Study: Massage Helps Treat Low Back Pain

Like the old saying, "Time Heals all Wounds".

My back is correct wrote:

<quoted text>
I hope I may add this. Over years & years of the abuse of your body on the spine, it can't be corrected with just 1 adjustment, just the same as a person keeps taking pain pills. It may take weeks, months etc... It took me months & months for my spine to stay adjusted. Over those months of adjustments my spine have to ajust iself to these Chiropractic adjustments. Life the old saying, "Time Heals all Wounds".

I'm glad the chiropractor was able to help you. I have recommended chiropractic to many of my clients. But to state that massage is of no benefit for chronic pain anywhere in the body is absurd. If spinal misalignment is the cause, adjust the spine. But if muscles and nerves are the cause of the pain, chiropractic won't help that. Massage will.

LMT wrote:

<quoted text>I'm glad the chiropractor was able to help you. I have recommended chiropractic to many of my clients. But to state that massage is of no benefit for chronic pain anywhere in the body is absurd. If spinal misalignment is the cause, adjust the spine. But if muscles and nerves are the cause of the pain, chiropractic won't help that. Massage will.

Chiropractic &/or Massages can do that. What do you think Medical Doctors can do? And I don't mean to operate & remove something that a Chiropractor or a Massage could relieve?
Medical Doctors hate Chiropractors, I've heard. Soon they will hate massage parlors, calling them sex houses. LOL

For simple uncomplicated nonradiculopathic low back pain, mild generic manipulation has the same benefit as massage. That is the gist of the article.

The gist of the article was that massage therapy was probably beneficial for moderate-to-severe low back pain. It did not address manipulation at all, other than grouping chiropractic into the control group as a possible treatment option. Nowhere, at all, did it identify the type of pain other than the severity (moderate-to-severe). So where, pray tell, do you get that it was "simple, uncomplicated, nonradiculopathic low back pain"? And what exactly is your definition of simple or uncomplicated for that matter?
Please illuminate specifically where in the article it states that massage therapy is more effective than chiropractic, or as you say "mild generic maniulation". You cannot, because no direct comparisons were made. Nor can they based on the study design - as I discussed earlier the control group was horrible. If you want a better discussion on the topic, I suggest you read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21229367
I am sorry to say that your argument, based on this article, has no merit. Find a more definitive study, and we can talk then.

Read the article. Massage was shown to be as effective as chiropractic.

I'll grant you that chiropractic means many different things. Indeed, no two chiropractors can even gree what chiropractic is. Sad but true.

dear all to setle the argument why dont we blame hitler for back pain as we were all programmed to believe it is hitlers fault but nobody has pointed finger on those who have financed him and every other conflict same works for cancer or any other conflict in our body its always hitlers fault so we dont have to look for fungus or lots of used bentleys would be for sale we have to brain wash people to protect our opulent life

Wisdom, please quote me in the article where it says that massage was as effective as chiropractic and I will concede the argument. But in fact the only reference to chiropractic in the entire article is on the first page of the link where it states: "The approach could include, for instance, taking pain medications or muscle relaxants, seeing doctors or chiropractors, physical therapy, or simply not doing anything". Two important differentiators are included in this statement - "could have" and "for instance". We do not know the composition of the control group, nor the treatment remedy that they used. Therefore you cannot say that massage was shown to be as effective as chiropractic based on this article, as chiropractic could or could not have been used in the control group. Clearly more information is required before any claims of efficacy can be substantiated. To say anything otherwise is purely an assumption on your part.

Piaget vs. Erickson/Kohlberg vs. Vygotsky vs. Whoever. Chiropractic is hardly the only profession that lacks commonality on basic concepts. But one does not discount the theories simply on the basis of a difference of opinion. It is that diversity which over time contributes to the "greater good" and the evolution of the profession.

It is interesting to note that massage can help lessen the pain felt by patients. The study, however, did not specify as to what treatment option massage was compared with. The usual care group had various treatments. It would have been better if the treatment for this group was more specific or focused only to a single option. http://www.topix.com/forum/health/back-pain/T...

Indeed the traditional massage can help treat low back pain because such condition can sooth tired muscles and regulates the blood flow in our body. http://www.depuypinnaclelawsuit.com/

There's a good article her about how massage can treat low back pain http://www.profilemassage.com/wyoming/jackson...

Maybe massage helps but I would never use it with Chiropractic. Also I would never try a theurapuetic massage.

Geoda wrote:

Maybe massage helps but I would never use it with Chiropractic. Also I would never try a theurapuetic massage.

Good. No one wants your business.

Geoda wrote:

Maybe massage helps but I would never use it with Chiropractic. Also I would never try a theurapuetic massage.

Could you please tell us why you would not get a therapeutic massage, my curiosity is aroused.