Talk:Myofascial release

Thank You, Editors
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)

Rewrote beginning
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)

New article on foam rollers
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).

Lowercase r?
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)

"Gravitational field"?
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)
 * The gravitational field is Earth's, causing weight and giving "balance" its meaning in this context. Nothing crazy about this part. Harold f 23:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, this is where I had to stop reading before my head exploded. This whole thing is so grammatically atrocious as to be almost unintelligible. --DelCavallo 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that was supposed to be a direct quote or not, but it probably should state "balancing the body to the gravitational vector" —Preceding unsigned comment added by S aldinger (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Quantum Physics and CranioSacral Therapy"??? http://www.massagetoday.com/archives/2005/10/11.html

This article, referenced in the links, attempts to apply subatomic particle physics to cranialsacral therapy. It also attempts to apply entropy in the same context. i.e. ...

"  6. You should intend for most collisions to occur between positively charged quarks (subatomic particles) from within the atomic nucleus and the electrons, which are negatively charged..."

The salient point in quantum physics is that it only applies at the subatomic level. Attempting to mobilize quarks by the laying on of hands is utter nonsense. Human hands cannot perform the work of particle accelerators regardless of the 'intention'. At best the practitioner can induce friction or compression, both of which cause increased collisions in valence electrons only.

"...when you send organizing energy into a client, heat often radiates from his or her body. Schroedinger believed this heat radiation was a release of entropy (entropic energy) that was therapeutic, because it threw the balance in favor of syntropy. So, on the whole, the client would have more constructive and less destructive energy in his or her body."

The detected heat is more likely due to localized vasomotor response (similar to hot flash or rash) that is a response to trigger point nervous stimulation and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the entropy of the affected tissue. Localized entropy cannot create palpable heat in a resting human body unless the patient has a spasm and is burning a significant quantity of glucose, or else perhaps the patient is on fire.

This link should be deleted. It only engenders confusion.

Wikipedia's external link guidelines make it clear that forums are not appropriate places to link to. The Somasimple.com link has been removed. --Siobhan Hansa 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What I know from years of studying and practicing ancient indian and middle eastern religions is that by " puting the hands " is like inserting the needle into one's skin. What happens behind the scene it is important. A healer will send a mental vibration of certain, precise role into the affected area through his hands and so the healing happens. Since there is no much empirical research and to become a healer is equal with rising above the regular human condition this techniques cannot be developped in an organized system. It requires one to die of his present consciousness and have faith that is going to be born into a new one. This is why only accidentaly humans become healers. Many crooks of course but a real healer would recongnize genuinity. We all live on different levels of consciouness as matter does in generally. Problem with science guys ( I was a reserch scientist,electronics and telecom's engineer and eat mathematics for years on bread )until one simple day when you realize how we function, who we are and the struggle we undergo to pull out. Forcing one atom to move form one level of energy to another requires enormous energy, so is true for the human consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.238.52 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

recent external link
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)

The first sentence of this article
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)

Tagged as "Written as Advertisement"... still valid?
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)
 * 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)

Examples of problematic language in this piece

 * "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)

From the MFR website: "Fascia is very densely woven, covering and interpenetrating every muscle, bone, nerve, artery and vein as well as all of our internal organs including the heart, lungs, brain and spinal cord. The most interesting aspect of the fascial system is that it is not just a system of separate coverings. It is actually one structure that exists from head to foot without interruption. In this way you can begin to see that each part of the entire body is connected to every other part by the fascia, like the yarn in a sweater."

From the wp page: "The fascia is a seamless web of connective tissue that covers and connects the muscles, organs, and skeletal structures, located between the skin and the underlying structure of muscle and bone. Muscle and fascia form the myofascia system.

The fascial system is totally one structure that is present from your head to foot without any interruption.[citation needed]

Injuries, stress, inflammation, trauma, and poor posture can cause restriction to fascia.[citation needed] Since fascia is an interconnected web, the restriction or tightness to fascia at a place, with time can spread to other places in the body like a pull in a sweater.[citation needed] The goal of myofascial release is to release fascia restriction and restore its tissue health."

