Pain Tolerance Paradox

I received the following comment to Increased Pain Tolerance of Martial Artists: 'How does this address the effects of the adrenaline dump regarding pain?' Interesting question.

Stress-induced analgesia (SIA) refers to the well established phenomenon that exposing humans or animals to a wide variety of stressors induces the suppression of pain perception. We’ve all heard the stories of the soldier who continues to fight, the athlete who continues to compete, the hero who continues their heroic efforts, all despite injury and all of whom report feeling no pain until the completion of their task. An explanation for this seemingly painless injury, at least at the time, is SIA.

SIA involves beta-endorphines being released from the pituitary gland. The term 'endorphin' is a contraction of 'endogenous morphine,' so named because it affects the body like morphine does. In fact, beta-endorphin has been found to be 48 times more powerful than morphine and even more addictive. Like opiates, endorphins are known for their painkilling, sedatory, anti-anxiety properties and for producing euphoric, trance and dream-like states.

From an evolutionary perspective, SIA can be regarded as a component of the evolved fight-or-flight survival response. It would not be highly adaptive if pain from injuries could prevent us from fighting or fleeing when our lives depended on it. But once the threat of death has passed, our normal pain-sensing mechanisms have to do their work in order to immobilise the injured part of the body and prevent the injury from getting worse.

When I was studying SIA, I recalled two separate incidents where I was confronted by an attacker armed with a knife. According to conventional wisdom, my evolved fight-or-flight response is suppose to be activated when my survival is threatened. This response is designed to increase my chances of survival by, among other things, the release of adrenaline to increase my strength and speed in order to fight or flee, and the release of hormones to decrease my sensitivity to pain so that I will not be distracted from our survival tasks. On both occasions, I did not experience the activation of the fight-or-flight response.

Two questions were raised. Firstly, why wasn't my evolved survival mechanism activated when my well-being, and possibly my life, was threatened? Secondly, was it a good thing or a bad thing that my evolved survival mechanism was not activated? Needless to say, I survived both encounters.

The martial arts' methods are designed to reduce or manage our fear (stress) to increase our chances of survival if attacked. So are the various stress training methods, such as stress inoculation training and stress exposure training used by law enforcement and the military to train their personnel and increase their chances of survival when operational. These methods are designed to reduce or negate the effects of our evolved survival response. If these methods are successful, no survival response, and no SIA. That means no increased tolerance to pain which is evolutionarily designed to increase our chances of survival.

I cannot tell you if my training was responsible for the non-activation of my survival response when confronted with knife-wielding attackers on two separate occasions. I cannot tell you what my pain experience would have been given I was successful in avoiding any injury on both occasions. All I can tell you is that I now appreciate the SIA paradox associated with martial arts training and the various forms of stress training adopted by law enforcement and the military.

Another Survival Response Paradox

Bruce Siddle, internationally recognised authority on use of force training and the effects of survival stress (fight-or-flight physiological response) on combat performance. He provides ways and means of managing the 'catastrophic' effects that survival stress has on motor and cognitive functions that are deleterious to combat and survival performance. Many in the activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter refer to his ideas, although whether they acknowledge or even know the source of their wisdom is another matter.

One of the things that Siddle advocates is the selection of gross motor skill techniques over fine or complex motor skill techniques due to the effects of survival stress on motor functions. He states that 'the sympathetic nervous system will control and dominate all motor action when a student is confronted with a spontaneous deadly force threat.' He also states that 'stress is a matter of perception, and perceptions can be changed through the training process.' (I'm currently writing an article on this subject)

Follow the logic. You've selected techniques based on the deleterious effects of this physiological response to a threat. This physiological response is elicited due to your perceptions. Your training is aimed at changing your perceptions. Changing your perceptions means that this physiological response is no longer elicited or its intensity is reduced. The training negates the reason for selecting only those types of techniques.

I'm not suggesting Siddle's advice is flawed. I'm just intrigued by the paradox that arises from it. An appreciation of this paradox forces those who are so strident in their opinion as to technique selection, training methods, and violence experiences to understand and explain the underlying assumptions of their arguement and to ensure internal consistency.

Increased Pain Tolerance of Martial Artists

I've just completed the first draft of my final article. The subject matter is pain. Pain is ubiquitous in all activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter. Avoiding it, inflicting it, threatening to inflict it, tolerating it, and using it as a learning tool. Pain and the threat of pain are major tools in law enforcement's less-than-lethal armory. However, you'll be hard pressed to find any explanation of pain and the pain process in the literature related to the activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter.

