Myofascial Release; The Great Conversation

[Walt Fritz]

Jon,

As I have stated, the concept of emotions stored in the body (vs. the mind) is yet to be discovered to the level that some will need. Think of it this way: If there is an injury or insult to a specific area of the body, (please excuse my lack of awareness of scientific references, etc, just follow me) the pain as well as the trauma is retained at that level. The concept of deja vu, which we all have experienced in the form of sight, smell, etc, follows this line. When the tissues are touched in a certain way, or the body assumes a specific position in space that reprocduces that deja vu-type memory, emotions come to the surface. (I'm flying from an experientail basis here). Releasing those involved tissues allows the patient to move through both the physical pain as well as the emotional memory.

There is no need to discard all of the excellent modalities which one already uses. MFR wonderfully compliments existing methodologies. The only consequences that will result is for your patients to move farther along with their progress. As for unintended consequences...there are none. No, I don't feel that an emotion is rubbing upon a free nerve ending. The research that has not been accepted thus far by this forum shows the potential that it is stored in the microtubules of the body, rather than the brain, local to the site of insult. You seem to be asking for opinion, so there it was.

[Walt Fritz]

Nari,
Restate the questions, please. Signing off for tonight but will answer as much as I am able tomorrow. Thank you for your patience,as there are many different streams flowing here.

Walt

[Dave Vollmers]

Nari -

you wrote: Re the barrier....why is a 'barrier' a place of minimal resistance? Why use the term out of its true meaning?

These are the definitions that I'm utilizing
1. In the handbook of MFR I John writes "The purpose of deep Myofascial Release" (this would be any area deeper than the superficial layer located under the skin) "is to relase restriction (barrier) within the deeper layers of fascia."

2. The webster's online dictionary states (http://www.websters-online-dictionar...nition/barrier)
"Barrier
Noun
1. A structure or object that impedes free movement.
2. Any condition that makes it difficult to make progress or to achieve an objective; "intolerance is a barrier to understanding".
3. Anything serving to maintain separation by obstructing vision or access."
NOTE: I am focusing on the 1st definition
The use of "minimal resistance" is to help people understand that as MFR therapists we are not sinking in until we hit bone or another hard structure but mearly a resistance in the tissue which may be just under the skin to as deep as the errector spinae muscles of the back.

I guess I would have to ask to post your definition of barrier in order to see if we are utilizing the same definitions or if this line of questioning is turning into a situation of word worshiping or at the least a discussion of sympantics based on our own belief system.

You also wrote: Under what conditions would it be unsafe?? Where are these people in the room?

Unsafe conditions would be any condition that the person would be at risk for injury if you took your hands off too quickly. This may be at a point where a patient is unwinding and their head is off the table and therefore if you just let go the person's neck would be dropped causing a whiplash type of injury. As to were are people in the room - simply they are touching the patient. MFR can be performed one on one or with multiple therapists in the room working on the patient at the same time. Multiple therapist treatments are really cool - think of having a therapist touch you/treat you in all the areas that are causing you pain at the same time. Can this be overwhelming - yes but many times it is a situation that allows your body to truly let go because your brain can't process all of this at the same time so it shuts up allowing your body to truly heal or at the very least let go. As Walt stated before a patient always has the right to request a private session at the beginning of the session (other therapists aren't allowed in until after the primary therapist enters the room and askes the patient if it's okay for others to help out. to Tina's credit I've actually heard her say to patients after they have hesitated when question this way that maybe it would be best if the other therapists didn't come in. At this point the patient can either disagree with her or be passive knowing that Tina had their best intrest at heart and just agree to avoid feeling like they have refused treatment or hurt someone else's feelings)

Finally you wrote: Whether fresh off the ground or embalmed, cadavers are never a good way to understand how the body works. They are fine for anatomy rote learning, and not much else.


