About that Meme

"No Pain, NO Gain!

Pain, no gain: (rather say) Discomfort means progress (incremental gains)! Pain serves two sides (yin vs. yang) because it is actually an early warning system in the body and mind (brain) in that good (yin) pain warns you of potential damage while bad pain (yang) is the body telling you that you have passed beyond you health and fitness failsafe system. [learn to avoid pain]

The "no pain" means you have not passed your failsafe line thus giving you a warning to monitor your training and practice in reaching your potential. At the first sign of good (warning Will Robinson) pain you should trigger your internal awareness to decide when enough, is enough.

It is that moment one must enter the rest and recover phase that allows the mind and body to grow and improve which is how nature intended. Something to mull over for the health and wellbeing of one's future!

___________

by CEJames (arthor) & Akira Ichinose (editor/researcher)

Philosophy behind “No pain, no gain” (as a fitness meme)

At its core, “no pain, no gain” is a moral story about effort: 

the belief that valuable outcomes require discomfort (not pain), and that suffering is evidence you “paid the price.” Writers have described this as a kind of modern work-ethic / ascetic / Puritan-adjacent narrative—achievement is framed as something you earn through hardship.  

In gym culture, the meme also functions as a simple heuristic:

• If it hurts (or you’re sore), it must be working.

• If it doesn’t hurt, it must be ineffective.

That’s psychologically appealing because it turns a messy, slow process (adaptation) into a clear signal you can feel immediately. The problem is: pain is an unreliable signal.

A quick historical note: the idea (“effort brings reward”) is old, but its fitness catchphrase popularityis strongly associated with the early 1980s aerobics boom and figures like Jane Fonda (often paired with “feel the burn”).  

What it gets right (pros)

1) It pushes people out of under-training

Many beginners simply don’t challenge themselves enough to drive adaptation. The meme can help people accept that productive training includes discomfort (breathing hard, muscle “burn,” effort, and fatigue).

2) It reinforces progressive overload (in spirit)

Real progress usually requires some increase in stimulus over time (load, reps, sets, density, skill demand). Formal training guidelines emphasize progression—not random suffering, but planned increases aligned with goals and recovery.  

3) It can build grit and tolerance for effort

The slogan can be motivational, especially when it’s interpreted as:

• “Training is hard sometimes.”

• “Consistency includes uncomfortable days.”

Where it goes wrong (cons)

1) It confuses effort/discomfort with harmful pain

A major downside is that it can normalize ignoring warning signs. Many injuries begin with “manageable” pain that people train through until it becomes a real problem.

2) It overvalues soreness (DOMS) as proof of effectiveness

Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) often follows unfamiliar or eccentric work and can be influenced by novelty, volume, and intensity—but it does not reliably track hypertrophy or “quality” of training. Research specifically warns that DOMS can be a “false friend,” and studies show soreness doesn’t map cleanly onto muscle damage magnitude or progress.  

3) It can drive poor load management (stagnation, burnout, injury)

Chasing pain can push people into overreaching without adequate recovery, or rapid spikes in workload. Consensus guidance on athletic load management highlights that poor load management is a major injury risk factor and emphasizes monitoring and appropriate progression.  

Fitness culture itself has been shifting toward recovery as a performance variable, not a weakness.  

4) It can reward “hero workouts” instead of sustainable training

If your success metric becomes “how wrecked am I?”, you tend to accumulate:

• inconsistent training (big days → forced layoffs)

• technique breakdown under fatigue

• higher risk behaviors (ego loading, ignoring joint pain)

• lower long-term adherence

“Good discomfort” vs “bad pain” (a practical interpretation)

A better translation of the meme is:

“Some strain is required; injury signals are not.”

Generally productive signals

• effort/fatigue during the set

• muscle “burn” late in a set

• mild next-day tightness that resolves quickly

Red flags (treat as “stop / modify / assess”)

• sharp, stabbing, or electrical pain

• joint pain that increases as you warm up

• pain that changes movement mechanics

• pain that persists or escalates across sessions

What actually predicts progress better than pain

If you want simple yardsticks that correlate more directly with results than “how much it hurt,” use:

• Performance trend: more reps at same load, more load at same reps, better form at same work

• Planned progression: consistent, incremental overload (ACSM progression guidance)  

• Recovery trend: sleep, appetite, mood, resting soreness, readiness

• Injury trend: nagging pains staying flat or improving (not accumulating)

Fact check of the key claims above

Claim A: The phrase became prominent in fitness culture in the early 1980s (often linked to aerobics/Jane Fonda).

Verdict: Supported (cultural prominence), though exact “credit” is diffuse.

Wikipedia and mainstream reporting describe the surge in popularity tied to 1980s aerobics culture and Fonda-era messaging.  

Claim B: DOMS is not a reliable indicator of muscle growth or training quality.

Verdict: Supported.

Peer-reviewed work describes DOMS as a misleading proxy (“false friend”) and shows soreness does not reflect the magnitude of muscle damage in a simple way.  

Claim C: Progress requires progression, not “more pain.”

Verdict: Supported.

ACSM position stands emphasize structured progression models in resistance training—variables like load, volume, exercise selection, rest—not pain chasing.  

Claim D: Poor load management increases injury risk and should be monitored.

Verdict: Supported.

The IOC consensus statement highlights poor load management as a major risk factor and provides practical guidance for monitoring/training load.  

Claim E: Fitness culture has been trending toward “recovery” as a key concept vs the old “no pain, no gain” framing.

Verdict: Supported (as a media/culture observation).

A recent AP report documents this explicit cultural shift and ties it to current coaching/certification emphases. 

Bibliography (starter set)

• American College of Sports Medicine. Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2009).  

• Soligard T, et al. How much is too much? (Part 1) IOC consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. (2016).  

• Wilke J, et al. Is “Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness” a False Friend? (2021).  

• Nosaka K, et al. Delayed-onset muscle soreness does not reflect the magnitude of eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage. (2002).  

• Associated Press. “No pain, no gain? Hardly… recovery.” (2025).  

• “No pain, no gain” (overview of proverb + modern fitness usage).  

Human Performance

under threat (what changes, and why)

by CEJames (arthor) & Akira Ichinose (editor/researcher)

When a situation is perceived as dangerous, two tightly-coupled stress systems ramp up:

• SAM / sympathetic-adrenomedullary system → fast surge of epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine, raising heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, glucose availability, and alertness.  

• HPA axis → slightly slower hormonal cascade (CRH → ACTH → cortisol) that reallocates energy and modulates brain systems involved in memory and decision-making.  

Those changes can be performance-helpful for simple, well-grooved actions, but they often degrade complex cognition and fine control under high threat.

Note: a solid discussion for the KISS principle in physical self-defense training, practice and especially application ergo defend through avoidance, etc.!

1) Perception limits under threat

Attentional narrowing (“tunnel vision” as attention, not eyeballs)

A classic finding is that high emotion/arousal tends to reduce the range of cues you use, prioritizing what seems most relevant. This is often framed as cue utilization narrowing. Modern work suggests the story is nuanced: “narrowing” can reflect prioritization of high-value cues rather than a uniform collapse of perception.  

Practical meaning: 

you may look at or notice the most threatening element (hands, weapon, sudden movement) while missing peripheral details (routes, bystanders, accomplices).

Weapon focus (attention hijack + memory tradeoff)

In eyewitness research, the presence of a weapon often draws gaze and attention toward it and reduces memory for other details(e.g., face/clothing). This effect is well-supported, with a large body of follow-up work.  

Auditory exclusion and time distortion (reported in real incidents)

In lethal-force incidents, officers (LEO) frequently report sensory distortions such as:

• time slowing or speeding

• altered sound (including “auditory exclusion”)

• visual distortions/tunnel attention

A well-cited dataset reports slow-motion experiences in a majority of shootings in their sample.  

Important caveat: these are self-reports (real and common, but not perfect measures of sensory physiology).

2) Reaction time under threat (and why it’s slower than people think)

Simple reaction time vs. real-world reaction time

• In lab settings, simple reaction time is often on the order of ~140–200 ms depending on modality (auditory typically faster than visual).  

• But real self-defense decisions aren’t “press a button when light appears.” They include:

1. detect the cue

2. interpret it (friend/foe? weapon? intent?)

3. choose a response

4. initiate and control movement

Each layer adds time and error risk—especially under ambiguity and stress.

Choice + decision complexity: Hick–Hyman law

As the number of plausible responses increases, decision time tends to rise (roughly logarithmically)—a robust finding in choice reaction research.  

Implication: under threat, simplifying “if/then” options (trained defaults) can be faster than “inventing” a response.

Stress and the prefrontal cortex (PFC): worse top-down control

High stress releases catecholamines that rapidly impair prefrontal networks responsible for working memory, inhibition, flexible reasoning, and “staying wise.”  

Implication: you may revert to habit, freeze, perseverate, or overcommit to a first interpretation.

3) Adrenaline/cortisol effects on performance

Motor control: gross actions survive; precision often suffers

Under high stress, many people show:

• shakier precision

• degraded sequencing

• poorer inhibition (trigger-happy / premature action)

This lines up with the idea that stress biases toward habitual and emotional systems rather than deliberative control.  

In police research under realistic threat (e.g., “shootback” scenarios), stress/anxiety is associated with reduced shooting accuracyand other performance impairments.  

Memory: strong for “central threat,” worse for details

Acute stress can enhance memory for emotional/central elements yet impair recall of peripheral/unrelated details, and stress timing matters (encoding vs. retrieval).  

4) What improves performance under threat (evidence-based levers)

Stress exposure training (inoculation) can help

In controlled police studies, training that includes anxiety/threat (vs. calm repetition) can reduce later performance drop under pressure—effects lasting months in at least one design.  

Train the “defaults” you want to occur

Because stress can reduce flexible cognition and push you toward habit, you generally want:

• fewer choices (clear rules)

• simpler motor programs

• more repetition under realistic arousal

This is consistent with Hick–Hyman decision effects and stress/PFC findings.  

Fact check of the key claims (what’s solid vs. shaky)

Very well-supported (strong evidence / broad consensus)

• Stress activates SAM (catecholamines) and HPA (cortisol) with widespread physiological effects.  

• High stress can impair prefrontal executive functions (working memory, inhibition, flexibility).  

• Weapon focus: attention drawn to weapon; memory for other details often reduced.  

• Decision complexity increases response time (Hick–Hyman law).  

• Stress effects on memory are timing- and content-dependent (can help emotional central elements, harm peripheral or retrieval).  

Supported but with important caveats

• “Tunnel vision” / attentional narrowing: supported as reduced cue utilization under emotion/arousal, but mechanisms and generality vary; it’s not always a literal visual field failure.  

• Auditory exclusion and time distortion: commonly reported in real lethal-force incidents; self-report evidence is strong for prevalence, but it’s not a precise physiological measurement.  

• Threat degrades complex performance (e.g., shooting accuracy): supported in realistic simulation research; how much it degrades depends on training, task, and scenario.  

Shaky / often overstated (use caution)

• Hard “heart-rate performance zones” (e.g., exact BPM cutoffs where skills shut down): widely circulated in tactical folklore and some training literature, but the precise thresholdsare not established as universal biological laws. If you use them, treat as rough coaching heuristics, not guaranteed physiology.  

Bibliography (starter pack, strong sources first)

Stress physiology & brain

• Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.  

• Arnsten, A. F. T. (2015). The effects of stress exposure on prefrontal cortex. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.  

• Herman, J. P., et al. (2016). Regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical stress response. Comprehensive Physiology.  

• Godoy, L. D., et al. (2018). A comprehensive overview on stress neurobiology. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.  

Memory under stress

• Klier, C., et al. (2020). Stress and long-term memory retrieval: A systematic review.  

• Shields, G. S., et al. (2022). Stress and memory encoding: roles of stressor-relatedness and timing.  

• Gagnon, S. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2016). Acute stress and episodic memory retrieval (review).  

Attention and narrowing

• Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review.  

• van Steenbergen, H., et al. (2011). Threat (more than arousal) narrows attention.  

Reaction time / decision complexity

• Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  

• Proctor, R. W., & Schneider, D. W. (2018). Hick’s law for choice reaction time: A review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  

• BioNumbers entry on reaction times (auditory/visual/tactile) (compiled from classic RT literature).  

Real-world / applied threat performance

• Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2011). Training with anxiety: effects on police shooting under pressure. Cognitive Processing.  

• Klinger, D. A., & Brunson, R. K. (summary at OJP/NIJ): Perceptual distortions during lethal force incidents.  

• Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law and Human Behavior.