I thought I'd share two studies which found that athletes have a higher pain tolerance than non-athletes, and contact athletes have a higher pain tolerance than non-contact athletes who have a higher pain tolerance than non-athletes. The following is an extract from my draft article:

There is evidence that athletes have higher pain tolerance levels than non-athletes. To live with minor or major injuries and to practice or play with pain seems to be almost certain and acceptable experiences in the life of sportsmen and sportswomen. Studies have shown that athletes seem to have similar pain thresholds but higher pain tolerance when compared to non-athletes. The exact cause of their higher pain tolerance is unknown. Ryan and Kovacic (1966) compared the pain tolerance levels of contact athletes (football players, boxers, and wrestlers), non-contact athletes, and non-athletes. They found that the contact athletes had a higher pain tolerance than non-contact athletes who in turn had a higher pain tolerance than non-athletes. They discussed three possible explanations for their findings:

1. Two culturally determined attitudes influencing pain perception: pain expectancy and pain acceptance. Pain expectancy is anticipation of pain as being unavoidable in a given situation and pain acceptance is the willingness to experience pain. The contact athletes, and to a lesser extend the non-contact athletes, have frequently been in situations where pain was unavoidable. For these athletes, the ability to tolerate pain is seen as being essential to successful performance and is socially valued. On the other hand, non-athletes have much less often been in situations where pain was unavoidable and thus have not associated ability to tolerate pain with socially desirable traits or characteristics.

2. The realistic evaluation of the significance of pain with contact athletes having a more realistic evaluation and less fear of pain than non-athletes. Previous experience with pain allows the contact athletes to distinguish between harmful pain and non-harmful pain. The non-athletes, having limited experience with painful stimulation, would be less apt to know how ‘serious’ the pain actually was, and thus, due to apprehension, tolerate less.

3. Certain individuals tend to reduce the intensity of their pain perceptions subjectively while others tend to augment the intensity of their pain perceptions. The reducers tolerate pain well, the augmenters poorly.

Kolt (2000) suggests two general explanations for higher pain tolerance in athletes compared to non-athletes:

1. Athletes have a greater exposure to physical training and increased fitness, resulting in higher levels of circulating endogenous opiods.

2. Athletes, as part of their physical training and performance explore boundaries in relation to extreme physical activity and pain experience, giving a perception of control over the pain-physical activity interface.

This is possibly one of those benefits that may arise from training martial arts that is applicable to other realms of our daily lives. A more realistic understanding of pain and a greater acceptance of pain influences the experience of pain in other non-martial arts areas.

I recall a student who went on to become involved in the security industry. He once shares with me his surprise at how much punishment he could absorb and put it down to the falls that he experienced in his jujutsu training. Constantly impacting the mat with varying degrees of force. His higher tolerance of pain resulting from this type of training could be explained by the above explanations.

I 'borrowed' the pain image to the above right from a martial arts related blog whose post was discussing the conquering of pain. While the blog provides some information about how to conquer pain, it does not provide information on what pain is or the pain process. Information that provides us with the opportunity of more effectively managing pain.

Stress training, stress inoculation training, and stress exposure training are all methods used by law enforcement and the military to enhance operational performance. The typical stress program involves three stages with the first being an informational stage where stress and its effects are studied. 'Research suggests that preparatory information regarding a potential threatening event can less negative reactions to that event' (Driskell et al 2008: 274).

Stress is an ambiguous concept. I've integrated the concepts and theories of the stress discipline and emotion discipline, which are studying the same concept but focusing on different elements in the process and not referring to each other's work, to develop an understanding of our evolved survival process. Pain is part of our evolved survival process. It can be a reaction to a stimulus (stress) or it can be the stimulus (stressor) that generates its own responses. It is beyond the scope of this post, indeed any typical post, to fully explain this concept, but the same ideas that are used to manage stress, e.g. information provision in stage one, are applicable to managing pain.

In Explain Pain, Butler and Moseley (2003) suggest we remember that ‘knowledge is the great liberator!’ (111), and explain that education and understanding is the primary step in the management of pain. They refer to various studies that have shown that education results in changes in pain beliefs and attitudes, alter pain conditions and physical performance, and increase pain thresholds during physical tasks. Moseley (2005) provided a case study which demonstrated that pain physiology education markedly reduced widespread brain activity characteristic of a pain experience.

