Health Of Young People Has Declined Strongly In The Last 30 Years

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Hi jaa,
Boxing and MMA are very contextual sports with their own reference points and closed theatre of activity. And they are multi $$$$$$$ industries. But they are not Budo. By that fact alone, they will not attract serious practitioners on a Budo path. So I don't believe they represent the best fighters in the world. It's a big world out there. I think the great martial artists are basically unknown.
I mean, for example, I just couldn't find any footage of my teacher. It does't exist. Just a very boring clip of a mundane technique with a lackluster student. But off to the side, you may have noticed a couple of tattooed yudanshas. They are both professional MMA fighters. They know. They know to come to the little zen pebble and learn a thing or two about technique. I would say, for sure, grappling has mostly to do with technique.

Hey Regina,

Respectfully, I could not disagree more.

MMA is the closest sport we have to unarmed combat. And as you point out, it's a big $ industry. This means there's a huge incentive for humans to get good at fighting under an MMA ruleset (and no, the MMA ruleset does not allow eye gouging or groin striking, but these aren't fight enders and TMA practitioners do not have a huge edge in executing these moves because you can't spar with them).

Since the inception of the UFC 25 years ago, fighters from around the world have been figuring out the most effective strikes in unarmed combat fuelled by a cash incentive and a desire not to get beat up. Initially this was just style vs style, and we found out pretty quickly that if you take a high level (for the time) BJJ practitioner and pit them vs a high level american kickboxer, the BJJ practitioner will usually win. Then the big american wrestler entered the stage, and learned a few BJJ defenses and coupled that with an overhand and ruled the day. Next came the high level strikers, with some basic TDD and BJJ defence, who would usually put those guys out before they got taken down and beaten up. And on and on it iterated where today you have kids who start out training all the major styles and supplementing some TMA. Even the guys at the high levels who you would consider a representative of a certain style are still proficient in other aspects of the game. Damien Maia is a BJJ superstar and has found much success just smothering guys as of late, but he can strike, and he gets fights to the mat thanks to his wrestling abilities. But I digress.

You say it's a big world, which is true, but it's a whole lot smaller now. Back before the UFC and even in the early days of MMA people could get away with saying their TMA style would beat any other. You don't hear much of that any more as top MMA fighters are undefeated vs any style. Aside from UFC 1, when Royce Gracie showed the BJJ beats all other styles if no one else knows anything else, there hasn't been a single martial art that has shown it is superior to whatever the top MMA fighters of the day are doing. Not only that, but fighters today have many styles to choose techniques from and they choose a wide variety based on personal preference and what evolution has shown to work. A wise old master who is stuck in his ancient ways does not have this luxury. He is secluded, and a victim of his styles limitations. Bruce Lee identified that back in 1967. Just like the best boxer, or wrestler, or tkd, or muay thai, or bjj practitioner in the world cannot beat the best mma fighter in unarmed combat, it stands to reason the best [insert martial art] fighter in the world cannot either. In addition, an obscure art does not have the participants and training pool to hone it's fighters.

This is not to say there is nothing from your martial art a seasoned mma fighter could find useful. Quite the contrary. But these usually form supplements. A wrist lock here, and way to generate more power there. There is no reason to believe that someone from [insert martial art] is a better fighter than the top MMA fighters. There's all the evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean it might not be true. It's theoretically possible, just extremely unlikely (like 10^-8 unlikely). If you believe it, you're just believing in belief. Unless you have some very good reasons like you've sparred regularly with top MMA fighters and have sparred with [insert martial art] and think the latter is way tougher. And even that should make you second guess yourself (was the MMA fighter taking it easy on you, were you taking it easy on [insert martial art] guy, etc).
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Hey Regina,

Respectfully, I could not disagree more.

MMA is the closest sport we have to unarmed combat. And as you point out, it's a big $ industry. This means there's a huge incentive for humans to get good at fighting under an MMA ruleset (and no, the MMA ruleset does not allow eye gouging or groin striking, but these aren't fight enders and TMA practitioners do not have a huge edge in executing these moves because you can't spar with them).

Since the inception of the UFC 25 years ago, fighters from around the world have been figuring out the most effective strikes in unarmed combat fuelled by a cash incentive and a desire not to get beat up. Initially this was just style vs style, and we found out pretty quickly that if you take a high level (for the time) BJJ practitioner and pit them vs a high level american kickboxer, the BJJ practitioner will usually win. Then the big american wrestler entered the stage, and learned a few BJJ defenses and coupled that with an overhand and ruled the day. Next came the high level strikers, with some basic TDD and BJJ defence, who would usually put those guys out before they got taken down and beaten up. And on and on it iterated where today you have kids who start out training all the major styles and supplementing some TMA. Even the guys at the high levels who you would consider a representative of a certain style are still proficient in other aspects of the game. Damien Maia is a BJJ superstar and has found much success just smothering guys as of late, but he can strike, and he gets fights to the mat thanks to his wrestling abilities. But I digress.

You say it's a big world, which is true, but it's a whole lot smaller now. Back before the UFC and even in the early days of MMA people could get away with saying their TMA style would beat any other. You don't hear much of that any more as top MMA fighters are undefeated vs any style. Aside from UFC 1, when Royce Gracie showed the BJJ beats all other styles if no one else knows anything else, there hasn't been a single martial art that has shown it is superior to whatever the top MMA fighters of the day are doing. Not only that, but fighters today have many styles to choose techniques from and they choose a wide variety based on personal preference and what evolution has shown to work. A wise old master who is stuck in his ancient ways does not have this luxury. He is secluded, and a victim of his styles limitations. Bruce Lee identified that back in 1967. Just like the best boxer, or wrestler, or tkd, or muay thai, or bjj practitioner in the world cannot beat the best mma fighter in unarmed combat, it stands to reason the best [insert martial art] fighter in the world cannot either. In addition, an obscure art does not have the participants and training pool to hone it's fighters.

This is not to say there is nothing from your martial art a seasoned mma fighter could find useful. Quite the contrary. But these usually form supplements. A wrist lock here, and way to generate more power there. There is no reason to believe that someone from [insert martial art] is a better fighter than the top MMA fighters. There's all the evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean it might not be true. It's theoretically possible, just extremely unlikely (like 10^-8 unlikely). If you believe it, you're just believing in belief. Unless you have some very good reasons like you've sparred regularly with top MMA fighters and have sparred with [insert martial art] and think the latter is way tougher. And even that should make you second guess yourself (was the MMA fighter taking it easy on you, were you taking it easy on [insert martial art] guy, etc).
Hi jaa,

I didn't actually say anything about one art/style being better than another. They are contextual. Originally, my point was that functional use of the body, technique and strategy are more important than size. And originally I brought it up at all because that particular Navy Seal couldn't fight at all. He failed at all three (function,technique, strategy). You mentioned Royce Gracie and the first clip on youtube has him beating a much bigger dude. I think he won because he had better strategy, more functional use of his body and more skill on the mat. I actually think we agree.:smiley: But I don't agree that the sample size of people competing in MMA is representative of who's out there is this big world. Although, I do like the term "mixed martial art." Because, yea, it's not authoritarian and dogmatic. And in and of itself it can represent the reality that exists in a real unarmed situation closer than a style-confined artifice. I do think there is a ***t-ton of unknown "mixed-martial artists" out there who are not on the scene--who do not rest in dogma but everything that is available to them and deeper principles of body mechanics. I sometimes joke about a person having "karate-mind" (because it's got all these solo kata) if someone is really fixed in dogma. And when confronted with a different reality, they just double-down on their bet. Our original teacher was definitely not dogmatic and could be called a "mixed-martial artist". He walked away from it to become abbott of a zen monastery. (but I digress)
We probably agree on more than you might think by my inarticulate ramblings. :hearteyes:
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Hi jaa,

I didn't actually say anything about one art/style being better than another. They are contextual. Originally, my point was that functional use of the body, technique and strategy are more important than size. And originally I brought it up at all because that particular Navy Seal couldn't fight at all. He failed at all three (function,technique, strategy). You mentioned Royce Gracie and the first clip on youtube has him beating a much bigger dude. I think he won because he had better strategy, more functional use of his body and more skill on the mat. I actually think we agree.:smiley:

I think we agree, but not fully. The reason Royce was able to do so well was because of his skill. If you put him against a big guy with a little BJJ defensive knowledge, it's going to be hard for Royce to overcome that. It feels like functional use of the body and skill are getting conflated. What I mean is, how much does functional use of ones body help? Probably a little. A 170lb gymnast will probably win a fight vs a 170lb average human all else equal. But that gymnast will probably lose the fight to a 150lb bjj blue belt with poor posture and body awareness.

But I don't agree that the sample size of people competing in MMA is representative of who's out there is this big world. Although, I do like the term "mixed martial art." Because, yea, it's not authoritarian and dogmatic. And in and of itself it can represent the reality that exists in a real unarmed situation closer than a style-confined artifice. I do think there is a ***t-ton of unknown "mixed-martial artists" out there who are not on the scene--who do not rest in dogma but everything that is available to them and deeper principles of body mechanics. I sometimes joke about a person having "karate-mind" (because it's got all these solo kata) if someone is really fixed in dogma. And when confronted with a different reality, they just double-down on their bet. Our original teacher was definitely not dogmatic and could be called a "mixed-martial artist". He walked away from it to become abbott of a zen monastery. (but I digress)
We probably agree on more than you might think by my inarticulate ramblings. :hearteyes:

Haha yeah I'm sure we agree about most things on this subject, but I'm zoning in the points where I see a glaring divergence because I love this topic and a quote +1 wouldn't allow me to discuss it!

But I still strongly disagree with your notion that there are ***t-ton of MMAs out there who are not on the scene who could give any pro fighter a run for their money. That's not to say there are not MMA up-and-comers no one knows about, just that it's extremely unlikely that there's someone who's been training on their own or in an isolated group and has managed to develop to a pro level. You need MMA specific training at some point, and you need training partners who are versed in it as well. And if you get that, and get to a level where you can beat pros, you're going to be well known!

I do think there's a pretty good chance I'm misunderstanding you, so please let me know if I am.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Yeah I remember in high school I couldn't grip the toothbrush in the morning :ss but a drop of whiskey would fix that... my mother told me "wow I didn't have psoriasis at your age..." there isn't a true awareness that things are getting worse instead of better.
 

paymanz

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,707
The study controlled for such variables - i.e. changes in labor force and its preferences. So, it is a health issue mostly. Also, grip strength is not very dependent on weight training or manual labor. It is has more to do with nerve conductivity speed and balance of calcium/magnesium, both of which are regulated by thyroid.

Very nice,

Any thoughts on why abstaining from sexual activity improves those parameters( nerve conductivity)?

Maybe it effects Dopamine?!
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Very nice,

Any thoughts on why abstaining from sexual activity improves those parameters( nerve conductivity)?

Maybe it effects Dopamine?!

It may help as long as it raises T and dopamine. But I think the studies showed that after a week the T stops rising so there is a limit on the benefits.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
I think we agree, but not fully. The reason Royce was able to do so well was because of his skill. If you put him against a big guy with a little BJJ defensive knowledge, it's going to be hard for Royce to overcome that. It feels like functional use of the body and skill are getting conflated. What I mean is, how much does functional use of ones body help? Probably a little. A 170lb gymnast will probably win a fight vs a 170lb average human all else equal. But that gymnast will probably lose the fight to a 150lb bjj blue belt with poor posture and body awareness.



Haha yeah I'm sure we agree about most things on this subject, but I'm zoning in the points where I see a glaring divergence because I love this topic and a quote +1 wouldn't allow me to discuss it!

But I still strongly disagree with your notion that there are ***t-ton of MMAs out there who are not on the scene who could give any pro fighter a run for their money. That's not to say there are not MMA up-and-comers no one knows about, just that it's extremely unlikely that there's someone who's been training on their own or in an isolated group and has managed to develop to a pro level. You need MMA specific training at some point, and you need training partners who are versed in it as well. And if you get that, and get to a level where you can beat pros, you're going to be well known!


I do think there's a pretty good chance I'm misunderstanding you, so please let me know if I am.
Hi jaa,

I'm back from training.

Thanks for your reply. Yea, I really don't have a horse in the race. I love the topic too but maybe in a broader sense. I really enjoy the early treatises: Fiore and Fabris and some of the early spanish rapiersist (if that's a word :oops:) and Takuan on the Asian side. I'm a cherry-picker for sure. Hah. That's why I'm here. You know. The most rich and famous doctors don't know who Ray Peat is. And they sure don't know Haidut. That's what I mean by "it's a big world out there". It's meant more in the general sense that the best in any field is not necessarily in industry. I know some amazing jazz musicians playing for tips on NYC subway platforms.
Back to martial arts. Who really even knows what TMA is? I mean consider Judo. Do we really know what it originally was? Something like Aikido is relatively modern and we have some clips of its founder. But even his kids and grandkids don't look anything like him. They don't move like him. And it's different in every dojo and every individual. And frankly, most of them suck. And the cream of the crop do do a kind of mixed-martial art. And it's getting better in terms of conditioning and opening up the training that doesn't just try to preserve some tradition that probably didn't exist as we think anyway. I think MMA will just get better and better.
I read recently that Nietzsche's original manuscripts were "edited" by his raging anti-semitic sister. He had had some kind of breakdown and moved in with his sister and husband. The sister distorted his writings to serve her own ideology and her husband published them. So I re-read his Beyond Good and Evil--which pre-dates his hahribble sister's machinations. He really was a brilliant and very funny man.

