Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hock]

Interesting discussions below...

[JimH]

Research can find and or disprove theories and show the results one wants to make.

Siddle ,Grossman and others were the first to state this or that and it became the rule because no one else was doing such reasearch to prove or disprove what they said.

According to Siddle and Grossman once one gets a heart rate of 175 or higher they begin to shut down and not function,Fight or Flight sets in and or people may go fetal.

Well lets look at Bi athletes,the sports people who ski and shoot:
They Average 200-210 beats per minute while skiing
Yet they are able to ski,not shut down,not go fetal nor do they have fight or flight.
They do not suffer from Tunnel Vision,Loss of hearing nor do their bladder or bowels release themselves.

Then these athletes come to targets and must stop and shoot.
Hey but at 200-210 beats per minute they should not be able to shoot,according to Grossman and Siddle, as they are unable to focus,blood has left the extremities and they have no fine motor skills capabilities.
Yet they shoot and hit their targets,then they are off skiing to the next target station.

Many have found that they can lower their heart rate to 145-170 in 20 seconds.

So they are still shooting at above Fine motor skills level,according to Grossman and Siddle,yet these athletes function in these ranges,why?

Because of exposure and work in performing these tasks at these levels.

Exposure and the ability to function because the body has adaptation capabilities.

Grossman and Siddle have a term called "Exposure Inoculation",they say that  if one exposes the Body to continued stress we adapt,which is similar to the above that I wrote,yet they say adaptation takes place by Heart rates not ever exceeding 130 beats per minute ,due to exposure ,which is not true.

If their concept of adaptation were right then Bi Athletes and SWAT or any other similar high Heart Rate groups would NEVER have Heart Rates of over 130 which we know is not true.

No, adaption creates the mind and Body connection that says we have done this before and can do it again though we are at a Higher Heart rate we are still adapted and functional in all areas,fine motor skills,mental awareness,no tunnel vision,no hearing loss,nothing.

Just my two cents but I am not a researcher,lol.

[redcap]

JimH, I agree with the premise of your post, however I might point out that since 1923 the Olympic Bi committee have insisted the targets don;t shoot back.    This might be a factor. 

When I read the blog my first thought was "what about fighter pilots?"  Aren't their hearts pounding away in the 200's during dogfights, real or training versions?

I enjoyed the blog and agree with it also.  I have tried to figure out what PPCT stands for.  I am also intrigued how they can register a private business as "Homeland Security Corporation".  Isn;t there a government department of Homeland Security now?  In Australia you can;t register a business name or company that could be confused with a government department, eg; Australian Security Intelligence Corporation Pty Ltd as the real ASIO would take your birthday off you in an eyeblink.

To my mind, using such a name for one's business suggests either they are in govenrment pay and thus not independant, unbiased and such; or they are trying to fool people into thinking they have a legitimacy that doesn't exist ("trust me, I'm the government" type projection).

Back to the other part of the blog, I always thought the whole point of training, and making it as realistic as possible, was so that you can function under stress?  If these experts are correct then why do we bother?  I have to confess, until I came across this forum some months ago I was tending towards rolling over, grabbing my ankles and presenting my butt to all who wanted to abuse it because I really felt like a voice in the wilderness.  How could my own experiences and personal instinct contradict what the experts were telling me?  I guess I needed to get me some new experts! Another great, fresh air blog.   Cheers, Redcap

[JimH]

PPCT is Pressure Point control tactics.

They acquired some work from the office of homeland security.
(Police Trainer Jobs)

Grossman and Siddles work on Heart Rate (Grossman just quotes Siddle) do not only encompass the subject of being in a shoot out or anyone shooting back,although you would imagine that as a factor,lol.

Siddle has published writings on Heart Rate only on performance and how at varied levels of rise in Heart Rate we lose varied capabilities,no matter the cause.

I also thought of Fighter Pilots,but then they have a suit to control pressure and many maybe on Uppers and that would raise their Heart rate and Blood Pressure,so true evaluation of Heart rate and performance and effects of high Heart rates on performance are not truly measurable with them,in my opinion.

[redcap]

I have used pressure points when controlling people and I find that most of the time they work a treat.  Then you come across one of your four percenters.  They say four percent of the population... (insert whatever point you wish to prove).  In this case "4% won;t comply with pressure point control techniques".

I once gave a demo of using pressure points to effect a release and chose the biggest bloke in the class.  He was huge and looked like Baby Hughey on 'roids.  My host was shaking his head at the back and I thought he was just impressed I had the cojones to pick the boggest bloke in his school to prove my point.

Well, I gave it to him as hard as I could in several places and he just looked at me.  Nothing worked like it said it would on the pack!  In the end I had to poke him in the eye (as gently as I could!) to get a reaction, disarm him with more brute force than finesse and apply the lock.  Most embarrassing but he was one of the 4% that simply don;t feel the pain.  Ever had that happen?  Cheers Redcap

[redcap]

Good points JimH.  In Australia we are often wearing a single, thin layer of clothing.  In the southen states in winter it is a different matter but no where near the layers of clothing you would wear in NYC.  This has a big effect on restraining people, especially if you rely on clothing grabs for your throw or lock or whatever and it just tears in your hands.

First thing we were always taught was you must have "compliance" to apply the hold/lock/restraint etc.  This was obtained with the "Tickle Up", usually a flick to the groin but could be a flinch inducing flick at the face.  Anything to take his mind off the target.

I once asked one of Dillman's disciples how he would manage to apply his pressure point magic if the person wasn;t just standing there waiting for it?  He at least had the good grace to admit he had no idea as he had never tried to use it in a real situation.  His belief was if he got it wrong he might kill the other person. I volunteered to test it but he wouldn;t. 

I wonder how much of any effect is because you hit triple warmer 6 then lung 4 or because you just smashed umpteen pounds per square inch of force on his nerve endings and wrist joint?  I studied these points in detail in JuJitsu (Kuatsu) as well as FMA (Pumatay) and I have to say that bit about hit here between 9am and 10am and if it is after 4pm then hit here and so on?  I think you have to spend years in a monastery with nothng better to do than remember all this oftherwise forget it!  Cheers Redcap.

[redcap]

I did a little more research on this Siddle character and came across this essay at Defend University.

http://www.defendu.com/sst.htm

He makes the point that there is a difference between an athletes heart rate hitting a certain figure and the heart of someone in a dangerous, life or death situation hitting the same rate.  The brain reacts to the situation differently.

"Siddle’s research drew a direct correlation between SSR and heart rate increase.  The problem with this assumption is that for people such as runners, who can have very high heart rates, SSR does not take effect.  Why? The runners high heart rate is caused by physical exertion, and not the emotion of fear caused by a spontaneous or immediate threat to body or life , which triggers the neurological response of the brain and more specifically the amygdala  which in turn begins the SSR process.  "

There is more there as food for thought and the article is worth reading and saving as another part of the info resource.

I noticed they advertise "Rape Escape" courses on the site.  I coined that term in 1992 and put out a course and a video under that title.  I know you can;t copyright titles and I doubt the material used is a copy of my own methods (except of course things like palm heel strikes, we all use them etc) but after reading about Mr Levine and Krav Maga I felt it worth an email to fend off any potential lawsuit should he find I still use the term I coined 15 years ago.  Cheers Redcap

[Hock]

Which now leads us to the newer Dr Lewinski research... FEAR and ANGER really effect performance, which makes some of the differences between a track runner and SWAT raid runner. But the confusing thing is many SWAT raid runners (and others) function quite well at higher heart rates. Many soldiers, cops and citizens do.

It is a very complicated issue. But it is the Siddle idea that create the hundreds of quotes like the one in my blog,

“Lastly, fine motor skills that include any action that requires precision hand eye coordination,
such as shooting a firearm, will initially improve as the heart rate goes up.
But they will rapidly deteriorate once the heart beat reaches about 110 BPM,
and they will be lost at around 130 BPM.”

This gun-guru is using Siddle to make a blatent, black and white remark!  I know a karate guru who uses Siddle to prevent his people from exercising in other systems because it will confuse people. He loves the Siddle version of Hick's Law and the heart rate complications...


But this article you found is one of the classics. Darren Laur wrote it and he is a "Siddle Quoter.' He is actually talking about too many topics and trying to fuze them. The fuze is difficult. It is one of the longest, rambling articles you will find (not just my opinion). I am not sure why it is prolifically used or repeated by anyone. (Laur recsinded this old article in 2010). Probably, his informal test on 80 some-odd cops being startled by a sudden knife attacker is probably the reason why people like to use it. Then they are stuck with the rest of the article.

Basically, sudden ambushes?...they suck. Hard to see eveything happen. Hard to go from zero to hunnert' miles an hour. Thats why ambushes work. There you have the simple version.

I am not to sure about Dedendu's version of the article is chopped or not. Granted the subject matter is very complicated in some ways and very difficult to get a central main stream thoughts going.

But, writing about all this is very difficult, for Laur or anyone, yet in a way, it is painfully simple. But the subject matter is actually many subject matters, that may change person-to-person, even day-to-day. The SNS is engaged on Tuesday, then not on Thursday faced with the same problem, kind of thing. Deep, but simple.

I think all Siddle quoters ought to sit tight and wait until the next version of PPCT comes out.  (It's now 2011 and it's still not come out, after years of promises. And, PPCT changed the words in the acronym when pressure point controls became a mocking tactic by veteran police. There was an interesting note/article written by Siddle a few years back that seemed to claim Siddle never used "pressure point" in the the title?)  

Hock
(also in 2010, Darren Laur wrote a new article in which he upgraded all the old mindlessly accepted  information with the new brain and heart rate science. This old info totally screwed up foundational training for years.)

[redcap]

I wonder about the empirical testing he performed and the poor results.  I won;t second guess the men involved or the methods however I will voice my surprise that so many were caught unaware and did not realise a weapon was involved.

My reasons for this are based on my own experience rather than any testing performed either scientifically or otherwise.  I have always gone into training situations with a very open and switched on mind.  You should be expecting the unexpected althought that is something of a redundant statement.

I have been caught out with the old "Read every activity before commencing the first one" and done a few easy ones as I read down the list only to find the very last one says "don't do any of the activities, put your pen down and cross your arms" so I am not trying to claim I am any different to anyone else or more intuitive etc. 

However when training in scenarios for self defence or LEO I would always apply the training as taught up to then because that is what they want to test. Usually that covered what was required and included a contingency for something out of the ordinary to happen.  If they didn;t train you to manage that, what was the point of the training?

You can throw in situations that are sudden, surprising and unexpected and train in realistic environments (loud music, flashing lights, simulated ordnance, whatever is appropriate for realism and adds to the distractions and stress) but if they are too far out there they lose any practical value and simply belittle the students and have a negative effect on their performance and self esteem.  I have seen some instructors get "too clever" in these situations with the real reason for their cuteness simply ego gratification.

Perhaps we can come up with a basic situation/test, run it by say at least five students and report back our findings, thus giving us collectively a far greater sampling than we could obtain on our own.  Perhaps the first test should be the reactions to a flick of the fingers to the eyes.  What does the student do? Have them know it is coming and also thrown randomly, close enough to land and just out of range.  Rough as it is we should be able to draw some conclusions worth thinking about.  Cheers Redcap.

[JimH]

We do not know the Pre action scenario directives the officers were told?

Were they told you will be in an encounter and a weapon maybe brought into play?
or
Were they told they would be in a physical encounter?

Had previous training introduced weapons into an altercation ?

All of these training environments,descriptions of what the event will be and previous training will Dictate the Training responses.

I have been in 4 Real Life Knife altercations,I saw the Blade in 3 of the 4 ,the one I did not see came from behind.

Surprise attacks are a mainstay of Military operations training,they should be part of LEO Training but they are not.
Trying to create surprise attacks are hard in Civilian based training as we cannot control where and when people will be at a certain place which lends its self to create a surprise attack scenario.

When one deals with an attacker/suspect, ANY sudden movement by the Attacker/Suspect should be Immediately acted upon,(not seen, thought about,decoded and then a threat response initiated)

When an Officer gives a command to a suspect how many times will/must the officer repeat the command before he/she acts.

Keep your hands where I can see them,(as the suspect reaches into a pocket or waistband)
Keep your hands where I can see them
Keep your hands where i can see them,( oh crap he pulled a knife,pistol weapon,gee what a surprise?)

If we make a Blanket statement that says when a Heart Rate reaches a certain level this and this will happen,then it should happen whenever the Heart Rate reaches those points,period.

How many Martial arts schools run  PT to get the heart Rate Up and say this is the way it will be in a REAL FIGHT,lol,this assumption based off the Reports of people like Siddle,Grossman and others.

