Recommended VII: From Exreme Fear to Mindful Eating
- jamie03066
- Jun 15, 2015
- 13 min read
Image by Lord Jim via Flickr
Fear
Fear has become a mainstay of Reality-Based Self-Defence training for a long time now. Both our understanding of how it alerts us to danger – immortalized in such RBSD “Bibles” as Gavin De Becker’s “The Gift of Fear” – and in the way it can restrict us from realizing our potential – see Geoff Thompson’s “Fear: The Friend of Exceptional People”. There have since been a plethora of titles handling either good fear or bad fear, and plenty of confusion has followed. Jeff Wise’s book “Extreme Fear” might be just the solution we need. It provides detailed and scientific studies on the way fear helps and hinders. True, it provides certain cases – such as the puma attack - that can be found in other fear books like Ben Sherwood’s “The Survival Club”, but it offers an altogether more clinical eye for detail than most other titles.
His blog is also an excellent resource for information. Here is a piece on “The Thing Inside You That is Holding You Back”.
Reflex!
Reactions seem to be the favourite flavour at the moment. More than one person has contacted me regarding good research into the field of human reflexes. The subject of action versus reaction is a contentious area in martial arts practice. Many modern self-protection coaches, such as me, have argued the case for action. Actually it isn’t that modern at all; with the likes the most famous duelling samurai Myomoto Musashi and historical warfare in general preaching the value of the first strike. Peter Consterdine has often demonstrated how, despite the speed of a person’s unconscious reflexes, they rarely can intercept a close-range pre-emptive strike. I took that ball and ran with it, creating a test that can easily be carried out by four students with no interference from their instructor, which puts the pre-emptive theory on trial. I have found that the test proves that it is highly unlikely for an individual to be able to block the strike of a person standing within arm’s length away if their arms are by their sides (the typical stance most people adopt in a conversation).
However, scientific tests have discovered that reaction should beat action. Action is generally a conscious decision and originates in the motor cortex of the brain. It is argued that it has a longer distance to travel than reaction. Many cite that reaction is monosynaptic, but it should be remembered that this type of reaction is only applicable to the simplest reflexes and, in general, our reactions are polysynaptic. Nevertheless, the fact that they originate with the synapses and therefore the spinal cord means they go through a much shorter process. I find that in practical application range determines whether or not action or reaction will win. At short distance action generally makes contact first. However, over a longer distance the reacting fighter seems to have the advantage.
Here regular recommended writer, Ron Goin provides us with an excellent article on the science of reflexes and how it relates to combat.
The Myth of the Knife Duel and Hyper-Vigilance
I look forward to hopefully meeting up with self-protection maestro W. Hock Hocheim in November when he teams up with my coach, Mo Teague as part of a super-seminar held at Telford. I have to say the man’s work is a must-read/must-watch for any self-protection student or progressive martial artist who is interested in critical thinking and the scientific method combined with hardboiled combative experience. His blog entries for September 2011 are excellent reading.
There is a famous scene in the classic western “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” whereby the one of our dubious train-robbing heroes, Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman), is challenged to a knife fight by Harvey Logan (Ted Cassidy) to decide the gang’s leadership. Butch accepts the challenge. However, before the fight commences, Butch explains that he and Harvey have to get the rules straight. Harvey looks aghast at the suggestion “Rules? In a knife fight? No rules!” On hearing this, our hero then promptly kicks his opponent in the groin and then quickly finishes the conflict. Now this film might be a fanciful and highly flattering romanticization of the true story of one of America’s most notorious criminal double acts, but the message in this scene, comparable to the “Where’s your tool?” scene in Alan Minton’s “Scum”, is pretty clear. Even in a seemingly no-holds-barred fight some people still default back to the old “match fight” or “duel fight” mentality.
The reality is very different. When edged weapons are engaged along with the chaos and intent, so often lacking and very hard replicate in martial arts classes, the dynamic alters tremendously. A fundamental issue I have with all forms of “match fighting” is that it represents symmetrical fighting and is born out of alpha male/alpha female tribal domination. I have written about this a lot in various diary entries and there is even a video clip of me preaching about the issue, but real fights – as in the assaults you find yourself in as opposed to the one-on-one “straighteners” you choose to engage in – are asymmetrical by design. Provided you are a law-abiding citizen and not the offender, you are often providing a counter assault as a prelude to escape. In his September blog Hock addresses the “myth” of the “knife duel” and how many coaches have mistaken training for the realities of a fight that involves edged weaponry with what generally boils down to a fencing match.
Along with this blog I recommend Hock’s entry on “Hyper-Vigilance”. Again, this attracted my attention as it addresses issues that are a mainstay of my self-protection seminars. Here Hock explains the change in definition of the term hyper-vigilance. Semantics are important and Hock is concerned that the use of the term hyper-vigilance today, which is now defined in most psychological academia as being a state of “enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviours whose purpose is to detect threats.” It is sometimes a symptom of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) and is superficially similar to paranoia.
Ben Sherwood’s “Survivor’s Club” describes a condition that 80% of people typically experience in a serious crisis. They freeze and await instructions. Sherwood cites psychological studies that theorize people in such situations try to source information they don’t have and get stuck on a loop. Perhaps I am wrong, but are we not discussing the freeze response? This is the most neglected third response often left off in discussions on the “fight and flight response”; the experience we all feel in a stressful situation. In his post Hock describes the old term for hyper-vigilance to mean something like this response. He also addresses the different reasons put forward for why humans sometimes exhibit this so-called survival instinct in times of crisis. Some see it as a flaw and attribute it to sensory overload. Some – and this one isn’t addressed in the post – attribute it to the concept of “playing dead” or “playing possum”. In other words, you freeze to fool a predator that you are dead and they will release their hold on you, so that you sneak off to live to fight another day. Hock’s reasoning is a compelling evolutionary theory that I haven’t come across before and is worth a look.
The Psychology of Terror and the Gaming Generation
I admit to enjoying Dave Grossman’s work. His lectures are compelling and his books are very readable. He is worth checking out for insights into developing muscle memory in stressful situations, understanding the psychology behind pulling the proverbial and literal trigger and also coming to terms with the post-fight condition – perhaps the most neglected area of any self-protection lesson. However, the down side to his work was, again, alerted to me by W. Hock Hocheim and one his senior instructors, Al Cain. Hock generally seemed more concerned with the lack of reference material and the unscholarly way Grossman assembled his data and put forward his cases. The trouble is that once you start seeing probable flaws in a person’s work it is difficult to stop. Only in the last edition of “Recommended” I linked Ron Goin’s critique of Grossman’s essay and philosophy regarding life’s metaphorical wolves, sheep and sheepdogs.
You see, before I read Hock’s critique had a small niggling problem with Grossman’s views on the apparent “epidemic” of classroom shootings. Like many others he saw this as a growing problem that could only be dealt with by having heftier security in the schools and a serious review of the sort of entertainment popular with many youths. He more than hinted at the popular media portrayal of the Columbine High School teenage spree-killers as a pair of outcast Goths seduced by violent video games. Dan Gardner’s “Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear” brought the whole hysteria regarding these types of massacres into rational and statistical perspective. With or without the added screening and security systems in place – and there certainly hasn’t been a reduction in violent entertainment enjoyed by youths – there has been no global escalation in school spree-killings perpetrated by teenagers. For real in depth material on this entire tragedy and a thorough debunking of these popular misconceptions about the killers and their motivations I highly recommend Dave Cullen’s book, “Columbine”.
“Point of Inquiry” is a radio show and podcast for the Center for Inquiry. The show typically consists of an interview or discussion between scientific sceptics, humanists, rationalists and secular philosophers. Anthropologist Scott Atran offers a fascinating insight into the motivations behind terrorism and how its approach is so often out of sink with the way governments have responded to it. His interview on POI provides some great information gleaned from interviews with extremists, statistics and a rational overview of post 9/11 activity. It offers an opposing view to the predictions that Grossman put forward in his “Bulletproof Mind” lectures.
For personal reasons not directly related to Clubb Chimera Martial Arts “Skepticality” is not my favourite sceptical podcast. It’s a shame as it is the official podcast for the magazine run by one of my favourite sceptics, Michael Shermer. Nonetheless, I am a regular subscriber and it does produce some quality material. Episode 164 provides an interview with Professor Cathy N. Davidson, co-founder of HASTAC, "Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory". This interview is packed full of relevant information. Firstly it provides yet another good argument against the somewhat hysterical response we are seeing towards children’s computer and video games. Grossman is a strong believer that violent media, especially games, are a root cause for the violence being perpetrated by teenagers. Davidson argues that the data proves otherwise and that the digital generation is actually proving to be one of the least violent generations since the 1940s. She goes onto argue that they are more social and compassionate than previous generations. I am not sure whether I agree with her summation and conclusions completely, but she makes a convincing argument that is very much in line with Don Tapscott’s “Grown-Up Digital”, a book I reviewed upon its release in 2007.
The episode also looks at the way we are selectively aware and how understanding our cognitive blind spots aids learning. This is referenced in the title of the episode “Can You See the Gorilla”. Although the famous video is referenced as a light bulb moment for Davidson, one shouldn’t confuse it with the work of Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons who wrote the book “The Invisible Gorilla” and created the video. On a side note their material is certainly worth checking out for anyone who is interested in teaching awareness and understanding intuition. Indeed studies into their work made me reassess my own Gavin De Becker inspired ideas about intuition.
In Defence of Functional Training
Dave Hedges joins my list of regular resources I have found through social networking on the internet. How clinical sounding and corporate does that sound? He’s a martial arts coach on Facebook who seems to know his stuff and I like cut of his gib. Heading “Wildgeese Fitness Training” in Dublin, Ireland, Dave regularly runs courses and boot camps that sound familiar to the methods employed by the likes of Martin Rooney, Mo Teague, Ross Boxing and Gym Jones. They use asymmetrical weights and take inspiration from combative movements, strong man training and work-related fitness. They lift kettlebells, flip tyres, swing sledge hammers, throw medicine balls, run with sand bags and find more challenging ways to perform conventional exercises. Their objectives are to strengthen function – in mind and body - rather than build aesthetically pleasing muscles or to be able to lift certain amounts of balanced weight. Functional fitness forms part of my three most important areas in the “Hierarchy of Training”. However, being a sceptic and constantly on the look out for new ideas and arguments against established ideas – after functional fitness could be seen as a direct critique of traditional dumbbells, weights machines and regular circuit training – I am open to discussion. There are no sacred cows in my camp. So, I was intrigued by articles I started seeing appearing in 2011 MMA magazines and also one critique against kettlebell usage on a website. The link for this article is in the previous edition of “Recommended”. I have read an article that slates a lot of strongman exercises for the way the technical ability required to perform certain exercises often over-rides the need to get functional form for fighting. Another article proclaimed “You need to earn the right to be specific”. In other words, turning my philosophy on its head, the author was saying that only when you have a certain degree of conventional fitness through traditional compound movement exercises should you start messing around with the technique-orientated routines. Anyway, as mentioned in the previous edition of “Recommended”, my linking of the anti-kettlebell article and the fascinating discussion that followed yielded rather unproductive responses. Although I didn’t agree with a lot of what had been said, there were a few points that deserved rational discussion and should have prompted thought rather than emotion. Dave Hedges was the one man who didn’t let me down in this department.
As well as providing a well-reasoned argument on my thread he provided me with a link that addressed both the argument for functional fitness and the cult of functional fitness that mutated into a silly trend being picked up by gym instructors to stave off boredom with their clients.
What’s my Motivation?
Dave also kindly invited me to contribute to a free ebook on motivation. This excellent collection of comments, articles and meditations provides a myriad of advice from some top martial artists, athletes and coaches. Many areas are covered in varying detail and I was fascinated to read what my fellow contributors thought about this elusive non-tangible area of training that is 100% down to the individual. The desire or want to train is a daily struggle even the most dedicated people face day-in and day-out. Download the entire book from here
Mindful Eating
I get material from a variety of sources. As a rule I try to avoid tabloids and obvious sensationalist media. However, it doesn’t pay to be a snob and you can occasionally get good leads on concepts if not especially good journalism. My attention was drawn to an article in a free women’s lifestyle magazine that came with my mother’s papers a month or so back. I am not going to cite the magazine because I cannot remember its name and the torn out article was mislaid. It interested me for two reasons:
It acknowledged the futility of diets
It was written by a dietician i.e. an accredited professional with a protected scientific qualification
This doesn’t mean I would automatically buy into the content of the piece, but it put it above the usual fad dieting articles backed up by self-proclaimed nutritionists and sponsored by even less qualified celebrities. As I have said many times before, nutrition is perhaps the last bastion of mysticism in hard physical training. It’s easy for the full-contact combat sportsman or hardboiled pressure-testing combatives practitioner to smirk at his distant cousins in the traditional, quasi-traditional and classical arts. Some of us laugh at their archaic traditions, their belief in supernatural powers, their faith in light and contact sparring, their over-training in cooperative and compliant combat drills that never get put under pressure and their endless abstract techniques practiced to thin air. However, when it comes to food we are often just as silly about nutrition as they are about combat. If you don’t believe me, read Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science”, listen to the nutritional episodes on the “Skeptoid” podcast, read Coach Jamie Hale’s stuff on his Max Condition website and when you are finished with them have a perusal through the popular MMA magazines. You will be astounded by the fad dieting, pseudoscience and crazy ideas about nutrition being touted by top athletes. Nutrition has been bonded to belief systems for thousands of years. The great self protection pioneer Geoff Thompson regularly endorses the concept that control of one’s pallet is the key to success. On the darker side of this philosophy we find that despotic rulers of the past worked out that by controlling the supply of food to a nation ensured a god-like control. We need to eat to survive, but our naturally omnivorous nature derived from the way we have thrived through natural selection has made the whole concept of eating far more than a simple source of fuel. Nutrition is a dodgy subject and we should tread carefully.
Nevertheless, this free magazine article alerted me to the concept of “Mindful Eating”. Simply put, dieticians have recognized the psychological link between eating and overeating. We often indulge in “mindless munching”, a term I actually read in a good article in one of the aforementioned MMA magazines, and put excess calories into our bodies. By being more mindful of one’s eating, as in actually acknowledging what you have chosen to eat and how you eat it, you become aware of your nutritional intake. I am a classic gorger of food and yet quite sensitive to the fact that I have eaten an excessive amount of rubbish. Food has often been just fuel for me and I picked up a bad habit of eating on the move – it came from having to dash off to different kickboxing clubs situated in all over the country and then with a hectic lifestyle. The idea of being more mindful about eating appeals to me and the academic research into it seems quite encouraging. There is no magic formula, no gimmicky food restrictions and it all seems more individualized than dieting.
Looking on the net I found this place to have the most information on this concept, but don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and remain sceptical.
Okay, I appreciate Wikipedia doesn’t exactly constitute psychological academia, but essentially that is what they are saying!
Interestingly paranoia, and I use the term broadly and not necessarily in its strict clinical sense, is also an area of concern in self-protection training.
It cannot be exaggerated how hard this is convey to a student who has no real fighting experience or doesn’t possess the strike-first instinct. Many top instructors have confided in me that they don’t have confidence in many of their students’ abilities to pre-emptively strike a would-be attacker in a real-life situation.
Nothing quite like bringing in an old cliché; better than “random” or inserting extended variations of the word “so” all the time.
Well, there might be a few mooing about, but their slaughter is an ongoing process for me. No hiding behind the milk churns with the CCMA CSI method!
Actually the wife saw it lying about and automatically assumed it belonged to my stepdaughter and put it in her bag. I haven’t the foggiest where it has gone!
No, I am not contradicting myself. For the most part MMA magazines contain some excellent sports and fitness journalism. What I am concerned with is the blind spot they tend to have for alternative therapies and nutrition. They do sometimes provides arguments against more extreme diets – such as red meat heavy diets – but for the most part the nutritional information is presented as all equally valid when it is not.
Komentáře