popularised by multimillionaire Deepak Chopra.

Reiki is supposed to have originated in ancient Tibet and was "rediscovered" (i.e. made up) by Mikao Usui in the mid-1800s. He had "a metaphysical experience and became empowered to use these sounds and symbols to heal." Included is the ability to heal 'at a distance'. As far as I can see, he was akin to a crystal ball gazer (another ancient form of knowledge).

Prejudice? The use of the term "western medicine" is prejudicial. It insinuates that there is an elitist/priviledged nature to "scientific medicine" (to give it its proper name), over other kinds of ("equally valid") folk medicine. I prefer my relativism with a large pinch of salt.

--------------

David see here:
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18048
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15432
and so on.

[JL.]

Gassho!

I don't know about the studies this link refers to, but I do know that Accupuncture has withstood enough scientific tests to be in the process of becoming something that can be billed to our health insurance system in Germany which is VERY conservative in these things, therefore I suppose that it can't be completely made up.
I understand the reservations about many so called alternative medicine methods and am by no means an expert as to what works and what doesn't. But I think that there's a fundamental difference between "science can't prove this works [yet]" and "this doesn't work" that is often ignored by western arrogance - science doesn't have all the answers and most leading scientists admit that there isn't even such a thing as a definitive answer (see relativity, quantum theory, uncertainty relation, Schrödinger's cat and so on) to many problems.
For example the energy lines used in Accupuncture where considered a myth by most western scientists until it was discovered that the electric resistance(?) of the skin changed exactly where these lines where supposed to be, as depicted on Chinese maps some of which dated back 3000 years. They didn't just become real because western science suddenly found a way to measure them.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[Tripitaka of AA]

Come on David, the ball is in your court. I'll just get my popcorn.

Remember, there are 5 points for mentioning "woo-woo", 3 points for "quackery" and 15 points for "Randi's One Million Dollars". More points can be earned by including authoritative links and quotations from reliable sources (Kimpatsu's old posts don't count though ;) ).

[JL.]

Gassho!

www.reliable-source.com
www.authoritative-link.net
www.evenmoreauthoritatitve-link.org
www.sourceofultimatetruth.de
www.42.uk

Any questions?

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[Edit: The first link even produces a result! JL]

[Steve Malton]

For accupuncture, the World Health Organisation did a meta-survey some years ago (I'll try to find a link later). The conclusion was that it is "harmless", in that it has no negative effects as a treatment. I seem to remember that it had a slightly beneficial effect on autoimmune problems such as allergies. As medicine, I wouldn't recommend any of the above - see you doctor. For massage and joint manipulations, the benefits are the same as any similar systems - they may speed recovery from training stress, and they may promote well-being.


David,

I recall seeing a similar survey quite recently, testing acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain. The groups tested were:
A control - no therapy
'Real' acupuncture
'Fake' acupuncture - needles inserted into non-acccupunture points
Drugs

Unsurprisingly, drugs came out top. However, it was seen that both acupunctures, real and fake, had a better result than the control - the conclusion was that just inserting the needles had some sort of effect, although not in the way acupuncturists have been pedalling.

[David Dunn]

Jan,
there has also been a movement in the UK to getting so-called "complimentary-alternative medicine" (CAM) on to the health service. If anything, it shows not an arrogance by the medical profession, but a lack of certainty and a failure to defend robustly their superior (yes I mean superior) expertise in the face of growing consumerism for this woo-woo and quackery. The pressure has been from the patient side to provide these systems as a consumer choice. Unfortunately those that should know better haven't put up a defence of rationality over irrationality. The rise and rise of CAM is a reflection of the public's changing attitude to science and reason, not to the efficacy of unscientific medicine.

You can get reiki "treatments" on the national health, in the paediatric oncology department at Middlesex Hospital. That doesn't make it legitimate medicine. Randi's One Million Dollars is spoken about in the same breath as reiki, because it is essentially a supernatural claim - Randi is offering $1million to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural power, and reiki practitioners make that claim.

Viz, the claim of electrical resistance along meridians, it's wishful thinking. Acupuncturists can't even agree on the location of the points or the meridians. When several practitioners are simultaneously asked to diagnose and treat the same patient, they can't agree on either diagnosis or treatment. I'm not going to post any authoratative links - the information is all there for anyone who wants to see it. Type "efficacy acupuncture" into google. "As effective as the placebo" is about the best you can get.

"Science can't prove it works [yet]." What does that mean? If acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, or shoving crystals up your back passage were efficacious, then surely a body of evidence would have presented itself in the forty years of research? Science isn't arrogant, it simply has methods that can test hypotheses, which is why it is epistemologically superior to any other explanations of nature.

(I think I got most of the points David).

[edit] Steve, you beat me to it - sticking a needle in anywhere is as good as sticking it in a predefined spot.

[Steve Malton]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/293/17/2118

Ok, it was migraines, and no drugs - my memory fails me in my old age ;)

[David Dunn]

Thanks Steve. It even says that the control group couldn't be blinded so that the difference might be due to bias.

[JL.]

Gassho!


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/293/17/2118

Ok, it was migraines, and no drugs - my memory fails me in my old age ;)

I'm sorry, it's really hard to evaluate this "evidence" if I have to pay $12 just to get access to it. I'm not going to do that.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[bu-kusa]

its important to note that the use of western medicine is not without risk, for example

''The Home Office Bulletin of Statistics records that from 1989 to 1993 about 1,500 deaths were due to benzodiazepines causing suicides and accidents, or being involved in deaths of undetermined cause. This figure gives an average of 15 deaths per million prescriptions, which translates into about 10,000 deaths in the period 1960 to 1996.

Examples of these statistics are given in Exhibit 10, along with a paper on "Fatal Poisonings (only) due to benzodiazepines." Nearly 1,600 deaths through this cause occurred between 1980 and 1989 at a rate of over 5 deaths per million prescriptions. This translates into about 4,000 deaths in the period 1960 -1996 due to this single cause.

The whole area of deaths and accidents including those on the road, in the home and at work is covered by at least 70 references in the medical literature, many exposing the myth that these drugs are safe in overdose.''

http://www.benzo.org.uk/vot2.htm

last time i looked it was very hard to kill someone with accupuncture!

:)

[paul browne]

Gassho,
Not going to get into a long dramatic debate.
Most 'alternative' medicine is sought in desperation by people who feel failed by current medicine (no-ones fault but some things aren't curable yet). Members of my family have had the misfortune to be afflicted by Multiple scerolosis and Motor neurone disease and have sought all kinds of wierd and wonderful cures to heal or aleviate the symptoms. Did they work? No.
Do I blame them for hoping? How can I. I do resent the profiteering from some of those they went to though.
On the other hand, after a serious elbow dislocation when I was seventeen I was left with a right arm that had only about 140degrees of movement. As I am right handed this was potentially crippling. Three months of physio bought no improvement. Three sessions of accupuncture and moxibustion left me with total movement and few problems since. Was this because it works, or because I'm 'suggestable' to it. I neither know or care.
Paul White sensei summed it up nicely for me once. He basically said that if your dealing with joint, bone or muscle injury then often Eastern medicine has the answer (accupunture, accupressure etc.) but if you've a burn, virus or need invasive surgery then Western medicine is the way to go.
Kesshu
Paul

[jailess]

Jan,
there has also been a movement in the UK to getting socalled "complimentary-alternative medicine" (CAM) on to the health service.
There have been 6 Homeopathic hospitals in the NHS since its foundation - the most research-oriented ones are in London and Glasgow (I'm proud to say the Glasgow one's better). In fact, the term CAM was coined by David Riley, chief of Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital!

If anything, it shows not an arrogance by the medical profession, but a lack of certainty and a failure to defend robustly their superior (yes I mean superior) expertise in the face of growing consumerism for this woo-woo and quackery.
It is hard to dismiss the above mentioned forms of CAM without a scientific evidence base. Many of the above mentioned CAMs have not been rigorously tested in randomised controlled trials (the highest form of scientific trial). Of the ones that have, many of the trials have been badly designed (effectively rendering their results unreliable) or there haven't been enough of them to show a trend (you need several good trials all showing the same thing before you can say it's 'true'). The expansion of CAM on the NHS simply opens it up to more rigorous scientific scrutiny, and if it is ineffective, will ultimately lead to its abolishment.

The pressure has been from the patient side to provide these systems as a consumer choice.
Only after complementary health professionals have told them it's what they need. Marketing for CAM products is extensive and manipulative: most products are marketed at women, word such as 'wellbeing' are used instead of 'health', to promote the idea that you will cure the whole body instead of just the affected part. It's very subtle, but effective. Medical professionals can't compete with this level of advertising - we only deal with patients on a 1-to-1 level, most of the time. Putting up a defence is out of the question when you're going up against the CAM industry, for several reasons:

First, There are too many of them: the CAM industry is made up of several factions, none of which believe each others' hype, very few of which are compatible with one another. If you positively disproved and took down one of them, you would do just that - take down one. You'd have hundreds more to contend with.

Second, resources are scarce in the NHS (you may have noticed, UK kenshi). As far as large industries go, we are already fighting pitched battles with Tobacco industry and Big Pharmaceutical companies (one we are winning slowly, the other we are losing - currently. I'm not in charge of the NHS yet). Taking on CAM as well is asking a bit much, especially when...

There is limited evidence for some CAM therapies (Duck David's kick). Not Homeopathy (recently disproven in a much publicised Lancet meta-analysis: just about as solid an evidence base as exists), Kinesiology, Reiki, Chiropody, Crystals, etc. But as it happens, I recently surveyed Acupuncture/Shiatsu's evidence base:

Acupuncture is difficult to assess against placebo, because what's a placebo? It's a treatment where the subjective impression to the patient is the same as the treatment proper. Acupuncture versus nothing (ie sitting in the same room for an hour) has a benefit, of course, but in one case the patient was physically stimulated and in the other case they weren't. 'Fake acupuncture' is where needles are not stuck into Kyushu points, but near them (or sometimes completely randomly). This is a good placebo, but still involves some 'treatment' (see below). Most trials with acupuncture use Fake Acupuncture as the placebo.

The proposed mechanisms of action are varied:
-In the East Ki/Meridian theory still holds true, even in China (who has a programme of extensive reviewing traditional chinese medicine in an attempt to disprove it). I doubt the literal truth of this, but am prepared to accept an ameliorated version of it (I won't go into this here).
-The most accepted theory is that the Kyushu points and Meridians correspond to Neurovascular Bundles (Nerve, Artery, Vein) running under the skin. Insertion/manipulation of the needle into/close to the nerve triggers release of several hormones, including Adrenaline, noradrenaline, and enkephalins (natural morphine). Insertion into muscles also produces the muscle relaxation due to a well-known reflex within the muscle.
-Another point people make is that physical stimulation (such as acupuncture but also by exercise, massage, sex, etc.) stimulates the nervous system, immunity, cardiovascular system, etc. which could lead to the benefits seen in Acupuncture/shiatsu.

In regard to Jan's claim about electrical resistance, it is true that over Kyushu points and meridians electrical resistance seems to be increased. The reasons vary from scientist to scientist, but one such theory is that decreased resistance is a property of the current being placed over nerves (which carry electrical current). Also, when injecting radioactive dye into meridian lines on the skin (don't look at me, the chinese did it), the dye radiates out along the meridian. When injected next to the meridian it simply diffuses out in all directions (until it hits a Meridian line, when it spreads out along it).

Re: the agreement of Kyushu point sites, the Chinese and Japanese traditional Kyushu points match approximately, though I acknowledge that this may be to cultural interaction as opposed to convergence of ideas.