From Steadman's Medical Dictionary: "A sheet of fibrous tissue that envelops the body beneath the skin; it also encloses muscles and groups of muscles, and separates their several layers or groups. "PalMD (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The missing evidence
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)

Merge Active Release Technique into myofascial release
Any disagreements for merging AR into MR? DVMt (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar does not mean equal. They each deserve their own articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

No clear definition of the origin of term Myofascia
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)

Inappropriate external links
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. ISBN 978-1452576978.
 * UK Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication: Complaint Ref: 140929
 * UK Advertising Standards Authority Adjudication: Complaint Ref: A11-154381

Joja lozzo  02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

WP is NOT a HOW TO manual
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)

Undue and primary
I have reverted the addition of undue weight content based on primary sources. I suspect the journals are lacking in reliability. I am posting here to invite discussion of these sources and possible content based on them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, this is the first edit I've made to a Wikipedia article. Please examine my sources as they are all much more reliable as well as more recent than the 2011 ASA citation currently published on the article. That citation was based on a single, poorly designed study of smaller populations than my citations. That study was not blinded or controlled and the source influencing ASA's ruling was an abstract from a conference paper, not a trial published in a journal.

My cited trials are different. All four were randomized, controlled and blinded (either single or double). All were published in peer-reviewed journals. The links I included were to PubMed, so here are direct links to the trials:

http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(13)00074-0/fulltext

http://www.thefootjournal.com/article/S0958-2592(14)00013-3/fulltext

http://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(11)00914-2/fulltext -- FULL TEXT AVAILABLE WITHOUT SUBSCRIPTION