Adrenaline is dumped when an unknown encounter is about to happen or is anticipated.
The First time you have to stand up in front of a Class and speak.
The First time on stage to do a school play.
The First time you decide to ask a Girl out.
The First time you drive
The First day you arrive at Boot Camp
The First time you Jump out of a Plane.
The First time you are tested in Training
The First time you are tested in actual combat.

Every thing is as a FIRST time as each successive action ,within the same type experience,leads to less anticipation,less fear,less adrenaline dump and lower heart rate.

When Pre Historic man had no weapons he was part of the Prey cycle,I am sure when he encounterd a Man eater he ran his butt off,or fell fetal.
Once man developed the club and Spear and he found he could hunt and kill the Man Eater,I doubt he ran as Much nor did he go fetal.

All of these environments and experiences must be trained and maintained regularly or we lose the edge and we may reexperience a Higher adrenaline dump.

If I live in the North East and every year I encounter Ice  and or snow in my driving I maintain the edge,the skills by doing it.

If I Move to North Carolina and do not encounter Ice and or Snow on the road for several years,then one morning It is there ,Ice on the road,what happens?
I slip and slide,forgetting how to drive in this environment,my Heart Rate goes up,fear sets in and Adrenaline begins to dump as those around me,maybe even me, crash into each other or go off the road.

The more we experience or operate in these environments the more the Body is able to ADAPT and FUNCTION.

[redcap]

I agree with that.  I was reading a book about a man's experiences in WW1 in France.  The first few days in the trenches and he was diving for cover at any loud noise.  After just a few days he would differentiate between hand grenades, rifle bullets, machine gun fire, mortar bombs and heavier artillery shells.  One passage describes them going tit for tat with the Germans in the trench across from them, almost like a game.  Rifle to rifle, then burst from the LMG in response, then hand grenades, rifle grenades then some spoil sport back a few trenches called in some artillery rounds and "the fun went out of it".

I know the first time I went for "Six of the Best" (six cuts on the hand with the cane) as a schoolboy all the lore and myth of the punishment had me pretty scared.  The next time I knew it hurt but it wasn;t that bad and besides, it was a rite of passage!  The same for the first time I stepped in the ring so JimH's FIRST's hold a lot of truth for me.  Cheers Redcap.

[redcap]

I was reading how nowadays they don;t make the mistake they made in Vietnam and have soldiers rotating through units individualy, rather they send the entire unit there and bring them back as a unit.  Far better system I think.  Redcap

[Hock]

This review on the book...

Swing And A Miss, October 17, 2007
By  On The Job ( a California polcie officer ) -
This review is om:
Sharpening the Warriors Edge: The Psychology & Science of Training by Bruce Siddle.

I have to say this one missed the mark for me. I'm a firearms instructor and a fifteen year law enforcement officer, and I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve my teaching skills and my warrior mindset. I'm a firm believer in teaching strong fundamentals in gun handling and marksmanship, coupled with dynamic force-on-force and survival mindset training to ensure that my students are prepared mentally, physically, and emotionally to emerge strong and victorious from any lethal force encounter.

Bruce Siddle's book failed to provide me with anything new that I could put in my toolbox and pass on to my students. On the production front, I knew I was in trouble as soon as I opened the book: large print throughout left the impression that the author was stretching to fill his slim volume of 148 pages. Take away twenty pages for dedication, introduction, bibliography, and you're left with even less. The illustrations were legible and clear, but not very valuable as "visual shorthand" for the text. The author finishes each short chapter with a page-long chapter review as yet another way of padding his text. Finally, he writes in a style I can best describe as "Gun Magazine-eze." Every paragraph is littered with unneccesary phrases such as "for thousands of years the blah, blah" and "there have been many different definitions of skill" (which he then goes on to list) and "therefore, it becomes critical to study..."

The meat of the book seems to be that 1. Stress drives a cascade of sympathetic nervous system responses that degrade performance of fine and complex motor skills, and 2. Combat training should focus on isoceles stance and reactive point shooting for SNS engagements, and Weaver stance and aimed fire for non-SNS engagements.

There. Just saved yourself twenty bucks.

I was disappointed in the survival mindset chapter. Siddle uses twenty-four paragraphs in total on this vital subject, one quarter of which deal with the death of his 87 year old grandmother. Not one story of how a survival mindset was instrumental in saving someone's life in a deadly force encounter.

Anyone who uses the story of a frail, elderly woman dying of congestive heart failure in her bed and waiting for Jesus to come for her as an example of the warrior's edge seems to me to be missing the mark by a wide, uncrossable gulf.

This book was a regurgitation of other people's work, done poorly by a guy who hasn't been there, hasn't done that.

Do yourself a favor and read "The Gates of Fire" for survival mindset, and "Training at the Speed of Life" for dynamic, high-stress firearms and sims-based training.

 

[hessian1]

     OK,

          Last August I got the chance to hear Siddle speak at Trexpo East at nd got the impression that Siddle is changing his tune (weather due to outside criticism or just more available research is unknown). He also is now using a lot of historical warrior information in his presentation concerning "warrior mindset". That being said, I liken his and Grossman's heartrate information as a variation on the old three blindmen touching a different part of an elephant and then giving their descriptions of the animal.

          There are just so many physical variables in the human body as to responses to threats/ sudden information processing versus advance preparation for these same events
or occurrences.  The analogy of athlete heartrates vs combatants heartrates has multiple areas of divergence such as stress (athletic events are seldom life or death) plus you have the training can be the same as the event whereas in combat the training is never quite the same as the actual event.

          Then you have the nature vs nurture aspect as to how an individual learns from his/her environment and its impact on their responses.

No answers here, but just a reminder to not limit your education for combat to just dvd's and books about shootn,stabbn,hittn and etc...(by the way Hock thanks for the book reference on "Snake Oil Science"in the book club.

Keep safe and train hard/smart,  Mark H

[JimH]

Siddle has said that he has paid for Research and studies and that this is where much of his information comes from,we believe it is independent ,yet it seems it is not.
(anything that is found that filles the need is used no matter where from)
Many have informed Lt Col Grossman that his writings on responses by men in combat and other point areas are wrong.
Yet Both men still use their research and misleading information as qualifiers to get their points across.

(I understand that Siddle is in the Process of getting rid of the PPCT Name and a more diverse more easliy accepted name/title is to be seen shortly.)
                        ..............................................................................
While I understand the point of Combat and Sport/Athletes being Different,the Heart Rate Climb and Physical changes are not meant for Combatants only.
Athletes an Combat/Fight Veterans have found a way to harness the physical changes and control them,to adapt and function.

If we take a person in an acting class and tell them that "Tonight you will be on stage performing" they will suffer the same physical changes due to Heart Rate/Adrenaline and other physical changes as some one threatened in an Overwhelming Confrontation.
The same can be found in students asked to talk in front of a class or a member of a company asked to speak to the group or in front of the boss for the first time.

Heart Rate can Jump immediately to 200+ in a Combat or Perceived Threat scenario.
Heart Rate can Jump to 170-190 in an all out sprint.
Heart Rate can slowly increase over the day/s and then at the anticipated moment it will spike to its maximum.

It can be an immediate mental trigger such as attack or it can be a physical trigger.
Does the body/mind/physical symptoms and Heart Rate Know the difference?
Sprinting/Running/Moving Fast are a Flight or Fight responses ,aren't they?
Same as when under threat.
The mind only knows that Worry,Fear,Threat,Running/Moving Fast ,are control mechanisms for the safety of the system/the body.

I am sure many have experienced the first few times Sprinting,Speaking before a crowd or Fighting for your life were the end result are the same feelings described by Siddle for Increased Heart Rate and Adrenaline (sweats,inability to perform fine motor skills,weakness in the legs,nausea)

The only difference between sport and combat Heart Rate are the time it takes to get to that heart rate.
Combat/Spontaneous Fight Threat you are dropped in at 200+ BPM
Phone rings in the middle of the night and you jump out of REM Sleep and you are at 200+
Sport you  take a period of time to reach that Maximum from a few seconds to minutes ,depending on the intensity of effort/out put over the short haul.

We know Immediate need is a factor  in the Heart Rate Response Reactions,but again these same effects are found in non immediate need situations and Siddle's Heart Rate/Adrenaline/Physical Response chart does NOT Differentiate.
                              ..................................................................
If we can compare the Body,a closed circuit system ,and its energy demands,output, responses and times to a machine, like a car, we see that immediate power need and longer length time to full power needs create similar demands on the system once we reach the High demand level of output/Red line.