Overall, there is evidence that Acupuncture/shiatsu can be used to treat most types of back pain, depression and limited benefit for people with allergies.


When several practitioners are simultaneously asked to diagnose and treat the same patient, they can't agree on either diagnosis or treatment.
I'm afraid the same goes for doctors: given the same patient, 2 doctors will disagree on diagnosis 40% of the time.

Overall, I guess my position is somewhere between that of David and Jan's. Maybe you guys need to have more flexibility in your opinions! :p

...Do you see what I did there? 'cos the thread is called 'Flexibility', you see... aw, forget it...

[David Dunn]

I'm sorry, it's really hard to evaluate this "evidence" if I have to pay $12 just to get access to it. I'm not going to do that.

Jan,
my work has a subscription to that (and most journals). The authors claim it's the biggest clinical trial of the efficacy of acupuncture for migraine relief. There were three sample groups: one had acupunture, one had 'sham' acupuncture (where they felt a prick but no needle), and one was told they were in a queue (and so had no treatment). The acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups showed reduced incidence of migraines after X weeks (I think X was two). The two acu groups were blinded (i.e. they didn't know what group they were in), and the other obviously wasn't (you certainly know if you're receiving no treatment), and the authors said that this might be a source of bias: expectation must always be considered - that's the Placebo effect.



last time i looked it was very hard to kill someone with accupuncture!


That's true, and that's why it's 'harmless'. Although there are risks, it's probably fair to say that they're small compared to most drugs. However, Chinese herbal remedies have been known to cause liver and kidney failure (ephedra in particular).



Most 'alternative' medicine is sought in desperation by people who feel failed by current medicine (no-ones fault but some things aren't curable yet)...


I think that's true, and that's partly why the NHS has introduced them. Nevertheless, there are people who will go to a practitioner of X as a first resort - in that case, they probably won't even be correctly diagnosed, as the practitioner doesn't have any proper grounding. That is dangerous and stupid (see my anecdote above). I used to know someone who practiced alternative medicines. He didn't believe half of it himself, and laughed at the prices he could charge young, healthy people in Notting Hill for quack 'cures' to problems they didn't have.

In any case, the stuff that most irks me (as you probably guessed) is reiki, ayurveda, 'quantum' medicine, and other stuff that is completely irrational. I find it very demoralising.

Jame - you started this (almost). What do you think?

[jailess]

the authors said that this might be a source of bias: expectation must always be considered - that's the Placebo effect.
Quick correction, the Placebo effect is "a quantifiable difference in health produced by the subjective impression of treatment", or more basically, the bit of the patient feeling better that's due to just getting treated (by example, one of the reasons for people missing doctor's appointments is that a proportion of them feel better just by making the call to the doctor's - they expect that the visit will be curative, and by taking that first step their symptoms disappear, either temporarily or permanently).

Chinese herbal remedies have been known to cause liver and kidney failure (ephedra in particular).
True, but there are more conventional drugs on the market that are much more likely to do this - Aspirin (kidney) and paracetamol (liver), by way of example. I nearly put in my last posting: the Chinese government has been pushing, as part of its objective of supressing religious belief, to disprove traditional chinese medicine - as a result, we have discovered several new drug treatments, including the best known cure for Malaria. Many others, of course, have been disproven, as David says, but some are proving to have good benefit. I should point out that for several hundred years, Chinese medicine was weakly evidence-based (the doctors operated on a 'no-cure, no-fee' basis), so a lot of herbal remedies are in fact reasonably efficaceous. In time, proper scientific exploration will tell.

I think that's true, and that's partly why the NHS has introduced [alternative medicines]
They were always part of the NHS; in keeping with the recent boom in CAM, the NHS has now started researching more into them. This is a good thing, as if any of the CAM therapies turn out to be of benefit, we can start to use them in complement to modern medicine (acupuncture, for example, is being used more and more for neuromuscular pain. People are also using it for things such as smoking cessation, but a quick review of some medical sites just now showed that there were no differences in smoking cessation at one year compared with placebo).

they probably won't even be correctly diagnosed, as the practitioner doesn't have any proper grounding. That is dangerous and stupid.
No argument here. A great many people in the UK (and, I assume, in other developed countries) see doctors as people who will prod you and poke you and eventually do nothing, simply because we are honest about our cure rates. CAM advertising, on the other hand, is full of exaggerations (as is the whole advertising industry, of course). They are also very sneaky: they use Case studies to highlight their successes. I'll give an example:

Every few months the Tabloids (we're back on the Tabloids again!) print some story along the lines of "Doctors paralysed me!" or "Medic Murderers Mashed My Mum", or "I gave blood and got HIV!" - something along those lines. They use one story (a Case Study) to highlight problems in the healthcare profession. Never mind that the chances of you getting CJD from a blood transfusion are now 0% (every unit is screened and all the white blood cells [which probably don't transmit CJD anyway] taken out), some people will still not give/accept blood because of this story. CAM people do this too, stating examples of how someone took remedy X and 3 months later their cancer was cured.

Humans are designed to listen to stories and anecdotal evidence like this and make a 'best-guess' about how things really are (cognitive heuristics is what I think it's called: Basically, it's guessing based on all the evidence to hand, and humans are very good at it). The cold hard evidence presented in the results of a trial/meta-analysis are hard to understand mathematical concepts, and not something we do easily (we're more visual, hence all the pretty graphs in most papers and textbooks). Hence the average joe places equal emphasis on the human story (case study), which is only 1 case, compared to the clinical trial, some of which encompass thousands of 'cases' (largest I heard of was 15 000).


In any case, the stuff that most irks me (as you probably guessed) is reiki, ayurveda, 'quantum' medicine, and other stuff that is completely irrational. I find it very demoralising.
Jame - you started this (almost). What do you think?

I am just dying to know what quantum medicine is - I'll reserve my responses until you explain, if you'd be so kind.

[David Dunn]

Jame - I saw your reply after I hit submit.

I hope that you're right, that the inclusion of CAM in mainstream medicine will lead to more rigourous studying of it.

In 1980, an editorial in the BMJ said that alternative medicine represented a 'flight from science'. In 1986, after Prince Charles spoke about the value of alternative medicine, the British Medical Association produced a strong criticism, in `Alternative Therapy'. It argued that the relationship of orthodox and CAM to science is that the former has a relationship, while the latter does not. It said that alternative medicines were 'medieval', 'no more than dogmatic metaphysics', and a 'reversion to primitive beliefs'. That's a view I endorse. By 1993, the BMA was recommending that acupuncture, chiropractic, herbalism, homeopathy and osteopathy be professionalised - what changed?

To me it is worrying. Homeopathy, is clearly cobblers: it argues that the water molecules have a 'memory' of substance that induces the same symptoms as the illness, even though it is diluted so that no molecule of the original is likely to be in the dose. It doesn't need researching, because there isn't a physical mechanism present. Herbalism is a step backwards - quarter of our drugs originated in plants, but we have isolated the active agents, sythesised them, and (largely) can administer them in a much safer way. Proponents of CAM will reject any disproof through randomised trials, and ask for more research, or say the research is inconclusive, or even go so far as to say that science doesn't have all the answers. Science is not a set of answers. It is a methodology for research, and is far more flexible that beliefs rooted in blind faith, which are immutable.

Jame, I wouldn't expect individual doctors to put the case against quackery, but would rather the professional bodies (such as the BMA) made a stance.

[JL.]

Gassho!

Jame-san, thanks for the great posts! Especially the part about the flexible mind. As a matter of fact that's what made me posting here in the first place: I think a lot of people in the west aren't very open-minded towards anything that hasn't the label "scientifically approved" on it. But it's pointless stating that time and again. Therefore I'll try to make a final statement of my position that will hopefully be accepted by everyone.
Many or most of the people who offer alternative medicine in the west, especially those with no real training (i.e. a University degree etc.) in medical issues are fake and often do more damage than good. "New" methods should always have to be scientifically tested before being allowed into the market. There are traditional methods of healing - in the west as well as in the east - that work, some have scientific proofs (see Jame-sans posts), some don't.