Producing Better Teachers and Students

I received a couple of comments with regards to my Best of Kojutsukan Posts. They requested that I link the posts referred to in that post to the actual posts. As you can see from my linking of the Best of Kojutsukan Posts, I have learned the technique to do so, and the previous post has been likewise updated.

Number three in the top ten was: What Does a Black Belt Mean? This suggests to me that there is a lot of interest in understanding what a black belt is suppose to signify. I came across the following again while editing my articles to be submitted for publication:

In virtually all martial arts, black belt denotes the highest level of achievement. ... By the time the student attains a black belt his [or her] knowledge and skill are of the highest class. In addition, his [or her] depth of knowledge makes him [or her] a fully qualified teacher. Rather than merely knowing how to perform the moves, the black belt is expected to know why a given move works. That is, he [or she] understands the biomechanical principles that underlie the move. ... The deeper knowledge makes him [or her] a far better than someone who merely recounts a series of moves. Moreover, such knowledge allows him to invent new moves and combinations and so develop a more personalised [martial art].

(Gracie and Gracie, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique, 2001: 17)

The Gracies' principle is sound, however the practice falls far short. If the black belt does understand the why of techniques, the biomechanical principles that underlie techniques, they did not obtain their knowledge from current biomechanical or martial arts texts.

Jigoro Kano, the founder of Kodokan Judo, when explaining his motivation for developing judo lamented that the many eminent jujutsu masters he studied under did not know the underlying principles of there methods and that they just taught a collection of techniques. I'd suggest not a lot has changed from then to today. This is evident when I am greeted with the bemused question, 'why bother,' when discussing the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. The difference goes to the very essence of these techniques, which I'd suggest is not understood by the question raisers.

The Gracies principle that a black belt denotes a qualified teacher, and that the teacher should know the why-to in addition to the how-to is the mission that is crystallising for me and my kojutsukan.

I am writing four (at the moment) articles that I intend to submit for publication in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts (JAMA). JAMA is a semi-academic journal, and my work is designed to be at that level. The purpose of an MBA, as it was explained to us in our first lecture, is to bridge research and practice. To advance practice by applying research and theory. This is my goal. To have theory inform practice so practice is better. As McGinnis writes in Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise, 'the best outcome of studying and using biomechanics will be improved performances by your athletes or the accelerated learning of new skills by your students' (2005: 1).

Carr, in Sport Mechanics for Coaches (2004), suggests that coaches are reluctant to study sports mechanics because it means tackling dry, boring texts loaded with formulas, calculations, and scientific terminology. Further, he suggests that these texts have failed to explain the relationship of good technique to the principles of mechanics in a manner that is meaningful to coaches and sports enthusiasts. All too true and more so when it comes to the martial arts. In fact, in certain instances, those who have attempted to explain the science behind striking and kicking techniques (the article I'm currently working on) have either confused the issue or misdirected the reader.

I am not interested in the science for the sake of the science. I am not interested in using science to support a particular way of doing things. I am not interested in using science to try and differentiate my teachings from others, such as some do in order to sell books in an over saturated market. As a teacher and student of the martial arts, I am only interested in the science in so far at it facilitates the understanding and study of martial arts techniques or those used in violence generally in a practical way.

I have just had one of my articles reviewed by the head of a sports biomechanics faculty at a prestigious university, who will remain nameless for the moment. He commended me on using biomechanics to inform practice for the general public, and more importantly that I had got the science right. Given I am a self taught biomechanist, that was a huge relief.

The four articles cover the science behind stances, movement (footwork), throwing, takedown, striking, kicking, breakfalling, and unbalancing techniques. They also cover the most fundamental principle that applies to all techniques, forces, and this facilitates the understanding and study of joint techniques. Referring to biomechanical principles is looking at the very essence of the techniques; what actually makes them work. As Carr explains, 'all the fundamental actions an athlete makes in technique are founded on mechanical principles. In other words, technique is based on mechanical laws' (155). All the techniques taught in the martial arts or used in violence generally are based on biomechanical laws. Understanding these laws, or principles, allows the teacher and student to focus on what is important from the get go.

The articles provide a few simple biomechancial concepts that can be used to focus on what actually makes the techniques work. They also provide a method of analysing techniques that can facilitate their analysis to improve performance and to teach the techniques. I always say, first teach the student how to learn, then teach them the subject matter. Teaching a student how to learn accelerates their learning, a goal that McGinnis identified when explaining the benefits of studying biomechanics.

These four articles are now forming the basis for a book on the science behind the tactics and techniques of the martial arts or those used in violence generally. What would be added is the information I have gathered on strangulation techniques, our evolved survival mechanism (Beyond Fight-or-Flight), and pain. What is missing is the physiology explaining joint techniques, but that is difficult to obtain authoritative information given that more than 85% of all injuries to the upper arm are as a result of falls on outstretched hands where forces are applied very differently to the forces applied when executing a joint technique.

Best of Kojutsukan Posts

Yes folks, it's time for a 'best of' post. What are the top 10 Kojutsukan posts?

Before the top 10, it is an opportune moment to reflect on the Kojutsukan mission. Yes, over the years of research a mission has evolved. That mission is to use theory to inform practice. To use theory to facilitate practice. This concept is relatively unique in the martial art world which is generally a bastion of anti-intellectualism - to its detriment. Many instructors attempt to provide theoretical support for their methods. Those same instructors should often refrain from attempting to explain the whys and stick to the hows. They have not done the work, nor have their instructors, into understanding the whys. My work is about providing the whys. Whys that have practical use; that facilitate the understanding and study of martial arts techniques and those used in violence generally in a practical way.

No. 10 Women Self Defence Courses: Effective or Not? Pt 1.

This blog was posted in December 2011 and the fact it made the top ten reflects the interest in women self defence and violence directed at women. These blogs have attracted the greatest amount of comments both on the blog site and to my personal email. Many from women thanking me for airing issues that they've experienced but did not understand or that they thought others did not understand.

No. 9 Can Martial Arts Falling Techniques Prevent Injuries?

In this blog I introduced the readers and the martial arts world to the work of Brenda Groen whose PhD thesis was on the use of martial arts falling techniques to prevent injury when landing from a fall. This technique has been included in a broader fall prevention program that has been rolled out in Holland, and which has recorded success according to various studies.

No. 8 Domestic Violence

Given statistics generally suggest that one if four women experience abuse or violence, it comes as no surprise that there is a great deal of interest in this issue.

No. 7 Jan de Jong Pt 3 - The War Years

Jan de Jong and myself would walk the streets of Rotterdam and Amsterdam when we were visiting Europe for his annual seminars. He would point to various buildings or locations and tell me this happened or that happened there during the war years. Standing in the same place he stood 50 years before made it all the more poignant.

No. 6 Women Self Defence Courses: Effective or Not? Pt 2.

My interest in WSD was increased after becoming involved with a woman who has recently emerged from a long-term abusive relationship. My work over the past few years in researching for my various books and articles provided me with the tools to understand, explain, and help this survivor. I suppose another project to add to my already existing projects is a WSD book and course. This book and course would be different than most others in that it would be based on knowledge of the problem.

No. 5 FOOSH Injuries

My first blog. Fall On OutStretched Hand injuries. I introduced the martial arts world to the concept of FOOSH injuries. Over 85% of all injuries to the upper limb are produced by falling on an outstretched hand. One consequence arising out of this fact is that there is very little information available concerning the physiological explanation of injuries that may be produced when executing kansetsu waza (joint-locking techniques) because the forces are applied in the upper limb in completely different directions in each case.

No. 4 The All or Nothing Law of Strangulation

I recently obtained a copy of another study on shime waza (strangulation techniques) or the more politically correct term neck restraints. There is a bit of controversy over the actual mechanism that causes unconsciousness or death in the case of these techniques or strangles generally. Four mechanisms are often cited, even in the coroners reports I've read which include reports by forensic pathologists or medical personnel. It's often a choice of one of the four mechanisms. I need to do more work on this issue because I am tending towards a combination of two. Stay tuned.

No. 3 Jan de Jong Pt 19 - What Does a Black Belt Mean?

It is interesting there is so much interest in this blog. This might reflect a general confusion about what the black belt qualification signifies. In some striking based martial arts you can obtain a black belt in 1 1/2 to 2 years. Does that imply a lowering of standards? Not necessarily. If you only have a few blocks, kicks, and punches to learn, and if black belt simply signifies proficiency, then not necessarily. For Jan de Jong, a black belt tended toward the teaching side of things rather than proficiency. For myself, anyone who I grade black will most definitely be a world class instructor. They may not be the world's best exponent, but they will most definitely be a world class instructor.