http://www.bodyworkmovementtherapies.com/article/S1360-8592(11)00022-2/fulltext

If you'll be willing to reconsider Twinkle's automatic rejection, I'd be most appreciative. At the very least, I think the third link should replace the current citation, since full text is freely available and it's a good study. (But honestly, I think they should all be used. :o) Thanks, Marlene Mayman (Marlenemayman) 07:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenemayman (talk • contribs)
 * First a couple points, Welcome to Wikipedia, indent your comments using colons :, sign your comments with four tildes ~ . Starting out editing with medical articles is a tough way to go. I urge you to read Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (generally referred to as MEDRS). It is a more specific guideline based on Identifying reliable sources. Above I pointed to WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE they are also applicable.
 * The studies you have proposed are primary studies, they rank lower than the existing reference to a governmental organization which undertook a review of available research, evaluated it and published a ruling with legal standing. No primary study is going to stand against that in terms of quality of source and due weight. The results of a high quality systematic review would warrant mention. Randomized controlled trials are pretty decent sources but the issue is due weight first.
 * Another issue with the proposed sources are the reliability of the journals, the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies doesn't exactly have the greatest reputation and standing, I'm not so sure about The Foot. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is the best of the lot. The other issue is the involved nature of the authors/sponsoring institutions, third party independent sources are preferred over proponents and practitioners. It looks like all these studies were conducted by authors affiliated with the Myofascial Therapy and Research Foundation of India. This doesn't automatically make them unreliable sources but WP policy would suggest waiting until these primary studies are reviewed, evaluated etc. by independent sources with a reputation for quality (Cochrane or a review article in a major journal).
 * The reversion of your edit was done by me, Twinkle is simply a tool I use. The reversion was not automatic but based on my judgement and interpretation of policy. Thank you for engaging collaboratively. I hope you find editing WP FUN. You may find there is a fair amount of contention particularly in medical articles and some editors have a low bar of civility. I hope you don't get discouraged. You have presented a polite and well structured argument in favor of your edits, and engaging on talk is a sign that you are on the right track in participating in the project. You may find WikiProject Medicine a good place to have a look around if your interested in medical subjects and you can bring questions/issues that aren't satisfactorily resolved to the talk page there. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your criticism of the ASA source has some validity. However I think the key points are "We considered that those claims required a body of robust scientific evidence, such as clinical trials conducted on people, in order to substantiate them." Although they discuss the study cited by the advertiser that does not mean they did not look elsewhere for such a body of robust scientific evidence, BUT there is no indication they conducted a research review beyond the sources cited by the advertiser. Alvarez 2002 (see below) a review in a reputable journal makes a similar conclusion and the two quality reviews (Yang 2013, McKenney 2013) both note low quality of studies reviewed. Yang 2013 deals with only one condition so is fairly limited. McKenney 2013 is a good deal broader. It is likely the studies you have pointed to will be subject to a review. For an encyclopedia article waiting for a review or other secondary evaluation of primary studies is preferable (and in keeping with WP policy and guidelines often called PAG). Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * [hoping two colons will indent more] Thanks MrBill3, sorry for copying this over onto your profile talk page, just didn't know if you saw my comment initially. I understand better your choice to revert, thanks for the explanation. Too bad a governmental body review of one single, poor source in a leaflet outweighs my citations, but so be it (ASA didn't undertake a "review of available research," just that one poorly designed study in the ad mentioned after they received a complaint). I personally disagree that ASA's ruling is more valuable than my citations (or at least the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation trial), but I can understand why Wikipedia approaches citations that way in general. Massage research has a hard row to hoe, with so many built-in challenges (hard to massage someone without them knowing they're receiving massage, for starters) and unless a third party independent source sees potential big bucks in trial results for massage (unlikely to happen), the only folks who are going to conduct studies are the very populations that make them potentially less reliable. Ah well, maybe I'll edit something again. Thanks for being polite back! [Oh, we were commenting again at the same time, so I'm having to insert this so our comments don't conflict.] Marlene Mayman 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlenemayman (talk • contribs)
 * You got the multiple colons right! I don't think you should give up on this proposal yet, you are making some decent arguments. I think the Alvarez 2002 ref is the best we have for a general statement. You might get some traction for the Ajimsha 2012 reference or for mentioning recent RCTs have shown some benefit of MR for... and using the studies you have pointed to. I really hope you continue to edit WP Its fun really and there are literally millions of subjects to work on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one difficulty here that while fascia is a real thing, the term was also used in a dogmatic way in Osteopathic manipulative treatment to refer to a notional layer of tissue (a "myofascial continuity") that meaningfully connected everything and which could be acted upon for healing anything? So does not myofascial release also have some roots in these altmed concepts as well as more modern application as an more orthodox massage technique? Alexbrn talk 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll plead ignorance on the roots/history question. If you can find a source I think that info would belong in the background section. I think it is appropriate that the main focus is on the modern medical(?) or massage practice. It seems to be getting some study and has received some attention over time (see below). The question at hand is should we mention recent RCTs that indicate efficacy for some conditions or should we wait for a review/secondary source. I lean towards the latter but remain open minded. The other question at hand is does the ASA source hold it's weight. I think perhaps not and see a paraphrase of the statement I quote below from Alvarez 2002 (a review in a reputable journal) supplemented with the ASA source as a ref but not giving it undue weight and perhaps a mention of the recent RCTs (if they can be considered RS). Thanks for your input Alexbrn, look forward to hearing your thoughts on ASA/RCTs/Alvarez. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The ASA source is far from ideal, esp. in light of the much better ones you have found below. The background question nags at me: if I undergo "myofascial release" am I getting some kind of sports massage (=probably fine) or am I being manipulated so as to address an underlying "somatic dysfunction" and so treat illness more broadly (=maybe quackery). So far as I know, the latter use is still current. Will dig some more. Alexbrn talk 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should change to a paraphrase of Alvarez.
 * Myofascial Trigger Points (MTrPs) seem rather popular with osteopaths but what I see being "treated" is pain. There is a range of "treatments" from heat and massage to acupuncture and injection of botox (=ranging from probably fine to almost certainly quackery). However in terms of Myofascial release it seems to be massage primarily for pain (pneumonia has been studied too but it looks to be in terms of getting tight muscles working and limited poor studies have moderate, but statistically significant, positive results, conclusion of Cochrane, "There is limited evidence indicating that osteopathic manipulative treatment and positive expiratory pressure may reduce the mean duration of hospital stay.[secondary outcome] Osteopathic manipulative treatment could also reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment,[also secondary outcome] while positive expiratory pressure could reduce the duration of fever. However, based on current evidence, chest physiotherapy should not be recommended as a conventional adjunctive treatment for pneumonia in adults." Note the might and could and overall should not).
 * I look forward to seeing what you dig up on the fascia that connect everything and can be used to heal whatever ails you. I think/hope this is history/background but if it is still being sold that way, it should definitely go in with critical analysis from RS. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested references
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)