Kesshu,
______ Jan.

[Edit: Did I miss an "o" in the title? :) JL]

[David Dunn]

Jame,
placebo: "subjective impression", "expectation". Splitting hairs a bit :)

I misrepresented Deepak Chopra. It's called "Quantum Healing". I'll spare you the details: it's bollocks. If you really want to comment on it, the man has gone forth and multiplied himself all over the internet.

Actually, there is an interesting topic buried in here (kenzen ichinyo). A lot of this stuff goes on about 'holistic' or 'mind and body' approaches. It is sometimes put as an attempt to solve the dichotomy of Cartesian dualism. However, there is a charicature of Descartes in their thinking. Descartes argued that there is a separation between a corporeal/material body and immaterial ideas, yet clearly the two interact. For me, a methodological separation is supremely useful in medicine. It enables medicine to treat the body as a biomechanical object. It has to be said that approach has enabled enormous advancement in treatment. Is there an actual separation of body and mind - i.e. are there two different types that make them up (ontological dualism)? Science says not, it is monist as opposed to dualist - there is only one type of 'stuff' and it is matter (not mind). I'm no expert, but I think it's quite hard to find any genuine ontological dualists (maybe the Young Hegelians :) ) Hence it's easy to make a straw man, and knock down a methodological separation (useful technique), that doesn't rely on an ontological separation (assumption about nature).

The charicature is that Descartes himself believed that emotion, pain, memory and so on are corporeal/material, i.e. they are the product of matter, and can be studied as such. Furthermore, it seems that many new agers are actually ontological dualists themselves - how could the mind transcend the body unless they are heterogeneous things?

More to the point, it completely ignores the fact that scientific medicine is addressing questions of mediations between states of mind and physical condition. There are an awful lot of modern illnesses in which the patient reports symptoms which cannot be measured, but are patently real to the patient. Perhaps they are psychogenic - how can they be explained and treated? Does feeling positive improve your chances of long term survival of cancer? It's a reasonable scientific question - and has had reputable papers published. Even the effect of the relationship between doctor and patient is study-able (and being studied) in the realm of scientific medicine.

One of the less savoury aspects of 'holistic' medicine is the inevitable conclusion that when disease befalls you (it will, we're all going to die), somehow it's your own fault. In that way it becomes a kind of secular puritanism. Chopra takes it to its logical conclusion and says, presumbably with a straight face, that "people grow old and die because they've seen other people grow old and die. Ageing is simply learned behaviour."

People I like to read on CAM are (inevitably) Dawkins and Wolpert, but also Michael Fitzpatrick (he writes a lot on spiked-online.com and also has a superb book called The tyranny of health) and Brid Hehir, a trenchant critic of CAM (I've come across her on spiked too).

The following is from here:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/snakeoil.shtml
and explains randomized double-blind clinical testing.


..scientific medicine is defined as the set of practices which submit themselves to the ordeal of being tested. Alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests. If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply, as Diamond explains, becomes medicine. Conversely, if a technique devised by the President of the Royal College of Physicians consistently fails in double-blind trials, it will cease to be a part of "orthodox" medicine. Whether it will then become "alternative" will depend upon whether it is adopted by a sufficiently ambitious quack (there are always sufficiently gullible patients).

But isn't it still an arrogance to demand that our method of testing should be the scientific method? By all means use scientific tests for scientific medicine, it may be said. But isn't it only fair that "alternative" medicine should be tested by "alternative" tests? No. There is no such thing as an alternative test. Here Diamond takes his stand, and he is right to do so. Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some "alternative" sense. If a therapy or treatment is anything more than a placebo, properly conducted double-blind trials, statistically analysed, will eventually bring it through with flying colours. Many candidates for recognition as "orthodox" medicines fail the test and are summarily dropped. The "alternative" label should not (though, alas, it does) provide immunity from the same fate.

