"Massage feels good because it changes your gene expression"

Found on my favourite geek site.

Here's the link to the geek site if you want a brief:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/02/massage-feels-good-because-it-chan...

and here's the link to the actual research abstract:

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/119/119ra13

First time post so hope you enjoy it!

Tags: Massage, awesome, expression, gene

Treatments: 539

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Grice on February 16, 2012 at 8:37pm

Chronic exposure or high doses may result in various toxic effects such as impaired endocrine function, hepatoxicity, gastrointestinal disturbances, and dermatologic effects. - Rev Environ Health 2001 Jul-Sep;16(4):233-51 -- Adverse health effects of selenium in humans. -- Vinceti M, Wei ET, Malagoli C, Bergomi M, Vivoli G.

Anaphylactoid reactions in patients receiving intravenously administered vitamin K have been reported. Use of intravenous vitamin K should be limited to patients with serious hemorrhage due to a coagulopathy that is secondary to a relative or absolute deficiency of vitamin K. - J Thromb Thrombolysis 2001 Apr;11(2):175-83 -- Anaphylactoid reactions to vitamin K. -- Fiore LD, Scola MA, Cantillon CE, Brophy MT.

That's 2 I found in 7 minutes. As a general rule, I think Small Fry you'd agree that anything that has a physiological effect will also have an adverse effect in some situations, and in some situations fatal adverse effects. As far as no fatalities from supplementation: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Comparing what the average osteopath treats in the UK with what is treated in hospitals is not just self serving it is a misrepresentation. Drawing attention to the failures of NHS to live up to the standards of care we expect is not evidence against the methods of medicine, in the same way that the annals of the disciplinary activities of GOSC does not reflect on the methods of osteopathy.

Requiring osteopaths to justify their methods and research can only strengthen the profession. 



Small Fry said:

Those dirty devious massage therapists deceiving goverments worldwide to inflict their dangerous therapy on every living person!  That could never happen in pharmaceuticals because research is clearly so objective!

Not sure who you mean by 'we', I'd say there are many attitudes to research among us.

Not sure about the example of the naturopath, without knowing more about it, but suffice to say the reported deaths from supplements worldwide last year was zero, so when it comes to caution over nutrients there is a case for getting it in perspective.  On the other hand, give somebody the wrong medication, or get confused over a single decimal point and you have a death on your hands: even properly used medications now kill more people than road accidents according to some sources, while conservatively a tenth of all people admitted to hospital are killed, injured, infected or poisoned by the hospital, even more are neglected dehydrated or malnourished, and almost none are actually 'cured'.  Meanwhile, manual therapists have millions of satisfied patients and very few harmed - and I'd say they are the best judge of whether they are better.  So clearly sauce for the goose is not sauce for the hippopotamus.

Permalink Reply by Small Fry on February 16, 2012 at 9:03pm

melonfarmer said:  not appropriate... sorry

Not sure what you mean, sorry if I've caused offence, all I meant is that this bit isn't very clear:

what is interesting is how many manual therapists will jump all over a piece of research that appears to back up their beliefs but trot out the research cant explain what I do line when research says the opposite...

Permalink Reply by melonfarmer on February 16, 2012 at 9:14pm

no not at all I was just deleting an inappropriate message which was well off topic and not relevant...

Permalink Reply by Small Fry on February 16, 2012 at 9:15pm

Jonathan, you can hydrate yourself to death if you want to, but personally I'm not holding out for a NICE directive on potable water.  And I wouldn't call injected vitamin K a nutritional supplement, that's not its normal route into the body.  But as mercola puts it, if supplements are so risky, where are the bodies?

'Physiologically active' is a misleading term.  This forum can be physiologically active, ALL I HAVE TO DO IS TYPE IN UPPER CASE, ISN'T IT!

On the one hand there are nutrients, the basic needs of life: and on the other, drugs, which are fundamentally toxic and outside our evolutionary experience.  They are physiologically active in very different ways.  There is a case for saying that with a basic necessity the burden of proof needs to be different.  At the very least it's disengenuoous to say they are comparable.

But in any case, practitioner approach is a consumer issue at heart.  Many patients are not gullible sheeple at the mercy of any garbage they are told, they want a genuine alternative: an alternative paradigm, an alternative method, and alternative way of validating outcomes.  Many have been left utterly high and dry by evidence-based approaches, or simply value other ways to decide; and who is to say they are not fit to judge for themselves?

Permalink Reply by Tracy Hannigan on February 16, 2012 at 9:30pm

What happens when patients are at the mercy of any garbage they are told.....and it comes from an osteopath or a naturopath or a medical doctor or a therapist/counsellor or.....?  Garbage comes in many forms. I would say that manufactured tablets are outside the evolutionary experience too - and you can't deny that too much of a lot of these things (such as vitamin A) are as toxic as some drugs. 

I don't think anyone is saying patients can't judge their own personal experience - but they cannot judge the experience of thousands of patients, documented in a format that shows that overall, on a larger level, there could be a question to be raised.  That is all it is.  It doesn't mean an individual person wouldn't benefit and that is where clinical judgement and off label prescription comes in (in those cases where it is a prescription at issue)....or where a 'standard manipulation' is altered to fit the needs of a patient.  I feel you are trying to cut down apples by showing oranges - as if oranges somewhow make apples dissapear.  Apples don't try to make oranges dissapear and don't need oranges to dissapear in order to justify their existance.  (Research findings are important and do not necessarily mean that individual potential benefits are invalid - potential benefits are also extremely important to consider - but don't necessarily mean that research is meaningless).

Permalink Reply by Small Fry on February 16, 2012 at 9:43pm

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate 'buyer beware' in healthcare.  I said many people do not believe any old garbage, I did not say we should tell them any old garbage.  And I agree we have to be able to justify what we do in some way.  If you want absolute justification then many babies will be thrown out with the bathwater.  There are different levels of justification, and people are at liberty to choose what they are prepared to try to keep themselves well.

I don't think it would be a better world if before we could touch a patient we first had to undergo animal trials, then safety trials, then RCT's on consenting trial subjects with actual problems, get it all peer-reviewed and cost-benefit analysed by NIHCE.  What we do IS different to pharmaceutical therapy in several substantive ways, and if by taking that approach to proof we will save a single life or be one jot more effective - than using experience and clinical reasoning, informed by evidence but not hamstrung by it - then let's please see the evidence of THAT.

Permalink Reply by melonfarmer on March 6, 2012 at 11:51pm

community teamPermalink Reply by Ronan O'Brien on March 9, 2012 at 12:06pm

I'm not sure what your point is Melonfarmer? Exercise is as good as hands on TTT? Coffee is good for us? Please elaborate.

Methylation is fundemtantal to hundreds of vital processes including repairing/restoring damaged DNA. Poor methylation can lead to lots of problems, likely related the subsequent pro-inflammatory state due to a build up of homocysteine etc... The knock on effect of all this is is the breaking down of detoxifcation pathways. Some researchers think these are key aspects of the genesis of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons.

Anything that supports methylation in a coherent & integrated manner is likely to be a good thing. 


melonfarmer said:

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2012   Created by Ronan O'Brien.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service