And another
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 10:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Too much focus on Cancer? New source needed for statement
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * used the two reviews. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, I wrongly thought one was an RCT but it's not. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That content was both vague and promotional. Please read WP:RELTIME and WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

golgi tendon organ
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)
 * mm, science-y. Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-adding my edits, please actually read the cited sources
My edits to the article clarify what disorders the treatment have shown clinical benefit for, as described by the references. Before my edit, the efficacy descriptions did not match the references and implied that the all studies were inconclusive, which is simply not the case. User:Alexbrn has reverted my edits calling them a "blatant POV push," and I see on their talk page (talk) that have been the source of frustration for several editors trying to improve articles related to alternative medicine. Fortunately I am not pushing a POV, and I invite you to improve upon my use of the cited sources instead of reverting my edits altogether. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 16:32, 4-01-2018 UTC 16:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent sources. Your "for cancer" qualifications are not sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are quite correct. The line read: "The American Cancer Society states that "There is little scientific evidence available to support proponents' claims that myofascial release relieves pain or restores flexibility" and caution against using it as a substitute for conventional cancer treatment for cancer ," and the last two words of the phrase were redundant, so I have removed them. The rest of my edit is perfectly congruent with the sources and I find your bold wholesale revision disrespectful and needless. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 21:46, 4-01-2018 UTC 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * no good evidence is no good evidence. Please do not mushify this. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay so why don't you edit the article instead of reverting? You are being so hopelessly unproductive and uncollaborative I'm about to give up on improving this article. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 22:25, 4-01-2018 UTC 22:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited this article quite a bit. The question here is whether your changes are "improvements" and two of us are saying that they are not improvements and are trying to explain why. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What "no evidence" are you talking about? My edits match the cited source's information. For example:
 * "Although it shows some promise in treating othopaedic conditions, further high-quality research is necessary to better assess its clinical efficacy.[3]" Why is this sentence being removed? It is exactly what is stated in the conclusion of the source:
 * [3]: "The quality of studies was mixed, ranging from higher-quality experimental to lower-quality case studies. Overall, the studies had positive outcomes with myofascial release, but because of the low quality, few conclusions could be drawn. The studies in this review may serve as a good foundation for future randomized controlled trials."
 * The second phrase I changed is "[t]he mixed quality of research into the use of myofascial release for orthopaedic conditions precludes any conclusions being drawn about its usefulness for this purpose," which is being changed to "[t]he poor quality of research..." But this is not what is stated in the source, it specifically describes the research quality as mixed. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 22:37, 4-01-2018 UTC 22:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There article no where says "no evidence". Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you reply to the rest of my comment? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 22:54, 4-01-2018 UTC 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The edits you both are making simply do not match the cited source. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 22:59, 4-01-2018 UTC 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not here to promote anything, and we do not say that things are "promising". There is good evidence or there isn't.  "mixed" = "not good". Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, you could have explained that from the beginning. Can you link some form of Wikipedia policy asserting this requirement? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:07, 4-01-2018 UTC 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, why bother citing the source if you're not going to accurately state its conclusion? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:09, 4-01-2018 UTC 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We summarize what reliable sources say. Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDHOW. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you point out what specific part of the guidelines you feel indicates that editors should should exclude descriptions of mixed-quality research quality accounted for in systemic reviews, and instead only qualify research by the lowest common denominator? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:17, 4-01-2018 UTC 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No I am not going to entertain your effort to Wikilaywer. Your edits were promotional; they were reverted. If you want to contribute non-promotional content that is not trying to push the evidence that would be welcome. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I am not attempting to promote anything, I am simply trying to accurately describe information in the cited sources. If you will not explain why matching the sources is discouraged, then I will seek other forms of arbitration for this dispute. Please assume my edits are in good faith, as they are.Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:35, 4-01-2018 UTC 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about what you are trying to do; i described your edits. They were promotional.  One of the most common content disputes on articles like this, is people coming and making edits like the ones you made. They do not fly in WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My edits are not promotional, I am simply trying to clarify information stated in the source. Please explain why this is discouraged. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:59, 4-01-2018 UTC 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the dispute resolution post: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, thank you. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 00:01, 5-01-2018 UTC 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article accurately and appropriately summarizes the sources. "Promise", poor quality evidence and "further research warranted" are not what is presented in an encyclopedia. MEDRS and the guidelines on medical information are quite clear. The proposed changes are promotional not a reporting of facts. MrBill3 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to how my additions are "promotional?" I am attempting to make edits in good faith, please take the time to help me understand the medical policy instead of making accusations. Where exactly in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that information in the declared conclusion of a source should not be included? To me, it seems that the other editors are excluding relevant methodological data, and obscuring what information is actually being referenced in the footnotes by carelessly grouping them together without expository text. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 16:35, 5-01-2018 UTC 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you find the wording of my edits is misleading or includes weasel words, then I invite you to help me clean up the phrasing to make it more neutral. Regardless of whether you believe that I am promoting something (I'm not), my edits attempt to include additional information from the sources that is not accurately represented by the article as it stands. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the source or reads my previous comments that the my contributions accurately reflect the authors' stated conclusion. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 16:40, 5-01-2018 UTC 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there is nothing new under the sun in WP, and quite often people show up at articles like this, and do what you are doing. We have an essay for what you are doing here, asking the same questions repeatedly and getting the same answers. Please read WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to better and more neutrally incorporate the information in question, let me know your feedback. I don't appreciate being linked to an article indicating I'm not "getting the point," I am attempting to have a constructive dialogue about the content of the article and these constant dismissals and accusations are not productive. If I'm not getting the point, then the other editors should attempt to explain themselves better, as I am doing my best to understand the conventions here. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 17:11, 5-01-2018 UTC 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was just a verbose variant of the More research is needed idea. You also deleted the foam roller content. Continuing to try and force your edits while the DR you initiated is ongoing, is not great. Many editors have worked hard on this article and it summarizes its sources well as it stood. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to force edits, I am trying to constructively revise what I see as relevant information as cited in the sources. I appreciate your hard work, but I am also an editor trying to make honest contributions, and the repeated reversals without explanation and constant accusations of pushing a viewpoint are quite frustrating. I am attempting to resolve this dispute as best I can, this was a different edit than before which is trying to incorporate the same information a more neutral manner, and as it is stated in the source. Please help better incorporate my edits or help me understand why they are not necessary. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 17:19, 5-01-2018 UTC 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're into WP:EW territory now. I can see two other editors telling you what's what, but you're not receptive. Please take note of the notices on your Talk page. I'll not be responding further unless substantial new evidence surfaces. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is fair, I will let this rest until further commentary. Thanks for helping me navigate editing medical articles on Wikipedia. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 17:25, 5-01-2018 UTC 17:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to comment further, but the last edit summary criticizes my last edit for promoting the message that "more research is needed," but that is not what my edit conveys. I am trying to clarify what kind of research the current methodology is lacking as described in the conclusion of the cited paper: "The authors of the 2013 review concluded that randomized controlled trials should be used in future research to attain higher-quality evidence of MFR's efficacy in treating orthopaedic conditions." Can you explain why this is not relevant information, or how it is biased? This is really getting ridiculous. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 18:56, 5-01-2018 UTC 18:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. But the answer to your question is that the kind of evidence that is "good", and that we are always want more of for all interventions, is from high quality RCTs. always. we would have to add this to every single article in WP about interventions.  That is why MEDMOS says, not to include such things. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 19:02, 5-01-2018 UTC 19:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there some way of clarifying that while this is an altmed thing, myofascial trigger points, etc. are mainstream?
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. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Great ideas. I have just added hatnotes to both articles. Feel free to improve. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Relates to Acupressure?
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)

Rewrite beginning
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Alternative Medicine
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)


 * The first two are from questionable publishers, the thirs seems to be about foam rollers. Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)