I would have to disagree because unless you have done cadaver study you are just taking what others say as a basis for many therapist at face value. For example if I were to tell you that the muscles of the back were very thin and therefore strengthening them would be pointless, then did a study to show how many people have very weak core strength you would have no choice but to believe it unless you have opened up a person and seen for yourself. The human body is a thing of beauty and a gallery showing entitled "bodyworks" showes this (http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/home.asp). Take a look if you get a chance and then tell me that seeing this only allows you "rote" information and not a true understanding of the complexities of the human body.

Finally I think I read in your profile that you are a physiotherapist - I have to admit I have no clue what your training is and I wouldn't want to insult you or your training but if you have never had the pleasure of disceting a human cadaver I would like to suggest that you take a course and then relook at your statement that this form of study on gives you rote information.

Dave

[Diane]

A short post about using the quote function.

Place text in a "box" by doing the following:

1. Write the word 'quote' inside square brackets ahead of your text, i.e., [ quote ]. (Do not allow spaces the way I did; eliminate those.)

2. Then write the text or paste in whatever you wish to quote.

3. Finish with [ /quote ], again without spaces.

Your selected text will appear inside a quote box.

Dave, did you miss my questions about your dissections? They are in post #40.

[Dave Vollmers]

Nari -

You wrote: Answers seem to have been delayed; and these questions have not been reasonably answered in the few references and stories related.
At the start of the discussion, you welcomed questions.


I've been typing for quite a while tonight and thought these were answers to questions that have been asked. If I am mistaken please give me a specific example and I'll try again to answer the question. If my responses don't appear to answer any question then please let me know. I may not be the best at writing or formulating responses at times but I would like to learn what your expectations are so that I can respond in a manner that helps you.

Dave

[Dave Vollmers]

Diane -

Sorry I'm getting there (sorry for the delay but you were next until I saw the response from Nari) and I'm gonna try your suggestion:

Hi Dave,
Welcome to SS and to our rollicking little conversation!
I have a big interest in anatomical minutiae and am very interested in learning more about your experience. I agree that much that is potentially useful to know about gets burned off with preservation. Even in unembalmed cadavers, dead is really still, compared to alive organisms, isn't it?
I have a question or two about what you observed.
1. First, did you see/dissect/ examine skin ligaments, how they lie in there, which directions? and if so..
2. Did you examine any of the skin ligaments that are mini neural conduits?
3. Did you examine anyting about the skin layer itself or did you dive straight through it to get to the fascia?
4. If you did examine the microanatomy of the skin, as in under a microscope, were you able to observe/examine/appreciate all the innervation it carries?
Thank you.
Diane

my harvesting experiances were usually to take the spine, detach c1 from the occiput, take the shoulder girdle in it's intirety and the legs from the femoral head down. I will admit I'm not the best at using a microscope and I've never had the opportunity to utilize an electorn microscope. that being said I'm not sure what "skin ligaments" are and my anatomy books are at work so I'll try to look it up tomorrow between patients. If you are talking about the connective tissue located between the skin and superficial layer of the fascial system I can tell you that I've appreciated them during disections and harvesting (both white tail deer and human) but other than noticing how strong they are the only direction I've ever noticed was superficial to deep direction because if I pulled the skin up the connections would drag behind because of the weight of the body and superficial layer of the fascial system didn't move right away but if I waited the fascial system would move thereby shortening these connections and changing direction. AS for noticing innervation I've seen periferal nerves as well as capilaries reach through the fascia occasionally into the skin by way of these connections and just thought it was cool that the body encased these structures as a way to protect them as they reached the skin and the outside enviorment for either stimuli or as a means to cool down the blood.

I'll be on for alittle while yet so if you want to describe the skin ligaments to me that would be great and then I can let you know if I ever noticed them before.

Sorry to be vage

Dave

[Diane]

Walt,

As for Oschman's well researched work, dismissing it out of hand, as you have done, merely proves the point that any research or writings can be dismissed if you, yourself do not agree with them or feel they are invalid.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "feel" with the word "invalid." Something is either valid or it's invalid. I prefer to refer to books that I "know" have validity, Damasio, Melzack, Wall, Ramachandran, and many many more. "Feel" has nothing to do with deciding validity. Do you agree?

[Barrett Dorko]

It doesn’t appear at this point that we’re going to accomplish much more given the viewpoints in opposition. Walt seems to think that being openly critical of another’s ideas is inappropriate. It isn’t of course; it’s the way knowledge in science progresses. As I’ve said many times, this isn’t a tea party. By the way, I said I posted Dottie’s URL twice. I never said that I didn’t enter into a prolonged discussion about it.

But here’s the thing, buy his own admission Walt is not a scientist. He went to college and he has a license, but using scientific principles to treat patients with physical means-the definition of physical therapy-doesn’t evidently apply to MFR practitioners. There’s a certain convenience here, especially when you consider what Barnes’ students are asked to believe.

Ian Stevens in England recently suggested I read Science and Poetry by Mary Midgley. She points out that social scientists cannot use the methods available to physical scientists. What they often end up doing is philosophy, whether they notice it or not. During my years of observing the conversations on the MFR Chat I saw numerous references to MFR as something much more than a treatment approach but rather an entire way of seeing the universe and living our lives. Of course, this isn’t science, it is philosophy, and, in my opinion, not a good one-given all the “power animals,” “spirit guides,” “past lives” (intruding on this one) and “energy” involved. Some people like this stuff and feel it is an appropriate way of explaining what happens in the clinic, but they aren’t scientists.

The purpose of science is to make sense of things, not prove things. This distinction will always be lost on those who would prefer to believe rather than understand. In the end, belief is a whole lot easier.

[Diane]

Thank you for your reply Dave. It's a start.
We have a paper here in the Sounds of Silence on skin ligaments.. You will be able to access it by being a member (which you already are), and getting a password. Bernard is the password provider.

Meanwhile here is an abstract.

Now guys.. let's cut to the chase, puhlease. Given that
1. skin covers the body,
2. is attached by all these ligaments,
3. which allow the skin to "float" sort of, on an underlying cushion of slippery subcutaneous fat,
4. is highly innervated,
5. derives from ectoderm, same as the nervous system,
6. contains (what is it Luke? 3.54 meters of nerve per square centimeter?) a huge amount of innervation,
7. nineteen percent of which is comprised of slow-adapting, type II mechanoreceptors that fire continuously to lateral stretch,
8. that the brain/skin are functionally, autonomically integrated (see Ian's post with the reference about unmyelinated afferents going straight to the insular cortex, just one example of a multiply-layered integrated system), sensory and motor
9. that the neuromatrix theory developed by Melzack and Wall, two great pain researchers, after decades of painstaking research, has yet to be superceded,
10. that the last two decades of brain research have pretty much turned our little Cartesian compost bin completely on its side,
11. presuming that you two guys are even remotely aware of any of this,

...my next question is, how can anyone who IS aware of any of this take any assertions made about MFR being something real, seriously?

I think the whole thing has been built on empty perceptual fantasy declared as something real, sort of the way the "bone out of place" theory of chiropractic was built over a hundred years ago. Such memes persist because perceptual fantasy is very persuasive. Perceptual fantasy can lead to "premature cognitive conclusion."

But I put it to you that you are using up a lot of energy trying to justify MFR when the basic premises themselves don't make any sense at all.

How come you guys take yourselves and anything about MFR, any assertions, any propositions, so seriously? You are promoting a belief system, that's all.

I'm sorry, you cannot actually bend, stretch, lengthen, reconfigure, smooth out, decontract or otherwise manipulate deep fascia though living skin on an aware person with a live intact functioning nervous system. It might feel as if you can, but it's perceptual fantasy based on the brain's attempt to either get away from you or to co-operate with you. That's all.

The brain is making output changes based on novel sensory input. I call this "neuromodulation," and I suggest to you that that particular term (free by the way, I don't charge anyone for it, or claim to have originated it, or sell it as a treatment system) is far more appropriate, based on reality, derives from what is truly known, and encompasses more actual basic science than is/does the term MFR.

Thank you for your attention.

[bernard]

Hi All and welcome to our new members,

Just a point of view from a stubborn open minded administrator.
This topic is devoted to MFR and I do not clearly understand why some people try to oppose MFR to Simple Contact or anything else. That is not in the rules of the game.

I agree totally that our body is the "soul's mirror" and the basement where brain constructs emotions. That doesn't give us the conclusion that something is stored for duration in these places. It is was really the case, we certainly have found as we found them in brain some chemical changes in some cells. If it is was right, it would mean that creating a new but same emotion in our body need to be created over the precedent but because it exists an accomodation system embedded in brain it would need, at every new event, a quantity more important of chemicals. The system is against all economical principles known in Nature. The system is also divergent.

The number rule doesn't give any validity to any theory. Many ugly theories have been taught/used against/for millions persons but it doesn't prove they are/were valid.

Is it possible to discard that memories are stored in brain? It seems for me a simple and valid explanation since it is actually proved. It is also proved that acting on any sensitive part of a body is like touching a brain. Since brain is found, as the principal actor/receptor, it seems logical to think about some importance, there.

[nari]

Dave and Walt

I am not sure where this is taking us - words are the same but with different connotations. Never mind...

Re cadavers - I spent nearly two years doing full dissections, from entire body down to almost shreds. Standard for physiotherapy students in the Stone Ages in Queensland, Aust. I still maintain you learn NOTHING about the body's function, but gain a very good idea of where things are, how connected they are (which many still do not accept), and so on. Great for anatomy, as I said.

I think, at this stage, MFR seems to be based on quite shaky semantic grounds and does not sit comfortably with modern neuroscience. It all sounds rather spooky, especially how you described the 'safety' issue of the therapist having to 'let go' the receiver of MFR...sorry guys, this is science fiction, or at least science friction.
I am not in the least convinced that this is therapy which sits comfortably with modern physical therapy.

Nari

[Dave Vollmers]

Diane -

Thanks for entering this discussion you present with some valid points that I think are a wonderful start to help clarify some stuff. From what the abstract said and what you posted it appears that you are talking about a connective tissue that attaches the skin to the fascial system that is highly innervated both with nerves and blood vessels.

Now if I have this correct (I understand it is simplifying things a little but bare with me) than let me propose something to you. Take away your use of the word ligaments and replace it with the word fascia - both are considered connective tissue but depending on who you talk to it can mean many different things. In the end, if you would permit me, they are mearly words that either you or I have defined and may not mean the same thing to someone else thereby causing some major miscommunication.

I say this because if you accept my temporary change of words than I can then continue. If you take what you know about the innervation of the fascial system at the level of the skin is it than possible to say that when pressure is applied to the skin the body can have reactions ranging from interpreting temperature of the therapist's hands to triggering a response from deeper within the body. To accept this last part we have to accept that the body has many neuro connections that are formed to cause a memory or a predetermined pattern of behavior. Now if that is true than it is possible that by touching the skin of person a therapist may elicite a response that causes a patient to remember (very vividly) a past trauma and if during that memory the therapist suggests to the patient that the patient has survived that trauma that the brain many then see that response is no longer needed and therefore dismantale that neuro pathway?

Okay if you were able to make that leap then hang on. If the skin ligaments are actually what John Barnes says is fascia than is'nt it possible that these skin ligaments don't just connect the skin to the fascial system but run all the way through it and therefore innervating the fascial system that is, lets say, wrapped around the quadraceps muscles. Therefore this innervation that probably holds more information than our central nervous system can cause the quads to tighten based on a neuropathway that was formed because of a need to protect and contract the quads and therefore force the ASIS of the pelvis to drop anteriorly. Then, going back to the first assumption, once a therapist places gentle pressure on the skin it would cause the innervation to either decrease it's control (the gate therory) or remind the brain that this neuropathway isn't viable anymore and therefore cause the quads to release their tension and allow the ASIS of the pelvis to return to a "normal postural state".