I like quality training. So, I dig and dig for it. And find places like this. Or I find a good dojo. For some reason, Chicago is a big aikido town with a lot of competition. But maybe if I still lived in manhattan, I might train spanish rapier instead because there is a great teacher in NYC. If I lived in Finland, I might train longsword instead because there is an awesome teacher there for that. In my weird mind, they are all pointing to the same thing.

Of course, Pro-fighting and Martial Arts are not the same thing. Duh :rolleyes: . I would still maintain that there are great ones out there unknown to industry. Like Ray Peat, they have their following. If the Zen Monk teacher I had gives a weapon's seminar anywhere in the world, up to maybe 2000 people will attend. Nearly all will be higher level black belts (for whatever that's worth (less than what most people think imho)) because he has his reputation in inner circles completely discreet from industry.

:cheersCheers mate. r
Oh I thought of a p.s. Do you know Marc Denny of Dog Brothers? He's a good friend. Although we know each other under another context than martial arts. But we have talked about it many times. Sortof jokingly. There's only so many people who want to and are willing to do what the Dog Brother's do. Willingness counts for A LOT!! I sure wouldn't get on the mat with any of those meat-headed goons. ;-) We talked about having Meido (my teacher) give some body movement and weapons seminars with them. Of course, the Dog Brothers are real, extreme and intense but there is a lot of gross movement that could be tightened up and made more linear. And it will come with MMA-- as you say, the upcoming young lions who will be just as tough and brawny but want to be better and sharper.
 
Last edited:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Hi jaa,

I'm back from training.

Thanks for your reply. Yea, I really don't have a horse in the race. I love the topic too but maybe in a broader sense. I really enjoy the early treatises: Fiore and Fabris and some of the early spanish rapiersist (if that's a word :oops:) and Takuan on the Asian side. I'm a cherry-picker for sure. Hah. That's why I'm here. You know. The most rich and famous doctors don't know who Ray Peat is. And they sure don't know Haidut. That's what I mean by "it's a big world out there". It's meant more in the general sense that the best in any field is not necessarily in industry. I know some amazing jazz musicians playing for tips on NYC subway platforms.

Hey Regina,

I don't think this analogy fits very well. In the example of personal health, it is a very complex and muddied subject, and it's not so easy to pit Ray vs a doctor in a ring and see who comes out on top! And in the example of jazz musicians and health advice, the participants have access to all the knowledge in the field and you don't need to spar against different types to hone your craft the way you do in martial arts.

But to be clear, I'm not saying the top pro MMA fighters are better at say, aikido throws, than the top aikido practitioner. And I'm not saying there's nothing in aikido that would be useful unarmed combat. The aikido practitioner will naturally be better at the aikido moves. But practicing aikido within the context of aikido is limiting in itself. Some things just don't work outside the aikido ruleset. That's what's so great about MMA. It's about as close as you can get to real fighting while minimising the risk of serious injury. An individual with a strong aikido background who goes into MMA, will be able to quickly learn what aikido techniques transfer well to unarmed combat, and which ones are useless. But if they wish to get to a high level in unarmed combat, they are going to have to get to a certain level of proficiency in the other main arts (striking, wrestling, and transitions) in order to be able to compete with the best in the world. That is not to ***t on aikido or any other martial art, it's just what reality has shown time and again. And the more MMA develops, the larger that minimal proficiency in other arts threshold grows.

I'm also not saying there aren't great martial artists outside MMA and think a great aikido practitioner is a great martial artist. I'm just saying that in an unarmed combat situation, you are much more likely to win the lottery than to find a martial arts practitioner who does not compete in MMA who can consistently beat a UFC level fighter in their weightclass (an average UFC fighter anyway, and not a cash grab anomoly like CM Punk).

I haven't heard of the Dog Brothers but look forward to looking them up!
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
The #2 reason young people are ****88 up and weak today...

I think young people today are over sexualized with FAKE sex and UNDER sexualized with REAL sex.

