Massage or Chiropractor?

chiro-subluxation.jpg

YOU SEE THE SAME CHIRO AS ME?!
 
personally I would never ever recommend anyone ever ever goes to a chiropractor

but what do I know?

if its your first time going to a chiropractor be prepaired to be in alot of pain heat and try to loosen it as much as possible try a massage first
 
You could not be more wrong.

Yes try out a massage therapist, or even a physiotherapist, but if you value your back/spine and the money in your wallet do not go to a chiropractor.

I will not even get into why these individuals are called "back quacks" but what they "practice" so far out of the realm of science and plausibility it is ridicious. Do yourself a favor and do a little research on chiropractors "believe" that they are capable of doing. Than match that with research on how the body actually works/functions...

If you have done that, and still want to go to a chiropractor...hey...do not say that i did not warn you


I've had a herniated disk for about 9 years now. Granted If I get a massage every couple months for maintenance I seem to do fine. While training 4 days a week boxing and submission wrestling I
 
Western Medicine isn't all about pharmacology. There is surgery, conservative care, therapy, health&wellness, exercise, nutrition, psychology, support groups, etc. for a plethora of ailments and medical diagnoses seen in the world.

I think we went on a tangent when it came to meds vs. "adjustments".

Surgery is something I would avoid as much as possible, if you can heal without surgery I would go for it. Therapy and the likes can also be provided by a knowledgeable doctor of chiropractics, and I intend to be that sort of DC.
 
I've never herniated a disc before but I know that when my left knee is hurting, my hips are off and need to be adjusted. I wouldn't have even known that my chronic left knee pain had anything to do with my hips if it hadn't been for my chiropractor.

You were more knowledgeable before you meet your chiropractor.
 
I've never herniated a disc before but I know that when my left knee is hurting, my hips are off and need to be adjusted. I wouldn't have even known that my chronic left knee pain had anything to do with my hips if it hadn't been for my chiropractor.

knee issues can also come from SI and foot problems, not just hip. in fact, it is more likely to do w/ your foot since you are male.

hip and SI dysfunctions are more likely related to females.
 
Surgery is something I would avoid as much as possible, if you can heal without surgery I would go for it. Therapy and the likes can also be provided by a knowledgeable doctor of chiropractics, and I intend to be that sort of DC.

then i salute you for emerging from a pool of less than reputables. there are several i have worked w/ and been involved w/ didactically.

keep your ethics up =)

but i hope you did notice that surgery is only one of many other options.

i too favor conservative care.
 
I am still in the "pre-med" phase (I am working on Bachelors of Science in Human Biology). I have some experience as being a massage therapist and in the fitness world as a personal trainer. I do know that there are many in the medical/scientific community that still do not fully throw themselves in with the chiropractic practice but it is a legitimate science. I do not support the whole idea that anyone needs just their D.C. (doctor of chiropractics), but do believe that a D.C. is an important aspect of maintaining a person's wellness.

Many DC's not only adjust but provide exercise programs, nutrition advice, and physical therapy for rehabilitation. Many of them also work closely (at least here in California) with other doctors in hospitals. We are taught to have full check ups done to see if that particular patient will be alright for chiropractic work. However, we have to be trained for this sort of stuff, and I am sorry to hear that many of the DC's in your area/country may not be out of the "dark ages" in terms of Chiropractics.

I am still learning a lot myself, and have not gotten into my chiropractic studies as of yet so I may not be the best source of information. However, it is a growing field in which good DCs are beginning to come out of the woodwork and really help people out.

I go to Cleveland Chiropractic College - Los Angeles.

Hello again.

I took a look at the website you provided. Interesting. Def some good courses there with the A and P, microbiology, and organic chem. Unfortunetly i cannot get a description of the classes or find out who they are being taught by. Are these classes being taught by scientists/experts in the field, or are they being taught by doctors of chiropractic?

Additionally, i am under the impression that the Cleveland Chiropractic College (CCC) is an independent entity, are you aware if the college is acredited?

Because i am unable to get a good feel for the ciriculum at the CCC, i was wondering if you can answer the following questions:

1) As has been asked below what are your thoughts on Innate intelligence?

2) Additionally what are your thoughts on vertebral subluxations?

You make the claim that Chiropractic is a "legitimate science". That is a rather bold claim. Personally i do not support that claim. Medicine prides itself on constantly changing and evolving in order to maintain best practice. One new information is learned it is tested (rigorously) to determine its validity and if it stands up to testing it is adopted. If old "tried and true" therapies are discovered (for whatever reason) to not be effective, they are changed, modified or (if appropraite) disregarded completely.

Chiropractic on the other hand, time and time again chiropractic fails in the face of Randomize clinical trials, and despite evidence to the contrary many chiros continue many types of techniques that have been proven ineffective or just plain wrong...
This hardly sounds like a "legitimate" science to me.
 
From the World Health Organization:

"A lesion or dysfunction in a joint or motion segment in which alignment, movement integrity and/or physiological function are altered, although contact between joint surfaces remains intact. It is essentially a functional entity, which may influence biomechanical and neural integrity."

Yes, but not in the old school Chiropractic belief.

An important statement by Professor Philip S. Bolton of the School of Biomedical Sciences at University of Newcastle, Australia who writes in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics:

"The traditional chiropractic vertebral subluxation hypothesis proposes that vertebral misalignment cause illness, disease, or both. This hypothesis remains controversial." His objective was, "To briefly review and update experimental evidence concerning reflex effects of vertebral subluxations, particularly concerning peripheral nervous system responses to vertebral subluxations. Data source: Information was obtained from chiropractic or, scientific peer-reviewed literature concerning human or animal studies of neural responses to vertebral subluxation, vertebral displacement or movement, or both." He concluded, "Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements and putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living and, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have."

Is it a perfect science? No, but show me a perfect science. There are no facts in science; particularly medical science. New ideas, and practices are being discovered all the time, and old ones are either being determined in still being useful or thrown out because something better is around. You do not have to "believe" in chiropractics; however, if it works than does it really matter what you believe?

I said before that there are bad doctors in every medical profession, and it's shame that chiropractics has had more than it's fair share. However, just like someone's fighting ability, you don't look at the style or system, you look at the man.

Alright regarding the article you quoted:
Data source: Information was obtained from chiropractic or, scientific peer-reviewed literature concerning human or animal studies of neural responses to vertebral subluxation, vertebral displacement or movement, or both

Because it is not identified how much of the literature is from "chiropractic" sources, this is a huge conflict of interest. The Medical field is not upset about chiropractic because if is going to "steal" patients...
The medical community is upset about chiropractic because there is not logical bases for the manner in which it works.

Regarding the article you quoted:
"He concluded, "Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements and putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living and, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have.""

Umm did you actually read this conclusion...this is far from an endorsement of chiro! It says that it "suggests" vetebral subluxations (again i will not go into the pseudo-science of this at the moment) MAY have an effect in animals. But than it goes on to say it is not clear if there is any actual effect...
Again this is far from an endorsment/support for chiropractic.

Regarding your statement:
Is it a perfect science? No, but show me a perfect science.

This is a logical fallacy. A straw-man arguement to be exact...

Regarding your statement:
There are no facts in science; particularly medical science.

Are you going to give me some post modern rhetoric about how there is no "truth" only what we make. There is no "true" only that which we observe.
There are no facts in science....really...
particularly medical science...again...really...

While i would not profess that all of medicine is a "fact" there are many "facts in science"
Let me give you a few:
1) the lungs exchange gases, specifically, the lungs expell CO2 and take in O2
2) the lungs tranport O2 from the lung tissue to the blood stream
3) the heart pumps blood, blood the is rich in O2 (while more specifically the Lt Ventricle does)
4) human tissue require blood rich in O2 to survive and thrive
5) without O2 rich blood human tissue begans to die, after a long enough time without blood the tissue will die, if enough human tissue dies...the human itself dies...

Sorry man...but those simple facts i listed above are FACT. And they are FACTS that have been determine by medical science.

Regarding your statement:
You do not have to "believe" in chiropractics; however, if it works than does it really matter what you believe?

This has nothing to do with "belief" and that is what i am attempting to get across.
I understand that if i do not "believe" in something that does not make it untrue. For instance if i choose not to believe in gravity, that is not going to make it so that i can jump up and float in the air...if i jump up i will come down.

My critisms of chrio have nothing to do with a belief system. My opinions of chiro are not dogmatic, i simply am asking for evidence. That is evidence to prove/support the claims that are being made by the chiro community.
You argue that "it works" so it does not matter...
that is the problem...there is a ton of literature out there to demonstrate that chiro does not work. I am not talking about fluff research that is full of holes, i am talking about tightly regimented randomized control trials that some that chiro does nothing...

Regarding your statement:
I said before that there are bad doctors in every medical profession, and it's shame that chiropractics has had more than it's fair share

your logic here is flawed. yes there are "bad" doctors...
But that is not the crux of the arguement, the discussion here is that there is little to no support/evidence for chiropractic

i look forward to your comments
 
Surgery is something I would avoid as much as possible, if you can heal without surgery I would go for it. Therapy and the likes can also be provided by a knowledgeable doctor of chiropractics, and I intend to be that sort of DC.

Wow...

now there is some bad advise.

Sure you can always "heal" without surgery, but what is your quality of life going to be like after the fact! You can "heal" after fracturing your ankle without any surgery what so-ever...but good luck ever returning to your former quality of life/level of activity!

Additionally you can "heal" after your appendix ruptures...you may die in the process...but there is a chance that you will "heal" yourself.
Or would you rather go into your surgeron and have your appendix removed by a professional that can actually fix your problem.

How about some more examples
You can heal after your heart (for a variety of reasons) goes into an atypical heart rhythm that puts you at a greater risk for all sorts of heart related illnesses/disease processes or you can go in for ablation therapy/surgery, have the problem fixed and return to a normal life

Care to enlighten me to whow a chiro would treat any of the above problems?
 
Alright regarding the article you quoted:
Data source: Information was obtained from chiropractic or, scientific peer-reviewed literature concerning human or animal studies of neural responses to vertebral subluxation, vertebral displacement or movement, or both

Because it is not identified how much of the literature is from "chiropractic" sources, this is a huge conflict of interest. The Medical field is not upset about chiropractic because if is going to "steal" patients...
The medical community is upset about chiropractic because there is not logical bases for the manner in which it works.

Regarding the article you quoted:
"He concluded, "Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements and putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living and, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have.""

Umm did you actually read this conclusion...this is far from an endorsement of chiro! It says that it "suggests" vetebral subluxations (again i will not go into the pseudo-science of this at the moment) MAY have an effect in animals. But than it goes on to say it is not clear if there is any actual effect...
Again this is far from an endorsment/support for chiropractic.

Regarding your statement:
Is it a perfect science? No, but show me a perfect science.

This is a logical fallacy. A straw-man arguement to be exact...

Regarding your statement:
There are no facts in science; particularly medical science.

Are you going to give me some post modern rhetoric about how there is no "truth" only what we make. There is no "true" only that which we observe.
There are no facts in science....really...
particularly medical science...again...really...

While i would not profess that all of medicine is a "fact" there are many "facts in science"
Let me give you a few:
1) the lungs exchange gases, specifically, the lungs expell CO2 and take in O2
2) the lungs tranport O2 from the lung tissue to the blood stream
3) the heart pumps blood, blood the is rich in O2 (while more specifically the Lt Ventricle does)
4) human tissue require blood rich in O2 to survive and thrive
5) without O2 rich blood human tissue begans to die, after a long enough time without blood the tissue will die, if enough human tissue dies...the human itself dies...

Sorry man...but those simple facts i listed above are FACT. And they are FACTS that have been determine by medical science.

Regarding your statement:
You do not have to "believe" in chiropractics; however, if it works than does it really matter what you believe?

This has nothing to do with "belief" and that is what i am attempting to get across.
I understand that if i do not "believe" in something that does not make it untrue. For instance if i choose not to believe in gravity, that is not going to make it so that i can jump up and float in the air...if i jump up i will come down.

My critisms of chrio have nothing to do with a belief system. My opinions of chiro are not dogmatic, i simply am asking for evidence. That is evidence to prove/support the claims that are being made by the chiro community.
You argue that "it works" so it does not matter...
that is the problem...there is a ton of literature out there to demonstrate that chiro does not work. I am not talking about fluff research that is full of holes, i am talking about tightly regimented randomized control trials that some that chiro does nothing...

Regarding your statement:
I said before that there are bad doctors in every medical profession, and it's shame that chiropractics has had more than it's fair share

your logic here is flawed. yes there are "bad" doctors...
But that is not the crux of the arguement, the discussion here is that there is little to no support/evidence for chiropractic

i look forward to your comments

^^^^

I am picking up what you are throwing down :icon_chee

BucketBot FTW!!!
 
My medical insurance says it covers chiropractors, I just have to pay the $20 copay. Does this generally cover physical therapist too?

The chiropractor that I went to once before told me that my back alignment had nothing to do with the spine, but more with muscular imbalances. I ended up getting a massage instead of getting any joints cracked. This made me think well of chiropractors.
 
I go to a chiropractor.

But he has a massage therapist there and does the whole ultrasound stuff and recommends who you see based on your problems. He adjusts me slightly to fix a pinched nerve, but he had me getting the massage therapy in 30 minute sessions. Worked like a charm.
 
My medical insurance says it covers chiropractors, I just have to pay the $20 copay. Does this generally cover physical therapist too?

The chiropractor that I went to once before told me that my back alignment had nothing to do with the spine, but more with muscular imbalances. I ended up getting a massage instead of getting any joints cracked. This made me think well of chiropractors.

again, this is not chiropractic.
 
Another thing that i figure that i should add...

A Registered Physio-therapist (RPT) and a Chiropractor are NOT the same thing!

Personally, i would go to the physio-therapist each and everytime over a chrio.

A RPT has gone to an approved school where they do not learn about "innate intelligence" and "vertebral sublaxations". A RPT goes to school and learns about actual A and P.

You can go to a RPT yourself, or you can be referred by your primary care provider (your physician or your NP). A RPT will actually work to solve your problem, and can give you all sorts of "exercises" that can solve your problem, as opposed to needing life long "treatments/spinal adjusments" as many chiros will suggest.
Additionally, many if not all of the "effective" chiro treatments are practiced by appropriately trained RPTs.

So you can choose to go to a "practitioner" that believes in "innate intelligence" or you can go to one that has learned and understands the way your body actually works.
 
personally I would never ever recommend anyone ever ever goes to a chiropractor

but what do I know?

You are right. I was in a pretty serious car related accident, and suffered back and neck damage, mainly disc issues. My orthopedic specialist told me that chiropractors are useless and worthless, they are like witchdoctors. If your back hurts, and does not actually have serious damage, than a deep tissue message would work best. If you do have something serious then I would recommend physical therapy and if that does not work than get surgery. Fack chiropractors, they literally do nothing at all to really help back problems.
 
You are right. I was in a pretty serious car related accident, and suffered back and neck damage, mainly disc issues. My orthopedic specialist told me that chiropractors are useless and worthless, they are like witchdoctors. If your back hurts, and does not actually have serious damage, than a deep tissue message would work best. If you do have something serious then I would recommend physical therapy and if that does not work than get surgery. Fack chiropractors, they literally do nothing at all to really help back problems.

Ironically, chiropractics is at least safe, UNLESS you actually do have disc problems!
 
Back
Top