 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Citations 2 and 3: Both articles #2 and #3 speak of the importance of the psoas,
including its attachments and function pertaining to the diaphragm, pelvic floor, lumbar
spine, and lumbar discs. Article #3 talks of the infero-medial fascia of the psoas being
continuous with the pelvic floor fascia. Note the bold faced type in article #2; might
there be other reasons for the atrophy found in the ipsilateral psoas?
including its attachments and function pertaining to the diaphragm, pelvic floor, lumbar
spine, and lumbar discs. Article #3 talks of the infero-medial fascia of the psoas being
continuous with the pelvic floor fascia. Note the bold faced type in article #2; might
there be other reasons for the atrophy found in the ipsilateral psoas?
Citation 5: This article, and the accompanying editorial, supposedly refute the claims
made by practitioners of CranioSacral Therapy as to the changes that are made via
release of a cranial bone. The research states that no changes in intracranial pressure or
frontal bone movement were detected in rabbits during a controlled "release" of the
frontal bone. This is just some of the "evidence" that is out there that skeptics may use
to try to disprove our methods. "Prove that it works, or move on" is the final line of the
editorial comment by the JOSPT. Hook mechanical devices to the skulls of rabbits and
find no evidence of movement, then come up with the sweeping conclusion that one
human touching and interacting with another does not have a positive effect? Call into
question all that we do and feel, because the frontal bone of a rabbit did not move when
a machine was attached to it? Here in lies the limitation of EBP (evidenced based
practice), no one in this group allows for the energetic connection that is created once
we touch another human being. Feel the sphenoid shift, just once, and you will never
doubt what EBP cannot prove, or disprove.
made by practitioners of CranioSacral Therapy as to the changes that are made via
release of a cranial bone. The research states that no changes in intracranial pressure or
frontal bone movement were detected in rabbits during a controlled "release" of the
frontal bone. This is just some of the "evidence" that is out there that skeptics may use
to try to disprove our methods. "Prove that it works, or move on" is the final line of the
editorial comment by the JOSPT. Hook mechanical devices to the skulls of rabbits and
find no evidence of movement, then come up with the sweeping conclusion that one
human touching and interacting with another does not have a positive effect? Call into
question all that we do and feel, because the frontal bone of a rabbit did not move when
a machine was attached to it? Here in lies the limitation of EBP (evidenced based
practice), no one in this group allows for the energetic connection that is created once
we touch another human being. Feel the sphenoid shift, just once, and you will never
doubt what EBP cannot prove, or disprove.
Citation 6: This study shows what we have been feeling and have been taught; the existence of human magnetic sense. This type
of research is the groundwork that begins to explain that which previously has been denied. Humans have the ability to detect
magnetic fields.
of research is the groundwork that begins to explain that which previously has been denied. Humans have the ability to detect
magnetic fields.
Citation 7: A full text of this article is only available through JOSPT. Too bad, as one could really call into question many aspects
of this study. I've had a copy of this article for a number of years and if you would allow me to summarize the results, they found
that while both an MFR leg pull and contract-relax techniques were effective in increasing hip flexion, contract-relax produced
greater results in terms of improvements in range of motion. But, if one reads the study, a few questions become apparent. Under
"Procedure", page 140, the "investigator" was described as a "physical therapy student with formal training in myofascial release
techniques and 11 months of practice with the techniques and measurements used in this study". No mention is made of any formal
training in contract-relax technique, or any informal training of any sort. Why the reference to only training in MFR? No mention as
to what type of MFR training, JFB or otherwise, that was received. Now, think back to MFR1, where John Barnes demonstrates
the leg pull technique. The "procedure" section continues with a description of the leg pull technique, with wording taken exactly
from the MFR1 course syllabus and John's "Search for Excellence" book. The examiner covered all planes of hip motion,
abduction, flexion, and adduction, all within an average of 10 minutes, never exceeding 15 minutes. Have you ever completely rid
the restrictions from a patient's leg in 15 minutes? Do you follow the global treatment description exactly? I've not, as all clients are
different and need individualized care. The conclusion of this study states that contract-relax is both more effective as well as more
efficient than MFR. You may be confronted with the results of this study as "proof" that MFR does not work or is ineffective.
Question the source.
of this study. I've had a copy of this article for a number of years and if you would allow me to summarize the results, they found
that while both an MFR leg pull and contract-relax techniques were effective in increasing hip flexion, contract-relax produced
greater results in terms of improvements in range of motion. But, if one reads the study, a few questions become apparent. Under
"Procedure", page 140, the "investigator" was described as a "physical therapy student with formal training in myofascial release
techniques and 11 months of practice with the techniques and measurements used in this study". No mention is made of any formal
training in contract-relax technique, or any informal training of any sort. Why the reference to only training in MFR? No mention as
to what type of MFR training, JFB or otherwise, that was received. Now, think back to MFR1, where John Barnes demonstrates
the leg pull technique. The "procedure" section continues with a description of the leg pull technique, with wording taken exactly
from the MFR1 course syllabus and John's "Search for Excellence" book. The examiner covered all planes of hip motion,
abduction, flexion, and adduction, all within an average of 10 minutes, never exceeding 15 minutes. Have you ever completely rid
the restrictions from a patient's leg in 15 minutes? Do you follow the global treatment description exactly? I've not, as all clients are
different and need individualized care. The conclusion of this study states that contract-relax is both more effective as well as more
efficient than MFR. You may be confronted with the results of this study as "proof" that MFR does not work or is ineffective.
Question the source.
Citation 8: One look at the 'References' list for this editorial should give you a sense of the slant of this piece. Nine out of 24 of
the cited references were articles by the author of this editorial. Again, question the source. While Mr. Hartman may have done
substantial research on the invalidity of Cranial Osteopathy (craniosacral therapy), looking at the entire reference list reveals that it is
primarily his own work that serves to refute cranial osteopathy. Most of the others listed are oppositional (Upledger, et al) or
historical writings. There are studies out there that conclude that there is no inter-rater reliability of palpation and detection of the
craniosacral rhythm, as well as study #5 above. But, reading through John Upledger's writings, including his text listed in another
section of this website, other studies have shown the opposite. True, most of these studies were done by Upledger himself. This
seems to only prove that it is often possible to prove or disprove just about anything. It depends on your desires and bias. I have a
friend who is a retired Osteopathic professor, a colleague of Upledger at the Univ. of Michigan. I remember him bemoaning the fact
that Upledger "diluted" the profession of osteopathy by teaching his methods to therapists. I, for one, am grateful for the dilution.
Myofascial Release and craniosacral therapy, as taught by John Barnes, differs from the techniques as taught by others who teach
craniosacral therapy. With others, there is a rigid adherence to utilizing only 5 grams of pressure at all times. Therein may lie the
disappointing results gathered in Article #5 that I have referenced above. Factor into this the lack of inclusion of the effects of
human interaction via the piezoelectric effect and the human magnetic sense (see #6 above), and one is left with the question of just
what is being proved or disproved? Myofascial Release teaches us that one must work the entire fascial system, even if only to
effect the frontal bone. Pressures are dynamic and ever changing, rather than simply using 5 grams at all times. Mr. Hartman's
editorial seems to me to only prove what he wishes to believe. There is "evidence" to both prove and disprove nearly all of what we
do. Question the source, look for bias, and do what works and what is right.
the cited references were articles by the author of this editorial. Again, question the source. While Mr. Hartman may have done
substantial research on the invalidity of Cranial Osteopathy (craniosacral therapy), looking at the entire reference list reveals that it is
primarily his own work that serves to refute cranial osteopathy. Most of the others listed are oppositional (Upledger, et al) or
historical writings. There are studies out there that conclude that there is no inter-rater reliability of palpation and detection of the
craniosacral rhythm, as well as study #5 above. But, reading through John Upledger's writings, including his text listed in another
section of this website, other studies have shown the opposite. True, most of these studies were done by Upledger himself. This
seems to only prove that it is often possible to prove or disprove just about anything. It depends on your desires and bias. I have a
friend who is a retired Osteopathic professor, a colleague of Upledger at the Univ. of Michigan. I remember him bemoaning the fact
that Upledger "diluted" the profession of osteopathy by teaching his methods to therapists. I, for one, am grateful for the dilution.
Myofascial Release and craniosacral therapy, as taught by John Barnes, differs from the techniques as taught by others who teach
craniosacral therapy. With others, there is a rigid adherence to utilizing only 5 grams of pressure at all times. Therein may lie the
disappointing results gathered in Article #5 that I have referenced above. Factor into this the lack of inclusion of the effects of
human interaction via the piezoelectric effect and the human magnetic sense (see #6 above), and one is left with the question of just
what is being proved or disproved? Myofascial Release teaches us that one must work the entire fascial system, even if only to
effect the frontal bone. Pressures are dynamic and ever changing, rather than simply using 5 grams at all times. Mr. Hartman's
editorial seems to me to only prove what he wishes to believe. There is "evidence" to both prove and disprove nearly all of what we
do. Question the source, look for bias, and do what works and what is right.
Citation 28: After reading through this study, it does make one wonder what harm we have caused ourselves by bundling
ourselves up in supportive shoes and sticking to the sidewalk while walking.
ourselves up in supportive shoes and sticking to the sidewalk while walking.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Walt Fritz, PT Copyright 2007