I’m certainly not doubting you John, but the patting thing is very common 'round these parts. (I do it myself regularly). Interesting.
mmm
acupuncture is completely non-rational. a good acupuncturist (almost impossible to find) manipulates the flow of chi in the body. benefits to health are pretty much a side effect of this change in flow. no two people, and no two acupuncurists, are sufficiently alike to ever standardize acupunture, or to evaluate it. my acupuncturist is one of the most naturally compassionate people i’ve ever met, i feel better just talking to her w/o getting needled. and those itty bitty needles hurt when used right!
- 1 for the non-accupunctural patting when giving blood.
I can still remember the nurse at the pediatrician’s office when I was 5 years old, pat, pat, “Are you ready?”, pat, pat, “are you really ready?”, pat, pat, “Its already done!”
She probably interpreted it as punishment for not walking normally.
Junkies, too, apparently; Jon Stewart did the patting thing as part of pretending to need a hit of heroin just this week.
Powers &8^]
How? Acupuncture theory is one thing, but the actual techniques are another. It’s not difficult to discover trigger points by trial and error. The same spots are sore on pretty much everybody who has a particular health problem. Testing those points for soreness, and then massaging or needling them to alleviate that soreness, (and hopefully alleviate the health problem as well) isn’t non-rational. That stuff can all be discovered by trial and error.
As for qi being non-rational…maybe. But you don’t have to believe in qi to find acupuncture useful. Trigger point therapy is used by thousands of massage therapists and other health professionals with absolutely no talk or thought of qi. They do it because it works, not because of esoteric theories about qi.
Wow. The level of ignorance among skeptics here is…entertaining. Skeptics are just as ignorant and narrow-minded as the true believers. The proof is in the pudding. I come here talking about acupuncture, and get nothing but ill-informed opinion from the skeptics.
Yeah, the universe doesn’t fit well with simple little philosophical stances like ‘Jesus was God’ or ‘nothing that I, an intelligent Westerner, don’t know about can be useful’. Skepticism is just knee-jerk conservatism, with a different name.
In case you missed this question earlier, what “particular health problem” are you referring to? Pain, or any of the myriad non-musculoskeletal conditions (including cancer) that acupuncturists claim to treat? What’s your evidence that “sore spots” are indicative of all these underlying complaints?
Sure, some of these people dabble in acupuncture. Most do not. The common factor among all of these modalities is the laying on of hands, which may be beneficial to certain people, particularly for musculoskeletal complaints, and which is probably a factor in the placebo effects touted by acupunture proponents. That’s the point you are overlooking.
Intelligent Westerners, like intelligent people the world around, are open to new facts and solid evidence about health care and other subjects. They also question illogical claims based on anecdote and misconceptions about human anatomy and physiology, no matter what part of the world they’re derived from. Gravitating to woo because it comes from the Mystic East or from primitive cultures, is common among credulous folks who think that they’ve found answers simply because they’re not part of Evil Reductionist Western Medicine.
A profound misunderstanding of science and the scientific method is often accompanied by pointless name-calling.
There’s two separate hypotheses here, yours and mine. One is supported by the facts. The other is not.
First hypothesis–massage without acupoints is just as effective as massage with acupoints.
Second hypothesis–massage with acupoints is more effective than without.
So, let’s check these against the facts. Here’s a fact:
In any sore muscle, the acupoint in that muscle’s belly will be noticeably more sore than the tissue around it. You can test this for yourself–most people have a sore spot in the trapezius muscle, at the Gallbladder-21 point.
Here’s a link to that point’s location–
http://www.acupuncture.com/education/points/gallbladder/gb21.htm
Feel around in that area, digging in a little bit, until you find the sorest spot in that muscle. A few people won’t have any soreness in that muscle at all, but that’s rare.
The sorest point in that muscle is always that acupoint. This is true for any sore muscle (that is sore from overwork, or anything except direct trauma).
If you don’t believe me, try spleen-20
It’s always the sorest point in the pectoral muscle. Not everyone will have any soreness there, but if there is soreness in the pectoral muscle, it will be by far most intense at that point.
Why would this be true for pretty much every muscle that has an acupoint over it?
I say that my hypothesis, that acupoint massage is more effective, is more supported by this fact.
I see no facts presented in support of your hypotheses, only unsupported claims made on pro-acupuncture sites.
Pro-acupuncture sites? That’s like saying there are “pro-martial arts sites”. ROFL
It’s not a belief system. You are free to test my claims about sore points and acupoints if you want.
Sure, there are acupuncturists who claim to be able to heal things that they can’t. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some very talented people who really do have tremendous healing ability.
