massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

http://www.massagetherapy.com/articles/index.php/article_id/236/Research--Massage-Therapy-Part-2

 

http://www.physiobob.com/forum/orthopaedic-physiotherapy/402-pizzo-... check out the answere from physiobase !

 

Are you an instructor in massage therapy ? can you provide a more up to date/easy to understand version?. 

 

If you are a newbie to massage therapy what were you taught about this in massage school?.

 

If you know nothing about the piezoelectric effect it would serve you well to get a grasp of exactly why your massage can have some amazingly magical effects on your clients recovery. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 1828

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Christopher

I am genially surprised by your post. I am glad that you were in Seattle. As you remember I had only 20 minutes to present very complicated subject compared to time Dr. Langevin had. I think that you missed main point of the presentation. This is not my theory and I wish it was mine. As a matter of fact I learned it during the residency where it was already considered as a clinical fact. My PhD was also associated with this issue. All data and references you need are in the links I provided in the previous post.

According to you Dr. Langevin made her point very well. Unfortunately I thought to late to ask her to stay and continue discussion in front of audience.  However I had long conversation with her in the hall and I realized that she simply isn't familiar with the subject she tried to express her opinion about.

As a scientist you know that theory remains theory if it wasn't proved in the clinical setting. The concept of piezoelectricity as you refer it in your post as a theory isn't a theory since 1970es.To my surprise I realized that Dr. Langevin doesn't know that electrostimulation of bone healing which originated  from the theory of piezoelectricity is now routine clinical procedure around the world. She isn't clinicist and she never used or observed outcomes of the therapy based on piezoelctrical properties of collagen. I did and thousands patients around the world go through this exact therapy while you are reading this post.

In my conversation with her, Dr. Langevin  also mentioned that she read articles where authors tried re-create experiments of Dr. Becker and they where unsuccessful. According to her it was enough for her to dismiss entire concept. I specifically asked her where these studies where published but she didn't remembered where she read them. I didn't argued with her about it because there is always chance that I may missed such articles despite the fact that I regularly update myself. So after Seattle Conference I came back to Phoenix and went through all possible medical sources published on this subject trying to find such studies. Now I can say it clear that there is no such studies published in the serious medical journals.

Dr. Langevin didn't have even slightest idea about works of Dr. Bassett who is exceptional scientist and physician respected around the world the same way as Dr. Becker. I specifically asked her about him and she simply dismissed my question without even asking what these studies were all about.

As you remember  one of the critique Dr. Langevin expressed that I used old data in the presentation. Yes I did it specifically to show respect to those scientists who developed the original concept in 1960es. Neither her or you imagine what a great discovery it was and how much it changed medicine. The original works about piezoelectricity of the bone and soft tissue where published in the journals 'Science' and 'Nature'.

I would like specifically emphasize to the readers of this post that neither mine or Dr. Langevin or Dr. Moyer articles will be admitted to these journals simply because both journals published only articles which have revolutionary meaning to the science. With all my respect to Dr. Langevin' work she doesn't have any rights to doubt validity of these publications or their authors who by the way her fellow colleagues and scientists. She basically accused Dr. Becker in forgery despite that results of his work are used any hospital. It was so ridiculous that I see it as a pure arrogance.

I am very responsible person. I have articles published in very respected medical journals and I presented it on medical conferences and in many hospitals. For example the same information what you heard in Seattle was part of my presentation during annual Conference of American Academy of Pain Management. The only difference was that instead of massage practitioners there was about 100 physicians. I had more time to answer their questions. There wasn't even one participant who dismissed this information as nonsense the way Dr. Langevin did. Do you know why? Because they know who the Becker, Bassett, Yasuda and Fukada are and they respect these scientists who were able to develop this theory and its clinical application which helps patients daily. With all my respect, Dr. Langevin's study of connective tissue is just very lovely scientific piece which has very limited clinical value while works on piezoeolctrical properties of the collagen changed modern medicine.

I can take professional punches. What I really really hate when people lose respect to the real science and try to undermine it especially works of those who already dead and unable to defend themselves. This is why I see attack by Dr. Langevin as an attack against real science rather against 'my theory', as you called it, and I will defend it with all my passion.

 

Sincerely  Dr. Ross Turchaninov


Christopher A. Moyer said:

To follow up on my previous brief remark (posted as I was headed to class with limited time to spare)...

I was present at the research presentation session back in May at the MTF Seattle conference, where Ross Turchaninov presented his theory about the importance of piezoelectricity in manual therapies and some related ideas. Dr. Turchaninov was a good presenter, but his presentation itself was vigorously criticized by Dr. Langevin, who pointed out that Dr. Turchaninov had presented no data to support this theory, and that the studies he had referenced for support were not relevant to his theory. Dr. Turchaninov disagreed, but I thought Dr. Langevin was correct and had made her points very well. Sadly, limited time prevented further discussion of this matter in the session.

Hi Dr Turchaninov

thankyou for giving such a detailed responce, previously to your article I had no idea of a peizoelectric effect in soft tissue/bone.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5073/pdf/213267a0.pdf

Unfortunately Chris Moyer has left this site.

 

 

Hi Stephen

I own copy of article you mentioned. There is huge amount of science, in regard of massage therapy, practitioners completely not aware. The cry that we need more research to justify medical benefits of massage therapy is a nonsense. The existed research is deep and wast. Unfortunately the practitioners aren't familiar with it and unable to communicate their message with the physicians. Such lack of communication is a major problem. Instead of scientific data the practitioners use 5000 years old language of Chinese medicine to justify what they are doing. Instead of talking about electric energy form as a result of piezoelectricity they taught in schools and later communicate concept of 'chi' to the clients and other health practitioners. This is exact reason why massage therapy is outcast of traditional medicine where it originated and belongs to.

 

Sincerely  Dr. Ross Turchaninov


Stephen Jeffrey said:

Hi Dr Turchaninov

thankyou for giving such a detailed responce, previously to your article I had no idea of a peizoelectric effect in soft tissue/bone.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v213/n5073/pdf/213267a0.pdf

Unfortunately Chris Moyer has left this site.

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service