Fire Melts Metal?

This sequence illustrates the effectiveness of a technique that follows the destructive cycle. But was it effective BECAUSE it follows the destructive cycle? Consider the following sequence. It is similar to the last but this time, uke strikes first a metal point (Large Intestine 10) and then an earth point (Stomach 5). This would also produce a knockout, but the destructive cycle is not followed.

Does it matter at all what sequence of elements is followed? In order test the validity of the theory that following the destructive cycle is particularly effective, we decided to compare the effectiveness of the destructive (control) cycle against the creative cycle. This was a carried out as a double blind controlled study in accordance with accepted experimental methods. The study was 'blind' in the sense that both the person attacking the vital points and the subjects being attacked were unaware of the relationships we were attempting to test. We also 'controlled' for various other factors that might affect the results. For example, we ensured that the only TCM relationship between each pair of points was that of either the creative or the destructive cycle. Some factors could not be controlled directly but were 'randomised' - this means that if you test a large enough group of people under different random conditions then these random variations can be accounted for. Each test subject was pressed once on one point, followed immediately by being pressed on a second point. The subject was then asked to give a rating of the pain experienced when the second point was pressed. Each subject was tested twice in each session - on one side of the body using the destructive cycle and on the other using the creative cycle (the order of both left and right AND destructive or creative was randomised). This was repeated for 28 test subjects, before going on to repeat the whole experiment for another element. All 5 elements were tested in this manner, giving a total of 280 individual pain ratings. These were subjected to a rigorous statistical analysis and the conclusion was as follows: there was no significant difference between the pain caused by the destructive cycle and that caused by the creative cycle. It did appear, however, that activating points on one side of the body did result in more pain when points on the other side of the body were activated. This does give at least some credence to the claim by some instructors that stimulating a point activates the same point on the other side of the body. However, the mechanism that produced this increase in pain is still unclear.

The Shu points

In a further experiment we obtained pain ratings after a point - the target point - had been hit by itself, or when it was struck immediately after a setup point had been struck. In one condition, the setup and target points were "shu" points, which are the points on the extremities used almost exclusively by acupuncturists to manipulate qi according to the Five Elements. The two points we used were specially selected by us so that the qi imbalance caused by the setup strike should be aggravated by the target strike, according to the destructive cycle. In the other condition, the setup point and target point followed the destructive cycle, but they were not shu points. We tested 18 subjects in both conditions using the same double blind procedure as the previous experiment. We found that the setup did NOT increase the pain produced by the target strike, not even when shu points were used. In fact, the pain of the target strike was lower (although not significantly) after a setup strike had been given rather than no setup at all. So even in this special case, where the destructive cycle might be considered especially useful, there was still no evidence of its usefulness.

Conclusion

Having applied a rigorous statistical approach to testing some of the central principles of Chinese medicine as applied to pressure point fighting we have found no evidence whatsoever to support their usefulness in this setting. This is not to say that some vital points can't be used together to increase their effectiveness. It simply means that Chinese medicine theory has not thus far shown itself to be a useful model for predicting which points do work well together. However, there is at this stage a relative lack of rigorous research into this area. We would welcome therefore the input of other researchers into this field. Anyone wishing to contact the authors regarding any aspect of these experiments can do so given the contact details above.