Talk:Myofascial release

message: This article was extremely helpful and told me everything I wanted to know.  Job done well here. --WendyWendy May 2012
Hello, I have studied Travell for over a decade and have found that she uses the term "deactivate a trigger point" which is really a "release" the muscle from the effects of the trigger point. TPs causes erratic behavior in muscles, causes muscle spasms, and shortening/tightening/stiffening of the muscle. These behaviors will pull a particular joint out of alignment. C. Chan Gunn, MD found the original article that proves a needle or a muscle will twitch and relax after it is depolarized.Srodrigu (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You, Editors

message: I rewrote the beginning, adding in information from the DiGiovanna textbook. I took out the unsupported information regarding fascia; users can visit the fascia article for more information. The sections for direct and indirect techniques contain (some) good information that still needs to be reformatted, especially with regard to references. --Timemutt (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote beginning

message: Does anyone with knowledge want to contribute to a new article? It's currently under my namespace at User:Diulama/draft_for_foam_roller  —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New article on foam rollers

message: Why are we noting the lower case r? Is there a reason? The article says to note the lowercase r but does not give a reason why we should. Amnion (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lowercase r?

message: The line, "Dr. Ida Rolf developed Structural Integration or Rolfing in the 1950s, a holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that with the goal of balancing the body in gravitational field." is grammatically incorrect and appears to make little sense.  I don't understand what a "gravitational field" means in this context, so I don't know how to properly correct the grammar.  In this case the only "gravitational field" worth worrying about that I'm aware of is the Earth's gravitational field, and I think we can safely assume that all patients will be on Earth, which would make the last part of that sentence pointless.  Can someone please fix the grammar and explain what is meant by a "gravitational field" here?  Also, I don't know much about "Rolfing," but I'm not sure it fits the Wikipedia's description of holism in medicine.  Can someone check that as well? -- 70.20.151.239 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gravitational field"? 

message: Hi,
All the references cited on the page are advertisments! This is a total violation with the Wikipedia rules. I just remove them in accordance with the rules. --Somasimple 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in our policies that says references like these are advertisements and should be removed.  Please do not remove sources from articles because they are commercial.  References should only be removed if they do not support the content of the article or if they are not reliable sources.  The references have been restored. --Siobhan Hansa 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: An IP address has been adding an external link to a site which is of unknown authorship and appears to be attacking an individual therapist - this link must not stay on the page. Apart from being nonencyclopedic, it is a violation of our policy on coverage of living people.  Please delete any such links on sight. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent external link

message: is not grammatically sound and consequently makes no sense. Somebody fix that, please? I'm just passing through.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence of this article 

message: Hi All, I've got to this article while "researching" about treatments for carpal tunnel (from a patient's POV), and to me it seems reasonably written. I can't detect "advertisement style" (maybe was so in the past), so I'll remove the corresponding tag (which is from Oct'08). 
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is totally not NPOV.  The citations are horrid, opinion-based and not externally valid.  This piece needs major cleaning up and justifications for the claims made.  It would be relatively easy to write an NPOV piece on this topic.  This just doesn't happen to be it. PalMD (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as "Written as Advertisement"... still valid? 

message: *"Techniques include manual massage for stretching the fascia and releasing bonds between fascia"--this phrase is medically and anatomically meaningless.  
*"The fascial system is totally one structure that is present from your head to foot without any interruption." --This is also not anatomically correct.
*"Injuries, stress, inflammation, trauma, and poor posture can cause restriction to fascia." This is "begging the question";  there is no evidence or citation.  
This is just the tip of the iceberg.  PalMD (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of problematic language in this piece 

message: This article needs to include some references to objective evidence that these therapies produce results; especially, results significantly better than other options, including other therapies and no treatment at all.
Until it does so, the article only describes a sociocultural phenomenon, rather than a medical treatment. 
Please provide such references if you can.
After reading the article, I imagined this conversation:
"Ouch!  My back's playing up again.  Think I'll go and get some myofascial release."
"Oh!  Witch doctor?"
yoyo (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing evidence 