Please understand what I've just done is to not challange your research but to ask you to consider another definition of what you are seeing as well as look at the system as a whole instead of just one part (on a 3-d basis not just linear). John Barnes truly only teaches therapists about the fascial system, how it's a 3-d web that everything goes through in and around and how we can see when it tightens up. Reasons for this tightening can be many different things ranging from blunt force trauma to emotion. Once he defines the fascial sytem and how it works for his model (keep in mind the words he uses may not be the same as your's but if you look at the definition you may find yourself changing the words he uses to words that work for you) he than teaches how to feel the restictions, apply gentle pressure and to wait for at least 1.5 to 2.0 minutes before the system "releases". Keep in mind that traditional therapy teaches to hold a stretch for 30 seconds to 1 minute and although the muscle fibers may release the fascial sytem that encases these muscles may not have and therefore any and all relief that a person gets from the tradtional stretch is only temporary. In the last 5 years of taking classes I have never heard John ask anyone to "believe" him. He has always said to people that he is mearly presenting an alternative way of viewing the body and how to treat it and it's up to the therapists to make the decision to utilize the techniques or not but he warnes us that once you start using this technique our patients will be requesting it because of the results we get. He has been right (at least in my experiance). The other two important concepts that John teaches is that our current model of teaching is to brainwash up into word worshiping, that is to say we are taught to memorize facts, figures and protocols; then to think that when a person doesn't get better it's because the patient didn't do their job or that they don't truly have a problem. John tries to teach people that you have to look past the symptoms and see the real cause, albet sometimes the cause is in a different place than the symptoms but once you treat the cause the patient experiances pernament relief of their symptoms. This is the consept that I would ask you to consider your skin ligaments as the fascial system and try to understand that the nerves aren't following the pathway of just the bones or muscles but that they may follow a direct path to the brain and therefore sometimes cross over other nerves causing links to other areas of the body and that these pathways may change based on the body's ability to adapt.


I would like to upload a picture of what I'm talking about but I'll have to do it tomorrow for the file is too big and I'm too tired to work on it so I'm off to bed.

Dave

[bernard]

I say this because if you accept my temporary change of words than I can then continue. If you take what you know about the innervation of the fascial system at the level of the skin is it than possible to say that when pressure is applied to the skin the body can have reactions ranging from interpreting temperature of the therapist's hands to triggering a response from deeper within the body. To accept this last part we have to accept that the body has many neuro connections that are formed to cause a memory or a predetermined pattern of behavior.

We are all accepting neuro connections but we are, all, knowing that all these neuro connections end/begin in brain.
Changing words does not change the neural networks. You seem to discard the importance of neural events in the scene.

A body without a brain is just flesh and a cadaver.

[Diane]

Dave, it sounds like you may be trying to convince me that fascia is the nervous system, rather than merely conduit material for the thin threads of the nervous system. I can't buy that. Sorry. Fascia comes from mesoderm, and as far as I know, from embryology, and an partcular interest I have in cells, nerve cells trump mesoderm cells for being
a) fast conductors of information
b) high metabolism (nervous system is 2-3% of whole body mass, but uses 20% of the oxygen intake)
c) creators of movement, storers of "emotions" and "memories"

Fascia (along with muscles, smooth and striated, and other mesodermic structure) is the puppet of the nervous system; the nervous system is not in any way subservient to the fascial system. If you did a bit of reading outside John Barnes autobiography and Oschman's energy book, maybe some pain science research, you'd have heard of the neuromatrix theory by now.

PS: Ditto Bernard. The brain runs everything. The body is the blob at the bottom of the brain, not the other way round..

[pablo]

What an interesting read this all makes.

Barrett, you make an excellent point about science being different from a belief system.

I don't know much about MFR, and based on what I have read here and elsewhere, regardless of what clinical outcomes are achieved (and I haven't seen any convincing scientific evidence to change my mind on it), if there isn't a good foundation to begin with (ie something that can be understood irrespective of belief) there isn't much to attract my attention to study it further. I suspect a lot of people with a scientific bent think the same. Great discussion anyway!

Pablo