[David Dunn]

I think a lot of people in the west aren't very open-minded towards anything that hasn't the label "scientifically approved" on it...

Jan, I think the Zeitgeist in Europe is precisely the opposite. I think un-reason is more common than an embracing of science. The Da Vinci code was one of the year's best selling books.

To accuse science of not being open-minded is, apologies for bluntness again, ridiculous. You are far more likely to be able to change the mind of a scientist than somebody whose ideas are based on faith. Every statement I make as a scientist is refutable. If it's refuted, I'm wrong, back to the drawing board. "Alternative" practitioners make statements that are not refutable - it's not possible to prove a negative. Prove that god doesn't exist. You can't. Scientists make refutable statements and hypotheses, which makes it open-minded, open-ended and constantly improving.

If you are able to see the contents of the early issues of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1665 onwards) at www.jstor.ac.uk it makes fascinating reading. These people (Boyle, Hooke, even Descartes) were investigating the motions of planets, the nature of rock, designing optical instruments, observing fetuses in cows, improving navigation techniques, developing barometers, calculating the distance of the earth from the moon, fossilification of wood, how to kill rattlesnakes, how the Mongols made saltpetre. In the same journal there are accounts of transfusing blood from a 'mangy' dog into a healthy one, which "healed" the mangy dog and left the healthy one healthy. And lots of stuff about blood letting and injecting of various things into peoples veins and arteries. The point I'm trying to make is that the stuff which is basically right still stands, while the rest has been thrown away or improved upon. In the 30 years subsequent to that, science changed more than christianity in the previous 1500 years.

[jailess]

In regard to Prince Charles, he's still actively supporting and encouraging the use of Homeopathy, despite the recent meta-analysis (highest form of evidence possible: pretty much conclusively showed no difference from Placebo). The theory of Homeopathy's effectiveness is: Take a quantity of the remedy, dilute it 1 in 10 and shake. take a tenth of that solution, dilute it again 1:10, shaking again.

The UltraHigh Dilution (UHD) theory goes that the act of shaking transfers an imprint (i.e. lock-shape) of the remedy's molecules (key) onto the water. It's been extensively studied in physics, but nothing so far. The theory is sound in principle, but tyhere's no evidence base to show it works.

Re: Herbalism, it's not as straightforward as people think: some herbal remedies work when you give the whole plant, but not when you extract what people believe to be the active ingredient. It seems that the maximum effect is achieved due to the interactions between the chemicals present in the herb. As always, more reseach is required. The reason there is not a huge amount of research into herbalism is that it's impossible to patent a herb, just a chemical (such as tenofovir, a recent anti-HIV medication).

I agree that arguing with CAM professionals is difficult, mainly because they usually are arguing from a point of view of faith, and usually have rejected the idea of scientific evidence disproving their ideas. I might write more on this later, but right now I'm hungry.

[John Ryan]

In regard to Prince Charles, he's still actively supporting and encouraging the use of Homeopathy, despite the recent meta-analysis (highest form of evidence possible: pretty much conclusively showed no difference from Placebo). The theory of Homeopathy's effectiveness is: Take a quantity of the remedy, dilute it 1 in 10 and shake. take a tenth of that solution, dilute it again 1:10, shaking again.

The UltraHigh Dilution (UHD) theory goes that the act of shaking transfers an imprint (i.e. lock-shape) of the remedy's molecules (key) onto the water. It's been extensively studied in physics, but nothing so far. The theory is sound in principle, but tyhere's no evidence base to show it works.

Any post beginning with "Prince Charles" is liable to be discredited from the outset (unfair, but our Royal Family is used to it by now). I suppose he still talks to his trees and plants in order to help them grow, as was revealed a few years ago...