message: Any disagreements for merging AR into MR? DVMt (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar does not mean equal. They each deserve their own articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ART article could be improved with some information about its origin. I don't know much about it myself; I'm curious whether it shares a common lineage with MFR or if it developed out of the chiropractic world, or what. They are distinct enough to get their own separate pages, though. 
Hello, I'm new here attempting to clarify some of the data I have read related to Travell, MD myofascial therapy with wet-trigger point injections, dry needling with an solid needle and a hollow sharp need, C. Chan Gunn, MD Intramuscular Stimulation and spray and stretch. All are an additional types of myofascial release.Srodrigu (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of fine filament or hollow needles is used to release myofascial trigger points. Trigger point release is part of acupuncture, trigger point therapy, and myofascial release. All three areas need to be changed. Where do I get help to document these factsSrodrigu (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Active Release Technique]] into myofascial release 

message: This helps with understanding the concepts in the article. According to Tom Myers:
The word 'myofascia' connotes the bundled together inseparable nature of muscle tissue (myo) and its accompanying web of connective tissue (fascia).  --81.129.210.37 (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No clear definition of the origin of term Myofascia 

message: I moved the following external links from the EL section. They could serve as sources to support article content but are inappropriate for as ELs.
*Effects of myofascial release after high-intensity exercise: a randomized clinical trial, Journal of Manipulative Physiological Therapy 2008 March 31(3):217–23.
*Tavolacci, Phil. (2013). What's In Your Web?: Stories of Fascial Freedom. .
*UK Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication: Complaint Ref: 140929
*UK Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication: Complaint Ref: A11-154381
Jojalozzo 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the appropriate section would be "Further reading" any objections to creating such a section and adding these back there (minus the one already used as a ref)? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate external links 

message: The article currently contains three detailed how to sections from very questionable sources. It should contain a scholarly analysis of the techniques not an in universe description. The "concepts" included in these how to sections do not meet MEDRS as in what is the current medical knowledge of, for example, "barrier/restricted layer", "line of tension". I can't seem to find MEDRS that describes these as recognized in anatomy or physiology. The article should contain MEDRS quality sources that evaluate the validity of the theories involved and the efficacy of treatment. Absent support/acceptance in mainstream academia the content should be cut to bare bones basic encyclopedic terms that convey the type of treatment per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE as well as WP:MEDRS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is [[WP:NOTHOWTO|NOT a HOW TO]] manual 

message: I am posting some references that may be useful in improving this article.
The first two are reviews that discuss myofascial release. These are reviews which are the kind of quality source required by MEDRS. Note that the reviews also discuss the poor quality of the studies reviewed.
*
*
This review though older and not of the quality of a Cochrane review states, "The long-term clinical efficacy of various therapies is not clear, because data that incorporate pre- and post-treatment assessments with control groups are not available."
*
I'm not sure if this publication comes to the level of a review as I don't have access:
*
Though older these publications may be useful in editing the article:
*
*
*
*
In assessing and using these references care should be taken to note if they are directly relevant to Myofascial release. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested references 

message: *
this concludes: "We have no reliability studies documenting that the diagnostic method is reproducible and valid, and the results of the available RCTs cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy of the treatment approach, partly due to the unreliable diagnosis and partly due to the low quality of the study." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: And another

message: I find it very strange that the page is filled with information discrediting the practice, yet it is almost exclusively referencing cases involving cancer. Shouldn't there be more focus its uses in osteopathic and physical therapy or sports medicine?
Personally, I have had great success having my pectus cavum treated using this method, and my ribcage has changed from visibly concaved to near symmetry in only a few months, despite having lived with the condition for several decades. I have heard similar anecdotes about deformities being fixed in this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.72.60 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed this statement in the lead ----->"The use of myofascial release as a treatment is not supported by good evidence, and using it as a replacement for conventional treatment risks causing harm.[2][better source needed]" The source is American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary & Alternative Cancer Therapies and is a book about alt med cancer treatment. I think cancer treatment is a fringe use for myofascial release. A newer source to back this statement is needed. A better source is needed.Sassmouth (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the source discusses MR in general, not just as a cancer treatment. Source is strong WP:MEDRS so we need it. If there are better sources, thn bring them forth! Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: If you happen to know how i can get my hands on a copy of the text regarding myofascial release let me know i would appreciate it? I will endevour to find secondary source however may have problems we will see whats out there. just did search on scholar finding primary sources no secondary dont have time right now will try to find data thanks Sassmouth (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Possibly this source i might be paywalled from it Myofascial release as a treatment for orthopaedic conditions: a systematic review will try to get copy abstract says . ---->"Overall, the studies had positive outcomes with myofascial release, but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn." Sassmouth (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Another possible source---->Effectiveness of myofascial release: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. the journal this article is printed in is peer reviewed it seems to be a secondary source and is not paywalledSassmouth (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Could try a library for the ACS book. The RCT is not MEDRS. The systematic review for MR for orthopaedic conditions confirms nothing can be concluded. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: used the two reviews. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I think both sources are medrs do you think I'm wrong alexbrn and if so why?Sassmouth (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I wrongly thought one was an RCT but it's not. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text: You recently reverted my edit where i stated ---->MFR as a treatment is gaining popularity in the rehabilitation and sports performance environments. Because you felt it was promotional and vague. As per the study  Effectiveness of Myofascial Release Therapies on Physical Performance Measurements: A Systematic Review--->"The findings of the current review are important because myofascial release therapies continue to gain popularity in the rehabilitation and sports performance environments." How do you think we can express this viewpoint??? I appreciate your opinion thanks Sassmouth (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That content was both vague and promotional. Please read WP:RELTIME and WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: How bout something like this----> As of 2014 The usage of MFR in sports medicine and Rehabilitation has been increasing more evidence is needed to establish if MFR is effective.Sassmouth (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The other secondary journal article stated this ----->Over the years, manual therapy techniques for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have become increasingly popular.1 Myofascial release (MFR) is one example of a manual therapy that has become widely used. The -->Myofascial Release as a Treatment for Orthopaedic Conditions: A Systematic Review this is probably the stronger of the two sourcesSassmouth (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much focus on Cancer? New source needed for statement

message: I do not see any mention of this in the article, but I think it may be worth touching on how MFR or SMFR techniqes could receive concurrent benefits not solely through the pressure these movements place on the facia, but also the effect that stress on the GTO has in regard to relaxing muscles.
This is mentioned at Self-myofascial release: no doctor required! by Eric Cressey and Mike Robertson:
:Self-myofascial release (SMR) on a foam roller is possible thanks to the principle known as autogenic inhibition. You've likely heard of the Golgi Tendon Organ (GTO) at some point in your training career. The GTO is a mechanoreceptor found at the muscle-tendon junction; it's highly sensitive to changes in tension in the muscle.
Created a red link in that quote to a term that sounds interesting and might be article-worthy some day if we can find any studies related to it. It is further elaborated on:
:When tension increases to the point of high risk of injury (i.e. tendon rupture), the GTO stimulates muscle spindles to relax the muscle in question. This reflex relaxation is autogenic inhibition. The GTO isn't only useful in protecting us from injuries, but it also plays a role in making proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching techniques highly effective.
The key phrase in question linking foam-rolling (referring to SMFR) to the GTO is this though:
:With foam rolling, you can simulate this muscle tension, thus causing the GTO to relax the muscle.
This makes it seem worthwhile to explore the role of GTO within MFR theory (self or practitioner-assisted) and if this has been commented on in any scientific studies. --Ranze (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: mm, science-y. Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[golgi tendon organ]]

message: I was actually surprised when I saw this article pop up as being an altmed subject. In my work, I used to see physical therapists and chiropractors billing for this all the time... not that I think that makes it mainstream for our purposes. The concern I have is that myofascial pain syndrome and myofascial trigger points are definitely not an altmed woo. The chronic pain chapter of Official Disability Guidelines (which is a nationally-recognized treatment guideline in the US) cites PMID 15509460, PMID 11871683, and PMID 11973695 for its discussion of myofascial pain syndrome. Here are a couple Cochrane reviews that also discuss trigger points, though it's in the context of injection therapy: PMID 19127161 and PMID 10796449. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand your consternation. As a PT it's always bothered me that so many PTs get involved with this altmed woo. Travell's approach is not altmed, but I don't know if there's a source which clarifies that point. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sometimes altmed terminology gets confused with mainstream terminology. Probably the best way to cope with it here it to keep the article topics cleanly differentiated, and if necessary use hat notes to reinforce the distinctions. This is what we did with Leaky gut (real phenomenon) and Leaky gut syndrome (fake medical condition). Sometimes it's tricky (as with Lyme disease and Chronic Lyme disease). Alexbrn (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   At first glance i feel that a hatnote or a see also for myofascial pain syndrome and myofascial trigger points may help improve and wikify the article? im interested to see what others think Sassmouth (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great ideas. I have just added hatnotes to both articles. Feel free to improve. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Agreed, this article needs clearer reference to the real clinical treatment of myofascial pain, through proven techniques. I'd write it, but I'm too busy dealing with myofascial pain! 45.45.60.28 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just need extra good sources. See WP:MEDRS. Keep in mind that one should distinguish between myofascial pain syndrome, myofascial trigger points, and MFR, the topic here. The latter includes pseudoscientific ideas and claims, which is likely why it's classed as alternative medicine. That doesn't mean that massage can't relieve pain. It certainly can, but the claims associated with MFR don't always hold up to scrutiny. It's the claims that are the problem. These types of things are notoriously difficult to research properly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is article is classified as alternative medicine because of the pseudoscientific claims around this type of therapy for myofascial pain, should the article title not be something like "Claims surrounding the mechanism of myofascial release?" The controversy in the justification should be distinct from the fact that massage helps this type of pain. There's no clear reason to me why the term "Myofascial release" refers to the former and not the latter, particularly given how it's referenced from the trigger point article. 45.45.60.28 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not the massage article. As a professional whose education included MFR and massage (and a whole lot more), but who didn't buy into the pseudoscientific BS that came with MFR, I used massage very effectively without ever giving MFR a second thought. Massage without MFR mumbo-jumbo works fine for lots of musculoskeletal issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there some way of clarifying that while this is an altmed thing, myofascial trigger points, etc. are mainstream? 

message: Would it make sense to add Acupressure to the "See also" section? Does it relate, what's the difference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LS9974 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relates to Acupressure? 

message: This is not alternative medicine! Since 2007 we know how important the fascia is. SMR are used by physiotherapists and personal trainers. The positive effect of SMR on fascia and muscles is confirmed by Dr. Shleip - Fascia expert. I have a feeling this article stopped in 2000. 116.212.177.148 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The beginning (the lead) is based on the sourced content in the body of the article. We base content on what RS say. As a PT, I learned MFR, but it came with some weird pseudoscientific psychobabble that wasn't necessary. Good massage and stretching achieve the same results. It's the bogus claims that get these things in trouble. You don't have to abandon MFR, just don't make unproven claims. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth reframing the article as partially scientific and partially pseudoscientific and drawing a bit of a better distinction between the psychobabble vs. unproven vs. proven parts of it? 2A02:C7C:C47D:8700:7C82:948C:9746:74A8 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will be difficult to thread that needle, but go for it. The trick is to find RS that meet our strict WP:MEDRS rules, which are tougher than for medical journals. Unfortunately, MFR is like other forms of massage, notoriously hard to research and quantify. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite beginning 

message: I saw there was some discussion here over a year ago, but no action since.  There are plenty of sources on Pubmed that confirm it's at least potentially beneficial without negatives.  There are several contemporary meta-analyses which agree with my statements here:  
  
If these don't meet WP:MEDRS (or etc.), please let me know.  Thanks!
- Ambndms (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two are from questionable publishers, the thirs seems to be about foam rollers. Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Medicine