No. 2 O Mae Ukemi aka Bridgefall

This was the first blog I included YouTube vision. The YouTube vision came from a demonstration Greg Palmer put on as part of his 2nd dan gradings. I'm fascinated this polled so well.

I recall a seminar in Stockholm where Jan de Jong was teaching a hip turn which is a technique where the partner/opponent is dragged over your hips and made to fall to the ground. In a previous seminar, a participant shattered both radius and ulna when landing on an outstretched hand. I saw in the Stockholm seminar that people did not know how to land safely from this technique. I asked some of the instructors who were hosting the seminar why they were not using o mae ukemi or bridgefall technique to land safely. They didn't know the technique. I suggested to De Jong that we teach this falling technique, to which he agreed reflecting a certain open mindedness. However, he was reluctant to spend too much time on teaching this technique as he thought the participants wouldn't think they had got value for money from the seminar. In the mid-time break I had half a dozen of the senior instructors come up to me and ask for more instruction on this falling technique, not on any of the defences we were instructing.

This is what I found throughout my national and international teaching experience. It is the fundamentals that are lacking; the fundamentals that are of greatest interest to senior students and instructors.

No 1 'Shorter People Have Certain Advantages in Fighting and Warfare'

Sadly, I suspect the number 1 spot reflects the insecurities shorter people may have rather than an interest in strategy or tactics. I would suggest that shorter people embrace their height challenged status and stand tall, but they can't.

Injury Science - Full Metal Jacket Bullets

I've been working on using the concepts and theories of injury science to gain insights into striking and kicking techniques taught in the martial arts or used in violence generally that would facilitate their study in a practical way. I came across this situation which I thought I'd share.

Injury is defined as the exposure to energy in excess of the tissues tolerance levels. In the case of impacts with moving bodies and objects, kinetic energy is the form of energy that is of interest.

A moving body or object possesses kinetic energy. On impact, when a force is applied, that kinetic energy may be transferred to the impacted body or object causing a change in motion or shape of that body or object. A change in shape refers to deformation, and in the case of a body, if the tissues are deformed beyond their tolerance limits an injury is produced.

If the moving body or object that impacts another body or object continues its motion after impact, not all of its kinetic energy has been transferred to the impacted body or object. For instance, a glancing blow or an exiting bullet is continuing its motion and has not transferred all of its kinetic energy to the target. This reduces the risk of injury or the severity of the injury.

The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of ammunition on the battlefield which is designed to increase the severity of injury or suffering of the wounded. The full metal jacket bullet is commonly used by the military in compliance with the Hague Convention prohibition. It is a bullet whose lead core is encased in a hard metal which resists deformation and fragmentation on impact. Stewart (2005) explains that this type of bullet will often completely pass through the body of the targeted person 'which means that they do not transfer all of their high energy into the tissues' (Stewart 2005: 188).

On the other hand, domestic law enforcement agencies tend to use bullets which expand on impact. Two reasons for this choice of ammunition are often given, both of which revolve around the tendency of this type of bullet to remain in the body of the targeted person. Firstly, it lessens the risk to innocent bystanders of being injured by an exiting bullet. Secondly, all of the kinetic energy is transferred to the tissues of the targeted person which 'cause such severe wounds that anybody shot by these bullets would be immediately incapacitated' (Gunn 193).

Interestingly, I have read that certain law enforcement agencies are adopting the use of full metal jacket bullets because they are considered more humane.

Standard military issue full metal jacket bullets are designed to reduce the severity of injury or suffering of a wounded combatant in a war zone. Standard domestic law enforcement issue soft nose jacket bullets are designed to cause severe wounds which incapacitate a civilian subject immediately. Am I alone is seeing the irony in this?

Banished - 'Why Didn't You Leave?'

In previous blogs I've discussed the most insidious of questions which is often asked of abused women: Why didn't you leave? During my research I came across 'Treating Survivors of Intimate Partner Abuse: Forensic Identification and Documentation' by Daniel Sheridan in Forensic Emergency Medicine, 2nd edn, Olshaker, Jackson, and Smock.

It is common for health care providers who treat severely abused women to wonder why a woman would stay in an abusive relationship. Why would she return time and time again? Why does she stay? When one questions why a woman stays in an abusive relationship, in essence, the health care provider is holding the battered woman accountable for her abuser's behavioural choices. Unfortunately, health care providers rarely say to the abusive male, 'Why do you abuse?' Instead of questioning why she stays, it is better to reframe the question as, 'What are her barriers to leaving?'

'Why didn't you leave?' is holding the abused woman accountable for her abuser's behavioural choices.What are your barriers to leaving? What were your barriers to leaving? Change the why to what. Change the are to were.

"Why do you abuse?' She provoked me. Sheriden explains that so often are the women blamed for causing the violent behaviours by their male abusers that the women begin to self-blame.

Sheridan refers to research which has compared psychological abuse in domestic violence with brainwashing of war and political prisoners. He includes in his list of barriers to leaving, Stockholm syndrome (bonding with your captor), traumatic bonding (intermittent good-bad behaviour), finances, father of their children, religious faith, forgiveness, fantasies she can fix the problem, extended family reasons, friends, etc. The point is there are many barriers to leaving, many of them based on societal and familial expectations and norms.

Without reviewing the entire chapter, a few items are of interest to increase our understanding of this most common of abusive and violent experiences.

The first form of domestic violence is a combination of verbal and emotional abuse. These include name-calling, public embarrassment, veiled and explicit threats of harm, harassment, lies, 'mind games,' and other psychological manipulations.

I liken this to the boiled frog analogy. If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump out to protect itself. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will slowly boil to death.

For many women, the forms of abuse change and escalate when the attempt to leave the abusive relationship. For thousands of battered women, leaving the abusive relationship is marked by increased harassment and danger. Tragically, for more than 2,000 women every year, leaving an abusive relationship results in their death and sometimes in the deaths of their children at the hands of their abusive male partners. ... These data support the assertion that the first year out of an abusive relationship is the most deadly for battered women.

Another barrier to leaving. This supports the fear some women express concerning the risks to their and their children's well-being and lives if they left the abusive relationship.

When discussing the 'father' barrier to leaving, Sheridan explains that a motivator to leave the abusive relationship is when the children begin to mimic his abusive language or abusive physical behaviour. Another barrier to leaving is 'familiarity' where the woman has been brought up in an abusive home and accepts that being beaten by a man is a necessary part of being a woman. This demonstrates the generational effects of domestic abuse.

Possessing a better understanding of this phenomenon increases our chances of being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. If we are fortunate enough not to experience domestic violence personally, we can be damn sure that we will know someone who has or currently is. As instructors, it is our responsibility to have an informed understanding of the problem if we are even to offer an opinion let alone attempt to help.

Straight Arm Lock/Arm Bar/Ude Kujiki - Take Two

I originally posted this blog using a particular image of what appeared to be the defender stepping toward the attacker when executing the technique. I used this image as it highlighted a particular issue I wanted to explore, however, it was pointed out to me that the technique in question, while looking similar to the straight arm lock under review, was actually different and is the applied forces are intended to produce a different affect. I take that comment on board and apologise unreservedly for taking licence with that image. This blog recasts the previous with a more appropriate image. For those who have already read this blog (and there have been quite a few of you) the amendments are contained in the end part of this blog. This has also given me the opportunity of including a little more information which I neglected to include in the original of this blog.

I've recently been contacted by a group of fellow martial artists who are interested in the biomechanics of the martial arts. The interaction reminded me of the work I commenced on understanding joint-locking techniques (kansetsu waza).

The photograph to the right is of a straight arm lock, also commonly known as an 'arm bar', and in Japanese as ude kujiki. The photograph is not the greatest, but it was taken at the late Greg Palmer's dojo with two of his former junior students. Greg was a senior instructor of Jan de Jong, was one of my instructors, had a depth of understanding and love of jujutsu possibly second to none at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, and became a friend and training partner of mine. Out of respect and in memory of Sensei Palmer, I'll use this photograph for illustration purposes.

The straight arm lock is a technique taught by many, if not most, martial arts. It is one of the few kansetsu waza which is permitted in judo competition, and is often seen in mixed martial arts competitions. It can be applied using the arm, as in the photograph above, or the hip while lying on your back, as in the photo to the right. It can also be applied with the leg, hip while standing, stomach, hand, forearm, shoulder, neck, head, and with weapons.

Jan de Jong included theory gradings in his dan (black belt) grades. These are oral gradings which examine the candidates knowledge of techniques and tactics, the proficiency being taken as given. If a black belt represents a teaching qualification, as it most definitely does in Jan de Jong jujutsu, the candidate's theoretical knowledge should most definitely be examined.

How do you study for this theory grading? Unfortunately biomechanics in biomechanical or martial arts texts will not be of much help. Vieten (2008) provides an overview of the English-language martial arts literature related to biomechanics. He found the percentage of biomechanics papers among the literature in martial arts is very low compared to some popular sports and suggests ‘the biomechanics of the martial arts is still in its infancy’ (562). Too true. My work is about growing that infant. This blog is about growing that infant, and possibly encouraging others more qualified than myself to take up the challenge.

Welcome to your theory grading, or part thereof. A typical question De Jong would ask, and which Palmer often referred to when explaining the theory examination, was: What are the forces involved in ude gatame ude kujiki (arm set arm breaking; the first techique illustrated above)? This, as it turns out, was a very insightful question. The problem was that De Jong and the candidates only had a layperson's understanding of 'forces'. If they'd have had a mechanical/biomechanical understanding of forces, the answers would have not be so convoluted.

Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996; K&B) explain that 'because forces account for the motion and changes of motion of all things in the environment, including the body and the body segments, it is important for the movement specialist to understand what forces are and how we can picture them as they are applied to or by the body' (80). Firstly, 'a force is something that causes or tends to cause a change in the motion or shape of an object or body' (80). It's not just a change in motion which forces cause; they also cause a change in shape which is referred to as 'deformation' in mechanics. If the deformation of the body's tissues is significant enough, it will lead to injury. Secondly, given the preceding explanation of forces, it is important for martial arts instructors and students to understand what forces are and how they can picture them as they are applied to or by the body. The beauty of it all is that it is so easy - 'easy peesy Japanesey.'

'A force can be thought of as a push or a pull; ... a blow or impact, or gravity' (K&B 1996: 80). Forces have four unique properties: magnitude, direction, point of application, and line of action (K&B 1996). In initially answering our theory question, all we need to do is identify all of the points of application and describe their direction and whether they are a push or a pull. That is it - easy peesy Japanesey. Forces are what makes the technique work. They are the essence of the technique.

See: http://www.kojutsukan.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/using-forces-to-understand-and-explain.html

With the ude gatame ude kujiki, there are three points of application. The right hand is applying a pushing force to the back of uke's (receiver of the technique) flexed hand back towards uke; the left hand is grasping and applying a pulling force on uke's wrist away from uke; and the elbow is applying a downward force to uke's elbow. That is it - easy peesy Japanesey. Next question.

What is the purpose of ude gatame ude kujiki, or any kansetsu waza for that matter? Kansetsu waza is a seperate class of technique. This can be seen in numerous texts and in numerous systems. For instance, the Kodokan Judo classification of techniques initially classifies all their techniques as nage waza (throwing techniques), atemi waza (striking techniques), and katame waza (grappling techniques). Katame waza is subdivided as osae komi waza (immobilisation techniques), shime waza (strangulation or choking techniques), and kansetsu waza (joint locking techniques).

The kata gatame ude kujiki (shoulder set arm breaking) illustrated to the right can be turned into a shoulder throw. In jujutsu, throws often involve initially locking up the joint in order to throw an opponent. They are also used to take an opponent to the ground without causing both the opponent's feet to leave the ground. This is my biomechancially-based definition of a takedown technique. Kansetsu waza are often used as immobilisation techniques, as is often seen in aikido. They are also used as kuzushi* (unbalancing) techniques. They are used as pain compliance techniques, and, which is probably the first explanation that would most likely be given, they are used to disable an opponent by injuring their joint. If I was examining a candidate and they gave me the last answer, I'd immediately ask them how often is the ubiquitous wrist twist used to disable an opponent by injuring their wrist. The humble wrist twist is most often used to take an opponent to the ground (takedown technique not a throwing technique as is so often described in aikido and many jujutsu systems)in order to execute another technique, a 'finishing' technique.

Firstly, it can be seen that kansetsu waza is a class of technique which overlaps with many other classes of techniques. It has multiple personalities. Secondly, so what? So what? The technique may look the same, that is to say it has the same points of application of the forces, but the direction and magnitude of the forces will differ depending on the purpose of the technique.

What is the physiological effect of applying forces to the extended elbow when executing ude kujiki? Here there is no authoritative answer. I was astounded, when researching the science behind joint locking techniques, that I could find no detailed explanation of the effects of kansetsu waza when forces are applied and the joint is moved beyond its range of motion. If any reader knows of such information, and only authoritative information is of interest, I'd appreciate it being forwarded to me and I will duly share it with the world via this blog.

Why not refer to medical or forensic texts? I did. However, between 80% and 90% of all injuries that occur to the upper limb are the result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injuries; see http://http://www.kojutsukan.blogspot.com.au/search/label/FOOSH). Consequently, the medical and forensic literature focuses on these types of injuries. The forces are applied in a different direction when landing on an outstretched hand compared to when forces are applied at right angles to the posterior aspect of the elbow when executing an ude kujiki.

The bones of the elbow joint are the humerus, radius, and ulna. The olecranon of the head of the ulna fits into the olecranon fossa of the humerus which limits the hyperextension of the forearm and provides stability to the joint. Dislocation refers to the complete disruption of of a joint so that the articular surfaces are no longer in contact. Dislocation of the elbow results in, among other things, extreme pain and inability to move the elbow. Elbow dislocations are classified with reference to the position of the ulna relative to the humerus following injury. Dislocation of the elbow can be posterior or anterior:

• posterior – the forearm bones are displaced posterior to the distal part of the humerusand accounts for the majority of all elbow dislocation injuries.
• anterior - the forearm bones are displaced anterior to the distal part of the humerus and are extremely rare. Consequently the data on these types of injury are likewise rare.

In layperson terms, with a FOOSH injury more than 90% of the dislocations of the elbow involve the ulna sliding up the back of the humerus because the forces are being transferred from the hand to the forearm and to the elbow. The forces are applied in a different direction when an ude kujiki technique is executed; they are applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow, which means the injury may be different. After all, Whiting and Zernicke (2008) include in their seven factors which combine to determine the nature of an injury, the tissues injured, and the severity of an injury, 'direction (where is the force directed?)'.

Anterior dislocations are often described as occurring when the elbow is flexed and it receives a blow. The olecranon can lever the humerus and slide in front of it, or, it can be fractured. This is often referred to as a 'fracture-dislocation'.

I apologise for not being able to identify the source of the following quote. It is included in my notes without reference, and I need to go back to my notebooks to identify the reference. However for the purposes of this blog I will proceed without the reference.

Given elbow dislocations are the one joint technique allowable in judo (wrist, shoulder, and knee techniques were forbidden due to the risks of injury associated with the techniques), a sport practiced around the world for a century, and there is no reference I can find in the literature on extreme elbow injuries as in the case of a fracture-dislocation in judo, I might hypothesise that the abovementioned dislocations without fractures are not uncommon when an external force is applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow.

What type of dislocation and injury occurs when executing ude kujiki? Given they are permitted and used in judo and mixed martial arts, you might have thought there would be information published on this issue. You might have thought wrong. If I am mistaken, I'd appreciate reader's directing me to the source that would correct my misunderstanding. This blog is, as stated above, a call to arms to encourage others to study these most basic of questions: What injuries are intended to be inflicted when a joint-locking technique is executed? In the case of ude kujiki, in my mind it is the comparatively rare anterior dislocation with a possible fracture of the olecranon

The technique to the right is described as a 'step in arm lock.' Comment on the technique? This is a question which De Jong would often pose using photographs from books, etc? Firstly, a tactical issue. Stepping toward the opponent while applying this technique exposes the defender to the risks posed by the attacker's free hand. Secondly, stepping forward changes the forces applied by the hand at the wrist. Now it is pushing rather than pulling. This has the effect of 'close packing' the elbow joint increasing rather than decreasing its stability (increasing rather than decreasing its resistance to forces). Thirdly, I would hypothesise that should the combined forces result in a dislocation of the elbow, it would result in a posterior dislocation whereas when forces are applied to stretch the elbow joint and then forces applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow, they might result in an anterior dislocation and/or a disclocation-fracture.

Notes

*Interestingly, Jigoro Kano explains that 'the basis of kuzushi is pushing and pulling' (1986: 42). Kano, the originator of the use of biomechanics to understand and study the tactics and techniques of the martial arts - to a degree and possibly unwittingly.

References

Kano, J. (1986). Kodokan Judo. Tokyo: Kondansha International

Kreighbaum, E. and K.M. Barthels. (1996). Biomechanics: A qualitative approach for studying human movement. 4th edn. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Vieten, M.M. (2008). Application of biomechanics in martial art training. In Handbook of biomechanics and human movement science, edited by Y. Hong and R. Bartlett. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Whiting, W.C. and R.F. Zernicke. (2008). Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury.2nd edn. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.