Japan has taken this to an extreme and the result is very widespread unhappiness, and low birth rate and low rate of personal satisfaction with relationships (or no relationship).

Masturbation and porn together, especially today's "tube sites" and all the sexualized ads and messages all day trigger a constant sex hormone spurt in the brain and this causes real sex and real women (speaking of young men) to be far less stimulating and less interesting.

Young women face the same issues and don't feel "normal" sex much anymore. They have a hyper masculinized view of sex, a mechanical view, that is unhealthy for women and that causes them to be perpetually dissatisfied and unhappy and unable to be in a real relationship.

I think this is the biggest reason for poor health in young people today, after PUFAs which is #1.
 

Nighteyes

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
411
Location
Europe
The #2 reason young people are ****88 up and weak today...

I think young people today are over sexualized with FAKE sex and UNDER sexualized with REAL sex.

Japan has taken this to an extreme and the result is very widespread unhappiness, and low birth rate and low rate of personal satisfaction with relationships (or no relationship).

Masturbation and porn together, especially today's "tube sites" and all the sexualized ads and messages all day trigger a constant sex hormone spurt in the brain and this causes real sex and real women (speaking of young men) to be far less stimulating and less interesting.

Young women face the same issues and don't feel "normal" sex much anymore. They have a hyper masculinized view of sex, a mechanical view, that is unhealthy for women and that causes them to be perpetually dissatisfied and unhappy and unable to be in a real relationship.

I think this is the biggest reason for poor health in young people today, after PUFAs which is #1.

Could the driver behind some of these mechanisms be overpopulation? I can shake the feeling of how "wrong" it is to be living so closely together with so many strangers that do not feel like "part of the tribe" so to speak. Similar to diseases appearing in poplulations to keep the growth down, maybe some of these effects might serve to downregulate the human population growth eventually?
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
The #2 reason young people are ****88 up and weak today...

I think young people today are over sexualized with FAKE sex and UNDER sexualized with REAL sex.

Japan has taken this to an extreme and the result is very widespread unhappiness, and low birth rate and low rate of personal satisfaction with relationships (or no relationship).

Masturbation and porn together, especially today's "tube sites" and all the sexualized ads and messages all day trigger a constant sex hormone spurt in the brain and this causes real sex and real women (speaking of young men) to be far less stimulating and less interesting.

Young women face the same issues and don't feel "normal" sex much anymore. They have a hyper masculinized view of sex, a mechanical view, that is unhealthy for women and that causes them to be perpetually dissatisfied and unhappy and unable to be in a real relationship.

I think this is the biggest reason for poor health in young people today, after PUFAs which is #1.
Good points ecstaticamster. Here's some more evidence:
Sorry to have to tell you this, but the world just came to an end: Spengler
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Yes which is why I found the study interesting. @haidut
I don't know how relevant the drop is though, but there's one.

So, androgenicity declines after the age of 20, right? Btw, another good marker of androgenicity is the androsterone/etiocholanolone ratio. It needs to be above one (1) for optimal male health.
 

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
So, androgenicity declines after the age of 20, right? Btw, another good marker of androgenicity is the androsterone/etiocholanolone ratio. It needs to be above one (1) for optimal male health.
I think they checked for the decline in androgens/estradiol over time rather than as age advances, I only read the abstract though:

Previous studies suggest that male testosterone concentrations have declined over time. To explore this in a large US population, we examined testosterone and free testosterone concentrations in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) from 1988-1991 and 1999-2004. We also examined sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), estradiol, and androstanediol glucuronide (3α-diol-G) over the same period.
And:

In conclusion, there was no evidence for testosterone decline between 1988-1991 and 1999-2004 in the US general population. Subgroup analyses suggest that SHBG and 3α-diol-G declined in young white men, estradiol declined in white and Mexican-American men, and free testosterone increased in young black men. These changes may be related to the increasing prevalence of reproductive disorders in young men.
The reference range for 3a-diol-g is 260-1500 ng/dL according to this source https://www.questdiagnostics.com/hcp/intguide/EndoMetab/EndoManual_AtoZ_PDFs/3a_Androstanediol.pdf
The overall drop (in white men, not hispanic or black) acknowledged in the study was 289 ng/dL. I don't know how reliable the study is (large age groups etc..), but that's a major drop. I'd bet that weight has a lot to do with it, but I'd be curious to see such a study analysis conducted in Europe, which is healthier bodyweight wise but still exposed to decent amount of poor foodstuffs, stress and pesticides etc..
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom