New report says reflexology is not a legitimate scientific treatment
Massage 101 — By Steve Ibach on December 19, 2009 at 8:10 am
Reflexology is not scientifically based / Shutterstock.com
According to an abstract published on PubMed.gov today reflexology is said to have nothing in common with scientific naturopathic treatments. The abstract goes on to say,
“A host of alternative treatment methods are sold to us as reputable science on the “supermarket of naturopathy” nowadays. “Foot zone therapy”, also known as “reflexology” is one of them. Advocates of reflexology claim that certain zones of the feet are linked to internal organs; that “energy forces” run throughout the human body. According to the teachings of Ayurveda and Yoga, a network of more than 72,000 nerve tracts (energy tracts = meridians) is linked to a single, tiny point on the feet, where the energy ends. In reality, however, reflexology is an unconventional, alternative, paramedical and esoterical “outsider” method that has nothing in common with serious naturopathic treatments. Any scientific value to reflexology is to be denied. As opposed to reflexology, genuine, scientifically acknowledged naturopathic methods are not an alternative, but a supplement to modern medicine.”
In most states no training is required to practice reflexology. Anyone with a business license can open a practice providing this service. Massage therapy on the other hand, which is sometimes incorrectly lumped in with reflexology, is a scientifically based form of therapy with clinically proven results. Massage therapists usually have 500 – 1,000 hours of training in subjects such as anatomy, physiology, and pathologies in addition to training on specific techniques to manipulate soft tissue and joints to obtain therapeutic results.
Many massage therapists are working to separate the fringe paramedical services such as reflexology, and “energy work” from proven conventional massage therapy techniques. Once that is accomplished perhaps more physicians and others in the medical community will have confidence referring patients to massage therapists without the fear that the therapist will attempt to balance the patient’s “Qi” as part of their treatment for a rotator cuff or other diagnosed injury or disease.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
6 Comments
Hello there,
I agree that Reflexology is not as good as a massage. In fact they are completely separate treatments aren’t they ?
Reflexology works on the supposition that nerves ending under your feet do carry back the massage signal back to the original organ which is in pain.
Massage works mainly on muscles and this directly.
So these techniques aren’t even comparable.
I have seen people being very happy with Reflexology however. Specifically some people that could not be helped by massage alone.
Thanks for the post
I agree with the author 100%. Reflexology is just voodoo, in that the stimulation points on the foot are laid out in the same configuration as the organs of the body. If you put your feet together, ankle to ankle, the two heels form the buttocks and the toes form the head. The part in between is the torso, and it maps out to the real organs pretty well.
Bottom line, somebody just made it up.
So, rather than getting your feet poked, take a walk. You’ll hit the same spots.
But, dang it, I’ve never been able to figure out how to get the full text of one of those PubMed abstracts. Just a statement that reflexology is not scientific doesn’t explain much.
This is a case of confusing THAT something works with people’s explanations for WHY something works. … Now, I do not personally believe the standard explanation for why Reflexology works. However … Reflexology works — when it does — for many of the same reasons Massage Therapy works — when IT does. … In fact, I see Reflexology as just one form of massage therapy.
Among many other factors, when you press on ANY muscle, the respective nerves of that muscle (such as Golgi Tendon Organs — GTOs) are stimulated. Because GTOs are INHIBITORY in nature, stimulating them triggers a relaxation generated at the local spinal reflex, and reduces nerve activity in the associated organs and muscles. This creates many positive, local effects.
If you hold pressure LONG enough (which VERY few massage therapists/ bodyworkers do), the GTOs have a substantial inhibitory — relaxing or DE-facilitating — effect in the brainstem, too. Then, you get a more systemic effect of relaxing the entire system, including stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system, which stimulates the overall healing processes and immune system. What ever muscles, organs or systems are MOST overactive and pathologic, will more likely begin their self healing process first.
This is why it is good to study the so-called neuromuscular laws, such as Pfluger’s Laws, which are actually more like principles. Though taught in medical schools in the early 20th century, they were discredited and rendered **obsolete** because they were not as scientifically sound as other neurological laws, apparently because they did not have the hoped for direct, specific correspondence that other nerve circuits do. (I’ve been trying to find out exactly what happened here, but the information has thus far eluded me.)
However, this was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because many early yet astute observers utilizing hands-on medicine — yes, anecdotal methodology — saw their validity over and over again, these phenomena became sufficiently valid as working principles. Here again, just because the hoped for explanation for something fails, does not mean the externally observed phenomena itself has failed. One of Pfluger’s Principles, the Principle of Generalization, explains how the entire system can, via the brainstem, be positively affected by pressure in one spot on the body, even as far away as the feet.
Now, because like the hands and face, there are so many more nerve endings in the foot, there is more opportunity to create the generalized inhibitory affect in the overall system. Then, what ever systems are most excessively excited will usually calm down the most, producing a number of positive effects. I believe that THIS is why Reflexology seems to work. NOT for the reasons they say it does, but based on this physiology.
Where I think some practitioners of Reflexology go REALLY wrong is in the use of very high amounts of manual pressure, well past the point of pain. Not only is this unnecessary, but usually counterproductive. But some of them believe they are breaking up **crystals** or **deposits** in the tissues. But a trained massage therapist knows that a hyper-tense muscle can feel JUST like a bone, or even a sharp pebble. So the **dissolving of the crystal** is really the relaxation of a muscle. And the body responds MUCH better to lighter pressures. (Please see the Arndt-Schultz Principle.)
(But I must admit, many of the therapists I’ve worked with and/or trained believed they were working on ligaments or tendons, or so-called adhesions, or those darn crystals, when it was just an EXTREMELY tight muscle. Even the adhesion thing is WAY over done in the minds of many therapists.)
If **Reflexologists** would slow down, and use FAR less pressure, they would get superior results, even with their very localized treatments, as do massage therapists who try that method. They should look at the neuromuscular principles, as well, although most schools and books I’m aware of do NOT go into them with the depth necessary to REALLY utilize them effectively and efficiently.
While I agree with you, David, that there is a difference between something THAT works, and HOW that something works, I do not feel that Reflexology is Massage.
Why? Because I believe energy work (as in reflexology, reiki, acupuncture, etc) is not the same as manual work. I do believe it can be effective! Personal experience tells me it is, but consider:
They have completely different assessment standards, with energy work often assessing far distal to the problem area, and manual working much more locally.
They often (not always) have different treatment goals- energy more in the holistic balancing, and manual again in a local sense (hopefully incorporated into the whole body by the therapist, but focused locally).
Training requirements- I understand this is largely a matter of public perception, but consider the fact that you do NOT have to be certified to practice energy work! I believe this is largely because in energy work, the body resists harmful change and ‘self corrects,’ while in manual work, the therapist can force the tissue past its limits. There is therefore much more potential harm from an under- or un- trained manual therapist, than from an energy worker.
Again, I do believe these modalities to be effective- I have acupuncture, reiki, and cranio sacral, and they (in the hands of competent workers) have been amazingly productive and effective, despite my initial skepticism. But I must stand firm on the seperation of the categories; there are simply too many discrepancies to put them together.
David’s comments are very interesting, in that they try to explain the physiological aspects of/for reflexology (I can agree – far too many techs rush the therapy). But it’s interesting to note that the “scientific” foundation for reflexology is disproved. It’s also very interesting to see this from institutions of western medical beliefs. Conversely, the practice and method formulated for reflexology evolved out of the east (China) and is widely adopted and found to be therapeutic for a wide and diverse community. Again it’s just the western mentality of chop/cut/drug vs. the holistic approach from the east. Not surprised at the attempt to discredit.
“Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?” – Oliver Heaviside English electrical engineer, mathematician and physicist.