The theory (as outlined above) of homeopathy is so far from credibility that I am convinced the above post was ironic; however for anyone still wrestling with the pretty concept of locks and keys (a biochemist's favourite analogy) it should be borne in mind, among other retorts, firstly that water is a liquid and unable to retain physical formation and secondly that at the levels of dilution practised in homeopathy, there are higher concentrations of a range of contaminants than of the original substance, and one may as well fetch a beaker of rainwater to achieve the same exposure to any given molecule. Various other, and more thorough (to the author's chagrin no doubt), counters can readily be found with a computer, a phone line and a Google.

On topic, just for the hell of it, there's one more beneficial aspect of flexibility not already mentioned. The more flexible you are in any joint/limb, the less tension results when that joint/limb is used. It becomes a thousand times easier to do a snappy mawashi geri when you're flexible enough for the movement to be comfortable - if the position is anything less than comfortable then the execution will be less than perfect. Compare with the need for some sort of leg strength to perform a correct kusshin zuki/geri. Of course the movement can be practised without the background fitness (broad term), but mastery of the technique requires that the body be capable of performing it correctly.

So lots of physical flexibility discussed, and only passing mention of mental flexibility, in the science vs non-science (nonsense?) flame... How does mental flexibility help in Shorinji Kempo, and vice versa?

[Omicron]

How does mental flexibility help in Shorinji Kempo, and vice versa?
I think that mental flexibility is perhaps more important in Shorinji Kempo than physical muscular flexibility. With a flexible mind one can learn techniques much easier, and apply them in a wide range of scenarios. Also, with as many philosophical undertones as there are in SK, a flexible mind helps one connect that philosophy with the physical application and use of technique.

[David Dunn]

Funny how things turn up at certain times:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD81.htm

[jailess]

The theory (as outlined above) of homeopathy is so far from credibility that I am convinced the above post was ironic; however for anyone still wrestling with the pretty concept of locks and keys (a biochemist's favourite analogy) it should be borne in mind, among other retorts, firstly that water is a liquid and unable to retain physical formation

The physics was too complex for me at the time (a few years ago), but I stand by what I say: UHD theory is sound. Water is a liquid, but tends to move about in cohesive 'blocks' of approximately 1 million molecules (I don't know whyI heard this from a fluid dynamics physicist). It is possible that an imprint of a molecule could be held on the surface of this 'block', just as a mold holds the impression of (oh, just for the hell of it) a Key!

Unfortunately, no UHD experiment has been able to prove this theory, and it looks likely that it doesn't work. Apart from the contaminant problem that John pointed out, it's unlikely that the 'block' would hold this impression for very long, due to the constantly shifting nature of the fluid. In any case, once you've made up the homeopathic remedy, you drop a few millilitres onto a sugar crystal - then wait for it to evaporate! so even if there was an imprint of the remedy molecule on the 'blocks' in the water, they'd evaporate away.

Homeopathy owaremas.

[David Dunn]

Jame, I'm a fluid dynamicist by trade. What you're talking about sounds like the continuum hypothesis - the assumption that you can treat a fluid as a continuous medium. Of course fluid isn't a continuous medium - every fluid consists of discrete molecules. However, if the scales of motion you're interested in are large relative to molecular dynamics, then indeed the continuum hypothesis does pretty well. It's just an example of reductionism doing a good job. (Reductionism is another dirty word, along with 'newtonian', 'cartesian', 'materialism' etc).

The idea that you can dilute, redilute and dilute again, until the concentrations are in the ratio the number of atoms in the universe:1. I think the necessity to test the theory is absent. The only way that water could 'remember' what was in it, is to have that thing still present. I wouldn't bet my house on odds of atoms in the universe:1. Some theories are just crackers, they have no physical basis, and there's no point in wasting time researching them. I'm afraid homeopathy falls into that category for me.

[Tripitaka of AA]

I'm not sure if I like being therapped by anyone, but I could do with some of those equally good things... my chemist just gave me a funny look though "I'm sorry sir, but we don't stock placebo, you'll need to try the holistic medicine centre across the road. They have the next best thingto a placebo.".

So there you are, gone full circle again. Sometimes I wonder if I could make some money selling placebo on the internet...