Please feel free to test my claims about sore points and acupoints. Let me even open it up a little more. Pick any major muscle, and find the sore point in it yourself, then check for the acupoint location. They’re the same.
al27052, your first link cites the “Gall Bladder 21” site as indicated for “mastitis, insufficient lactation”. Hell, it’s referenced as a “Gall Bladder” site. Does that not sound bizarre to you? The gall bladder is nowhere near the top of the shoulder.
Now maybe you’re just using that page because it has a picture of the spot in question. But you have to realize that people are going to read the cites you use and assume you support what they state, unless you make explicit disclaimers.
That page is definitely “pro-acupuncture”, and definitely supporting belief in meridians and other unproven, non-scientific concepts.
She could have stopped after patting the area. One of the recent studies on acupuncture showed that it was effective, but simply poking the general area of the pain randomly with a finger was equally effective. Statistically both therapies were identical.
You made the claims; it’s up to you to provide supporting evidence, not expect others to collect their own pointless anecdotes to back you up.
Don’t sell the true believers short - they’re infinitely far ahead in this respect.
The sites I posted were just the first ones I found in a Google search for those particular acupuncture points. You are free to buy books on trigger point therapy as well, some of which don’t mention chi or meridians even once.
The reason you guys are so resistant to this is because you can’t think of any reasonable explanation for the fact that the acupuncture points are so much more tender/sore than the surrounding areas. Since you don’t have a theory for this, and are deeply uncomfortable with the concept of chi, your bar for proof is unrealistically high. You’re deeply afraid, like ignorant people often are. Like fundamentalists of any stripe.
Instead of actually investigating these issues, you’re just arguing with me. What are you hoping to get out of me? More links?
Here’s the wiki on trigger point therapy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_point
Here’s a link to a book on trigger points that doesn’t mention qi:
http://www.triggerpointbook.com/
My approach to massage is very practical. When I massage myself or others, I check the local acupoints for pain/tenderness, and I work from there. If there’s no tenderness, I leave the point alone.
Many acupuncturists use the same approach.
The only difference between massaging a sore muscle and trigger point therapy is that trigger point therapy focuses only on the most painful place in the muscle, which is always the same spot, assuming no direct trauma.
That’s it. That’s the difference. You get the same result, with less work.
Again, I say the reason that you guys are so resistant is because you have no theory as to why these points are the same for everyone, and why they are so much more sore than the surrounding tissue. It’s not my trapezius’ muscle’s fault that you don’t have a theory…it works, so I use it. I think it’s funny how stiff and afraid all of you are. Why not just use what works, then come up with a theory later? Your fear is funny.
Are you educated on the scientific research regarding acupuncture? It’s not clear because you seem to be dismissing acupuncture despite many studies showing physical changes in the body and effectiveness for treating at least pain and depression.
What you may have missed is that the remarks of mine you’re quoting were a response to another poster who suggested that skepticism about acupuncture was related to faulty perception by “Western” minds, i.e. “your science can’t explain my woo!”.
As for scientific research, in multiple posts I’ve mentioned (and also linked to) research showing that “sham” acupuncture has results equivalent to actual acupuncture, casting severe doubt on the already nonsensical business about “qi” and meridians. I’ve asked posters who proclaim acupuncture’s success in veterinary medicine and who state that superficial soreness is an indicator of various health problems to provide evidence supporting their claims, but none has been forthcoming.
A problem with acupuncture has been that much of its “evidence” is in the form of anecdotes, and when research is done, the higher quality studies tend not to bear out the claims made for acupuncture. That it has at least a placebo effect that may be useful in treating pain in certain patients I can accept, but theories about what it might do for lots of different ailments have yet to be supported by strong evidence.
As regards the use of acupuncture in treating depression, a research review conducted by the respected Cochrane Collaboration summarized its findings as follows:
“We found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of acupuncture for people with depression. The results are limited by the high risk of bias in the majority of trials meeting inclusion criteria.”
Yes, because we know there’s absolutely no chance of funding from drug companies being cut, if a researcher publishes a pro-acupuncture study, for a condition that drug companies make billions a year on.
NO chance at ALL.
ROFL
Seriously, it’s one thing to promote the Kool-Aid…but you appear to be DRINKING the Kool-Aid.
ROFL
In the case of treating pain? I didn’t read your cites and I don’t have time right now, but I think it’s important to be very clear about what specific thing is being treated. The pain research I’ve read showed a significant difference between placebo and acupuncture, the testee was not aware of whether they receiving any acupuncture at all due to low power lasers being employed.
From a recent analysis of systematic reviews of acupuncture for treating pain by Ernst et al:
“In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain. Serious adverse effects continue to be reported.”
More on acupuncture’s dubious evidentiary basis here.
Of course, there is always the possibility that everyone who has cast doubt on popular fantasies about acupuncture is a dupe of Big Pharma or actually on its payroll, flooding forums all over the Internet with the lies our Masters pay us to post. :dubious: