cannabis and the martial arts

03-11-2008 01:52PM

Boston wrote: »

erm, you can't argue with kila's post. He/she posted up studies supporting the assertion that it impairs performance. What you can or can't imagine has no bearing.

To be fair you've never ever smoked so you've no idea what you're talking about either.

I know from analysing my own reactions to the different levels of being stoned that if I rolled when wasted Id suck. But I also know that if I rolled after a moderate amount that Id be ok. Whether Id be slightly better or slightly worse is up for debate but I cant see myself completely falling apart and getting torn apart by n00bs etc after a moderate amoutn of cannabis.

Clive · 03-11-2008 02:42PM

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Marketing for what?

It's a marketing ploy for Eddie Bravo's club, DVD's, books and seminars.

The vehement hatred of the gi is gradually being replaced with Stoner Brand Zhoo Zhitsoo - precisely aimed at the demographic and personality type that seem to fall under the spell of this type of character.

Boston · 03-11-2008 03:02PM

jim o doom wrote: »

Kila posted clear evidence that I more or less agree with - however, clearly the reason that he is having difficulty imagining it's bearing is due to the fact that a CHAMPION is extolling it's virtues; a champion who has won fights wasted, correct?
That there is CLEAR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that it must not impair you THAT much..
do you really think he is such a better fighter that he wins whilst so severely impaired, or alterntatively; it must not impair him that much. I can play games better when ruined; I don't train like that because I don't have the energy levels I feel I need to train & find it hard to push myself / but my phsyiological reactions to a substance are clearly different to this champion. Different things affect people in different ways.
yes I know in general it slows most people down somewhat, but to state that you can't argue with kila's post is totally wrong. The poster who was confused may not have used a well defined argument, but the fact that a champion is using it and still winning seems like pretty solid evidence in itself.
And to posters who are surprised/disgusted at two well respected athletes/martial artists/celebrities/ROLE MODELS FOR KIDS honestly talking about their lifestyles and how they live, roll and (gods no) abuse drugs; maybe they should approach it like many other athletes and abuse drugs in quite and LIE about it to the public. Plenty of other sportsmen use performance enhancing drugs which have side effects, look at the amount of doping in the tour de france?
I am not excusing that behaviour but at least the two athletes in question are being open and honest about how they act & if they feel that it's something which is acceptable, then they should be talking openly about it.
There are far too many people unwilling to talk about issues like this, or get up on a high horse to "protect their little babies from the dangrous outside world full of horrible drug using scum". I mean clearly the parents who have posted feel justified in preaching to us against drugs, why should these sportsmen not have the same right with regards to preaching to us about what they see as the good side? Does life as a parent grant you the sole right to decide how society should behave?

I found your post extremely difficult to read, so sorry if I missed a point. One swallow doesn't make a summer, one case doesn't make for physical evidence. In statical testing there will always be the one in a thousand/ one in a hundred thousand. Maybe cannabis gave this fighter physical benefits which are well outside the norms, I don't know, neither do you. The only way to know would be to conduct physical tests on him while under the influence and while not under the influence. Thats evidence because you can directly see the effect of taking cannabis for this person.

Their is also the physiological element of things which people often under estimate. If I believe hash is going to afford me the mental toughness to endure then that can outweigh the physical impact. Testing would show whether or not the benifit was physical of physiological.

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair you've never ever smoked so you've no idea what you're talking about either.

A big fallacy is the assumption that how you're affect by a drug is going to be how everyone else is affect. You're personal experience is completely irrelevant as it will in general differ significantly from the next person. As such, it matters little to the discussion. Thats why you need to take a large sample set of people and identify trends.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know from analysing my own reactions to the different levels of being stoned that if I rolled when wasted Id suck. But I also know that if I rolled after a moderate amount that Id be ok. Whether Id be slightly better or slightly worse is up for debate but I cant see myself completely falling apart and getting torn apart by n00bs etc after a moderate amount of cannabis.

Your opponents opinion of your ability while you where stoned to varying degrees would be alot more relevant. I'm reminded of test relating to drink driving. Where people didn't notice much difference between 2 and 4 units, but tests showed a dramatic degree in response times.

Listen,the problem isn't with him suggesting it improved his ability, the problem is the suggestion that it isn't a rare occurrence, that its common, that the average joe can see the same results. This is directly contracted by what Kila posted.

jim o doom · 03-11-2008 03:22PM

Boston wrote: »

Listen,the problem isn't with him suggesting it improved his ability, the problem is the suggestion that it isn't a rare occurrence, that its common, that the average joe can see the same results. This is directly contracted by what Kila posted.

OK that is a very fair point, and I don't have a comeback to it (or disagree with it either for that matter..!) Personally (as I said in my 2 earlier posts) I know for a fact it doesn't work well with me and training - can't do as much physical activity/effort & sometimes slower - it also inhibits my ability to learn new techniques too; that's why I always wait until AFTER training

That being said I know an Irish champion who trains more or less daily (he is in his 50's) & gets high every day before/during/after brekfast. He is also a champion in at least 2 seperate martial arts! (I ain't gonna name him so it's sort of pointless I could be making him up, eh?). That being said I am sure he probably doesn't get whacked on the day of competing.
In fact I know 3 Black belts who are all REGULAR users - they are all SUPER healthy, super fit, super conditioned & fast as hell; one is a 1st dan, one is a 3rd and the other is a 5th! To say that it's regular use would inhibit someone from training or that they arn't an athlete because they use is ridiculous! But I agree with your comment on it (in general) being anything BUT a stimulant which would help in training. It certainly isnt some magical herb which will help us all be better -
equally it is nowhere near as bad as it is painted to be by the vehemently anti drugs heads either.

Dragan · 03-11-2008 03:30PM

People are also forgetting about endocrinal response to a situation, such as adrenaline.

If a fighter is a naturally nervous type, inexperienced or whatever their adrenal reponse will be high, cannabis may negate that a bit meaning no adrenaline dump and subsequent burn out etc.

As Boston said, people react different, depending on personality type and natural hormone balance.

Kila · 03-11-2008 05:07PM

Time for another bolt out of the scientific blue.

Almost everyone is average!

Let me explain - the reason that you can cite studies performed on groups of people, the reason you can sell drugs to everyone after testing on smaller groups of people, the reason they test new products on smaller groups of people, etc. is because most people are average. While no one will deny that there are some exceptional people, they are just that - the exception. Every study contains some outliers, as every group of people will likely contain an exceptional individual. But presence of an outlier in a study does not automatically invalidate the study, in the same way that presence of an exceptional individual in any population does not automatically invalidate any assertion made about that group. When anything is tested on a sample population, provided the sample is big enough to be statistically sound, it can reasonably be asserted that what holds true for the sample population will hold true for the larger population from which they were extracted.

What all of this means is that when, for example, they test the effects of cannabis on people who participate in sports, and they come to a general conclusion, it's safe to say that most people will experience largely the same effect.

I have no doubt that, somewhere out there, there are people for whom different drugs have different effects than they are supposed to. The reason drugs come with a side effect information sheet is because, every now and again, someone will suffer from a side effect. They are an exceptional individual - an exception to the rule that people won't suffer side effects. Most who take the drugs will not suffer from any of the side effects.

It is also possible that the difference in quality of the cannabis could change the extent of its effect on the body, and I don't know of any studies (off the top of my head) that have been done to test effect against method of use (e.g. eating, smoking, etc).

But the important thing to remember is that they have studied its effects on a general population spread, and they have found it to diminish the user. This may not hold true for one or two individuals, but for most of you, it will.

Re: earlier thread comments, thank you for your compliments (where they were given).

ross-a-palooza · 05-11-2008 04:59PM

Really strange im not a "roller" haha get it...

but a friend of mine is into his MMA and has those Eddie Bravo books...i read them bout 2 weeks ago n found it really suprising him and Joe Rogan were advocating the use of and pretty much glamourising cannabis!
my initial reaction was, as cliche as it may be, what about the kids?!
i have younger cousins n friends with younger brothers who are all UFC mad n want to get training...and these are the young people who will be buying these books, my fear would be it might lead them to experiment with a drug they may not have previously gone near simply because a star of their sport has recommend its use!

now im not saying they wouldnt try it anyway when they get older, but surely seeing a mentor using it would speed up the process.

just my 2 cents...

Roper · 05-11-2008 05:26PM

Clive wrote: »

It's a marketing ploy for Eddie Bravo's club, DVD's, books and seminars.

The vehement hatred of the gi is gradually being replaced with Stoner Brand Zhoo Zhitsoo - precisely aimed at the demographic and personality type that seem to fall under the spell of this type of character.

Thank you Clive. Take a lolly.

I expect at Rogan's gig there will be lots of people who wouldn't cross the street to see his poor imitation of Bill Hicks ordinarily but because he's the UFC commentator...

By the by I think Rogan is actually quite a good colour guy for the UFC shows and he definitely adds to the event.

Dragan · 07-11-2008 02:01PM

ross-a-palooza wrote: »

Really strange im not a "roller" haha get it... but a friend of mine is into his MMA and has those Eddie Bravo books...i read them bout 2 weeks ago n found it really suprising him and Joe Rogan were advocating the use of and pretty much glamourising cannabis!
my initial reaction was, as cliche as it may be, what about the kids?!
i have younger cousins n friends with younger brothers who are all UFC mad n want to get training...and these are the young people who will be buying these books, my fear would be it might lead them to experiment with a drug they may not have previously gone near simply because a star of their sport has recommend its use!

now im not saying they wouldnt try it anyway when they get older, but surely seeing a mentor using it would speed up the process.

just my 2 cents...

Thats the joy of Freedom of Speech i guess.

As for Rogan, he is a reasonably funny stand up but he is a great colour commentator i think.

cannabis and the martial arts

Comments