"Adrenaline Dump" myths

Age : 52 Joined : 07 Jan 2008 Posts : 40 Location : England

Hi Kobayashi,

Don't have the original - but you're on the right lines. Swap the explosive and general strength days though.

This suggestion is straight from the excellent book 'Stretching Scientifically' by Tom Kurz - a great addition to any fighters bookshelf.

I originally wrote in response to someone who was doing massive volumes of training but getting nowhere but stiff and sore, which reminded me of how I used to be! I got a lot of feedback, some negative, but most who disagreed didn't get the fact that each of the five sessions should be tough. If they're doing fifteen poor quality sessions a week and cut that to five, there's nothing gained, but replace those fifteen with five good ones they'll start feeling stronger and less mentally drained.

Most people today understand there's more benefit from intensity than duration.

Good luck with your training!

Gary

Joined : 08 Nov 2007 Posts : 10

Gary,

Thank you!

I actually read that book 5-6 years ago and still have it. I will definitely re-read it. There are some excellent articles at his website as well.

Thanks again,

Best regards,

Kobayashi

Age : 52 Joined : 07 Jan 2008 Posts : 40 Location : England

You're very welcome -

Edition 4 pages 52 - 53 gives the full running order. Might not suit everyone, but if you're juggling family, work and training whilst trying to get the most from everything this is a pretty good starting point.

Further tip - I now use the sessions in Ross Enamait's book, 'Infinite Intensity'

"Challenges" on Tuesdays, "Strength" on Fridays and then running sessions on Saturdays (Switching to bag work as required) Leaves me fresh and up for it for martial arts training on Mondays and Thursdays. PLUS - I really hate the "Challenges" as they're v. f'in hard if done properly - I start getting nervous beforehand so the mental toughness get a weekly workout as well!

Regards,

Gary

Joined : 08 Nov 2007 Posts : 10

Hi Gary,

I have just bought Ross Enamait's book, 'Infinite Intensity'. This is almost like a fighter’s bible. I was determined to follow the 50-day program, but since I’m not competing these days it just seemed too much…

Then I just re-read your post here and I think that your approach would suit me just fine. I was thinking of taking the challenge, strength and interval session of each 5-day cycle of the 50-day program and think of it as one week. E.g. the first week would look something like this:

Mon: Boxing/MMA
Tue: The magic 50
Wed: Off
Thu: Boxing/MMA
Fri: Strength 1
Sat: 4x800 meters and 4x50 meters sprint (Interval session from day 2)
Sun: Off

Do you think that’s a good approach?

Or would you rather pick one challenge, one strength session and one interval session and stick with these for 4-6 weeks?

Best regards,

Kobayashi

Subject: Re: "Adrenaline Dump" myths Fri May 09, 2008 3:57 am

"Proper planning and preparation produces powerful, proactive performance."

excellent positive version.
Interesting discussion. everyone in society is affected by the 'fight or fight senario. Not just in a violent confrontation but in everyday life. Such as when you have a dissagreement with you boss or you are being put under a lot of pressure. In my experience these common sysptoms are a very physical issue, but however try not to seperate the physical with the psychological anymore. In my past study of Phobias many of the symptoms experienced are actually caused by muscle tension causeing feelings of unbalance, often caused by irregular breathing and therefore an incorreect mixture of gases in the blood. Andrenaline and nor-andrenaline over acting on the muscles and bodily organs which can account for some of the twitching and shaking experienced. Its kind of a vicious circle in itsself feeding itself. I feel that Litos positive use of the above fact shows us that fight or flight wasnt an originally a negative response to stress etc. Unfortunatly now in our society it isnt civilised to take your boss out with a good slap just because you have a disagreement. So the response is seen as a negative set of symptoms as the desired physical response the body is asking for is constanly being fought against. Unless your a nut case of course. Im not sure about this but would like to here others knowledge about it, Could the constant fight between natural reactions and trained reactions account for any of the 'freezing up' or hesitation commonly experienced.?
I do feel it is important to look at this from the individuals experience though as everyone responds diffeently and other environmental diffrentialities will play a role.

Joined : 17 Aug 2007 Posts : 46

An interesting article sent to me by a friend.

Coops

Walter Cannon's original formulation of the term for the human response to threat, "fight or flight," was coined exactly 75 years ago, in 1929.1 It is an easily remembered catchphrase that seems to capture the essence of the phenomena it describes. It accurately evokes two key behaviors that we see occurring in response to threat. This phrase has led to certain ingrained assumptions about what to expect in our patients and, because of its broad usage, what they expect of themselves. It is a testament to the foundational significance of Cannon's work that the term he used continues to shape clinical understanding and to influence popular culture's understanding of stress as well. But the phrase has not been updated to incorporate important advances in the understanding of the acute response to extreme stress. Specifically, the term ignores major advances in stress research made since it was coined.

Both human and animal research on the pan-mammalian response to stress has advanced considerably since 1929, and it may be time to formulate a new form of this catchphrase that presents a more complete and nuanced picture of how we respond to danger.

The phrase "fight or flight" has influenced the understanding and expectations of both clinicians and patients; however, both the order and the completeness of Cannon's famous phrase are suspect. "Fight or flight" mischaracterizes the ordered sequence of responses that mammals exhibit as a threat escalates or approaches. In recent years, ethologists working with nonhuman primates have clearly established four distinct fear responses that proceed sequentially in response to increasing threat. The order of these responses may have important implications for understanding and treating acute stress in humans.

The sequence, originally described by Jeffrey A. Gray,2 begins with what ethologists call "the freeze response" or "freezing," terms corresponding to what clinicians typically refer to as hypervigilance (being on guard, watchful, or hyper-alert). This initial freeze response is the "stop, look, and listen" response associated with fear. The survival advantage of this response is obvious. Specifically, ethological research has demonstrated that prey that remain "frozen" during a threat are more likely to avoid detection because the visual cortex and the retina of mammalian carnivores primarily detect moving objects rather than color.3

After this initial freeze response, the next response in the sequence is an attempt to flee, and once this has been exhausted, there is an attempt to fight—in that order. Thus, "flight or fight" is the proper order of responses rather than "fight or flight." This reversal of order may have nontrivial clinical implications that become clear once one examines the conflicting demands of biological and social imperatives often present in life-threatening situations. Overcoming the biological predisposition to act one way when sociocultural norms demand another type of action complicates an already overwhelming scenario.

To illustrate, consider a military combat situation. When a soldier encounters an initial sign of threat, the socially appropriate response, i.e., the response demanded by his military training and reinforced by other members of his unit, is usually the "stop, watch, and listen" heightened-alertness response. This behavior is consistent with the biological predisposition toward the first part of the sequence: the freeze response. As the reality of a firefight grows imminent, however, the biological and situational demands are no longer in concert. The evolved hardwired instinctual response to flee is in conflict with his/her military training. This conflict is bound to further increase the intensity of this already stressful experience. It is a conflict that is hidden, however, by the misconception that a human’s first instinct is to fight.

In addition to the omission of the initial freezing response, other important fear responses have remained obscured, in part because of their omission from "fight or flight," and these other fear responses have important clinical implications as well. The next step in the sequence of fear-circuitry responses after fighting is tonic immobility. This response occurs during direct physical contact with the carnivore (or the human predator). Tonic immobility was referred to as "playing dead" in the early ethological literature and has been referred to as peritraumatic "panic-like" symptoms in the posttraumatic stress disorder literature.4 We prefer a term widely used in Europe: "fright." The corresponding French term is "effroi."5 "Fright" is also the English word that best captures the Kraepelinean (and modern German) concept of "Schreck" as in "Schrekneurosen."4–6 Furthermore, the ethological term "freeze" discussed closely resembles the meaning of "freeze" in military and police parlance.

Unfortunately, in child psychology, "fright" (tonic immobility) has also been referred to as "freezing." This has created much confusion. The tonic immobility (fright) response is pan-mammalian. Tonic immobility is most useful when a slow-moving vulnerable organism (e.g., the opossum) is confronted with a life-threatening situation involving mobile, large predators.3,7 Tonic immobility may enhance survival when a predator temporarily loosens its grip on captured prey under the assumption that it is indeed dead, providing the prey with an opportunity for escape. It is also a response that may be adaptive in humans when there is no possibility of escaping or winning a fight.7

The clinical relevance of tonic immobility as a survival response may be illustrated best in relation to the behavior of some victims of violence or sexual assault who exhibit extreme passivity during the assault. Here again, an understanding of the hard-wired nature of the response might help ameliorate one dimension of the painful memories that plague some victims who wonder why they did not put up more of a fight.

We propose the adoption of the expanded and reordered phrase "freeze, flight, fight, or fright" as a more complete and nuanced alternative to "fight or flight." While we cannot hope to compete with the legacy of Cannon's phrase in the culture at large, adoption of this alternative term within the clinical community may help keep clinicians aware of the relevant advances in understanding of the human stress response made since the original term "fight or flight" was coined three-quarters of a century ago.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This material is based upon work supported in part by the Office of Research and Development, Medical Research Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Pacific Islands Health Care System, Spark M. Matsunaga Medical Center. Support was also provided by a National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD) Independent Investigator Award and the VA National Center for PTSD.

Joined : 17 Aug 2007 Posts : 46

And to now take the discussion a little further - the concept and research in the article I posted has been known for a long while, but it does upset the applecart a little for those who are not happy with the original fight or flight idea. What it does for those of us who do believe in it, is make it apparent that there are not just combatives and RBSD people using this stuff - basically it gives it creedence.

OK, onto the next aspect, cognitive dissonance. Caused when we cannot properly make decisions and caused by us not getting enough, or the right information to help us make those decisions. Dave Grossman sites 'Sensory Gating' as one, if not the main cause - the bodies choice to 'shut off' those senses which it doesn't feel are helping with the problem it is facing - the reason you don't feel some of those punches in a pub fight until the day after - the reason people have kept on going with six or seven bullets inside them.

Finally, it all comes down to experience in the end. I site 'experience' in the combatives/ Self Protection field, as those lessons thrust upon us which we choose to learn from in a positive way. The experience can come from many sources - real world conflict or scenario training (FoF as Ari terms it). The one advantage scenario work has is that, with a good and insiteful instructor, you can develop at the pace which your body suits - real world just lumps it on you and doesn't give a d**n Very Happy

OK guys, I'm ready for the beating, fire away

Coops