I have been involved in a variety of massage related
discussions. One of the most interesting
is the linkedin discussion about core competencies for massage and a base line
definition of massage.
I also taught a class in New Mexico where students were
asking a lot of excellent questions that
really got me thinking. I was at the
Fascia Congress in Vancuver which stimulated thinking. I am always working on textbooks which make
me think. All this thinking may have
been productive.
Massage can be defined as the manual application of
mechanical forces to the body. The body
is anatomy and physiology. Manual means- involving the hands. Mechanical forces are a push or a pull. So
massage uses hands to push or pull on the body.
Why would we do this? For the
results of course! Click this link to read about mechanical force application
and cancer treatment http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n3/full/nm0311-271.html.
So what are the results?
Here is where I think we do get confused. For example, is myofascial release a method
or a result? I think it is a result. Is lymphatic drainage a method or a result? I
think it is a result. Is stretching a
method or a result? I think it is a method that pulls to create a result. Is pain management a method or a result- a
result of course. What about sports
massage? Is it a method? Result? Or is
it an adaptation based on unique needs of a client? What about oncology massage, prenatal
massage, geriatric massage and so forth?
What about NMT-neuromuscular
therapy? Method or result. Think about
trigger points- method or result- or maybe a condition addressed by a method to
achieve a result. Why is there a tendency to present a result
from massage as a method that appears to differentiate itself from massage? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment