Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Good day all, I'm an Asian physical therapist trying to decide between doing a course on the Graston technique, or ART. I've heard good things about both, but then, that's part of where the confusion is for me. Everywhere I try looking, forums and internet articles and so forth, I hear only the good stuff. I tried doing a search on the Supertraining archives, found only a few that didn't really answer my question. Needless to say, I did not look through every single dated post. I'd love to hear any thoughts from other rehabilitation specialists on either of these two techniques. In particular, I'd be very grateful to hear about a) any negativities and refutation of claims made by either these therapies suggestions on which I should take and how might I make that decision, from those who have actually done either one, or both, of these. One of my problems with some of the claims made, is the notion that 5 minutes can help solve someone's long standing, chronic problems. Evidence-based is of course, preferable, but given that there isn't really too much of that, it's got to be at least scientifically plausible. Physiologically considering the healing process, this just doesn't make me very comfortable, particularly if i'm going to be investing a lot of my own money in it (the situation for physical therapists in terms of status and salary being very different from Westernised countries, but that's a different story...) Thanks in advance, Jiachyi Fun Australia/ Malaysia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Hi Jiachyi Fun, I have had experience with ART, I studied under a physical therapist and currently have the entire video series on vhs. (I'm done with them if you'd like them make me an offer and we can work something out.) I feel it is an exellent tool when used properly however I feel it is very easy to misuse. I have seen patients come back the next day with huge black and blue marks all over from the treatment. I feel it can be very agressive. I don't know about the Graston technique. I feel that ART can be one dimensional treatment only focusing on one muscle and not recognizing the emotional body. I have seen therapist working on patients where the patients toes are curling and there knuckles are turning white from the pain. This to me is a sign that the body is not responding to the rough therapy. This could also just be the therapist not listening to the patients body. The videos for ART do not indicate that working through pain is necessary for success. You definaly will not go wrong being educated in soft tissue therapy as a physical therapsit. The PT I worked with was able to work with NBA players due to this specialty. Good luck and I hope this helps. Regards, Mark Potempa Southfields, NY --- Da Wolf wrote: > Good day all, > > I'm an Asian physical therapist trying to decide > between doing a course on the Graston technique, or > ART. I've heard good things about both, but then, > that's part of where the confusion is for me. > > Everywhere I try looking, forums and internet > articles > and so forth, I hear only the good stuff. I tried > doing a search on the Supertraining archives, found > only a few that didn't really answer my question. > Needless to say, I did not look through every single > dated post. > > I'd love to hear any thoughts from other > rehabilitation specialists on either of these two > techniques. In particular, I'd be very grateful to > hear about > > a) any negativities and refutation of claims made by > either these therapies > > suggestions on which I should take and how might > I > make that decision, from those who have actually > done > either one, or both, of these. > > One of my problems with some of the claims made, is > the notion that 5 minutes can help solve someone's > long standing, chronic problems. Evidence-based is > of > course, preferable, but given that there isn't > really > too much of that, it's got to be at least > scientifically plausible. > > Physiologically considering the healing process, > this > just doesn't make me very comfortable, particularly > if > i'm going to be investing a lot of my own money in > it > (the situation for physical therapists in terms of > status and salary being very different from > Westernised countries, but that's a different > story...) > > Thanks in advance, > > Jiachyi Fun > Australia/ Malaysia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Hello: I've been seeing Dr Meyers in Austin, Texas. He's certified in both Graston and ART and a bunch more. And he works out, looking more like a powerlifter than a wimpy doctor. That's good. I'm a firm believer in going to specialists who themselves train ever since reading Dr Sheehan's article of close to 30 years ago entitled Diseases of Excellence. Sheehan, a marathoner and cardiologist but most of all poet recounted a number of incidents of athletes seeking remediation from injuries and having them taken as pathologies with iatrogenic interventions ruining careers. In my case, a fall wrecked havoc on my left rotator cuff. Various approaches, including physical therapy (I can't imagine what good it does other than providing income for practitioners) were a waste of time. Dr Bob's been working miracles with my cuff, doing ART, Graston, electrical accupuncture and making training recommendations. I recommend both - along with practitioners who do both and who themselves train, hence know what it's all about. Ken ONeill Long Life Fitness Austin, Texas kayoneill@... > Message: 13 > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:09:37 +1000 (EST) > > Subject: Graston or ART? > > Good day all, > > I'm an Asian physical therapist trying to decide > between doing a course on the Graston technique, or > ART. I've heard good things about both, but then, > that's part of where the confusion is for me. > > Everywhere I try looking, forums and internet articles > and so forth, I hear only the good stuff. I tried > doing a search on the Supertraining archives, found > only a few that didn't really answer my question. > Needless to say, I did not look through every single > dated post. > > I'd love to hear any thoughts from other > rehabilitation specialists on either of these two > techniques. In particular, I'd be very grateful to > hear about > > a) any negativities and refutation of claims made by > either these therapies > > suggestions on which I should take and how might I > make that decision, from those who have actually done > either one, or both, of these. > > One of my problems with some of the claims made, is > the notion that 5 minutes can help solve someone's > long standing, chronic problems. Evidence-based is of > course, preferable, but given that there isn't really > too much of that, it's got to be at least > scientifically plausible. > > Physiologically considering the healing process, this > just doesn't make me very comfortable, particularly if > i'm going to be investing a lot of my own money in it > (the situation for physical therapists in terms of > status and salary being very different from > Westernised countries, but that's a different > story...) > > Thanks in advance, > > Jiachyi Fun > Australia/ Malaysia > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Hi, I was one of the first ART practitioners in the US, 1994. And have been an instructor and educator, and world class alternative medicine Doctor at the Olympic Level for 20 years. I work with many college athletes, whom come to me after having ART & Graston done on them. Graston is particed by the few I have seen to eliminate a fiboitic lesion, at all costs. I have found the gratson to be practiced a bit too intensely. To the point of moderate bruising - without release of the tissue restriction. And that there has to be additional methods to address the mechanism of injury. These therapists seem to focus only on the lesion and not the mechansim of injury. Often, on a cumulative trauma issue, repetitive motion causes strains and these structures have to be strengthened to high endurance levels which the courses do not address. In ART teaching, it is claimed it's the only therapy needed, that is simply untrue. Flexibility and repetitive motion endurance strengthening, postural relationships and ergronomics have to be considered, to methods a few. In other words, tissue restriction is caused on the human frame, ART releases it somewhat - needs to be treated differently than taught -to address the whole kinetic chain and then the chain and person have to be studied to see what other components are needed. ie. full ROM slow tempo strengthening to increase the patients strength theshold is one the keys, in my opinion. This is unaddressed in american medicine. My 2 cents worth, hope this helps. Ripley Orinda, CA USA San Francisco Bay Region Jiachyi Fun wrote: <<<I'm an Asian physical therapist trying to decide between doing a course on the Graston technique, or ART. I've heard good things about both, but then, that's part of where the confusion is for me. Everywhere I try looking, forums and internet articles and so forth, I hear only the good stuff. I tried doing a search on the Supertraining archives, found only a few that didn't really answer my question. Needless to say, I did not look through every single dated post. I'd love to hear any thoughts from other rehabilitation specialists on either of these two techniques. In particular, I'd be very grateful to hear about a) any negativities and refutation of claims made by either these therapies suggestions on which I should take and how might I make that decision, from those who have actually done either one, or both, of these. One of my problems with some of the claims made, is the notion that 5 minutes can help solve someone's long standing, chronic problems. Evidence-based is of course, preferable, but given that there isn't really too much of that, it's got to be at least scientifically plausible. Physiologically considering the healing process, this just doesn't make me very comfortable, particularly if i'm going to be investing a lot of my own money in it (the situation for physical therapists in terms of status and salary being very different from Westernised countries, but that's a different story...)>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 I'm certified in Graston and do some of ART work.. I went through the same dilemma as you when trying to decide which one to go with first.. I have interviewed doctors who practice both techniques and here are my findings. As far as outcome goes...both are pretty good. They both complement eachother..so if you could do both, by all means do both. If you had to choose only one, my reasoning for Graston over ART was the following. Although ART people claim that if you do the technique properly, that it shouldn't hurt your thumb, I haven't met one practitioner who told me that this technique didn't cause thum discomfort...often those who practice ART rigorously develop arthritis on the involved joint and retire from technique... Graston is much easier on the provider. One thing you have to remember though is that Graston is not a full pledged complete protocol by itself. It should be applied with proper rehab program to be more effective..even along with ART type of myofascial work would help... Another reason was cost...ART costs $2000 per body region (not including the travel cost)...Graston is $3500 all inclusive including the tools... I think there was a recent study comparing the hands on ART types of technique and Graston...the outcome was about the same...if that were the case, Graston is by far more preferable as far as ease of application and financial burden goes... I feel they have pretty much same therapeutic value... BTW, I don't know where you got that 5 min cure thing... graston averages 6-9 visits on average with 15 minute protocol each time... some patients do get fast relief from 1-2 treatment..but that doesn't happen too often and i certainly wouldn't claim to cure anything that fast..but there are significant portion of population that does get pretty good symptomatic relief from fewer visits.. As far as ART goes...I haven't been doing it more than a few months and i already have occasional aches on my right MCP of thumb... As far as negative remark on Graston...it could be pretty uncomfortable for the patients at times...some areas are just so hypersensitive that slight graze causes great discomfort... I think both are good tools to have but don't think it's a cure all..they serve as one of the tools I use in a rehab program..they are never a stand alone therapy by themselves in my opinion and shouldn't be used that way... Tony Kim Moreno Valley, CA > > Good day all, > > I'm an Asian physical therapist trying to decide > between doing a course on the Graston technique, or > ART. I've heard good things about both, but then, > that's part of where the confusion is for me. > > Everywhere I try looking, forums and internet articles > and so forth, I hear only the good stuff. I tried > doing a search on the Supertraining archives, found > only a few that didn't really answer my question. > Needless to say, I did not look through every single > dated post. > > I'd love to hear any thoughts from other > rehabilitation specialists on either of these two > techniques. In particular, I'd be very grateful to > hear about > > a) any negativities and refutation of claims made by > either these therapies > > suggestions on which I should take and how might I > make that decision, from those who have actually done > either one, or both, of these. > > One of my problems with some of the claims made, is > the notion that 5 minutes can help solve someone's > long standing, chronic problems. Evidence-based is of > course, preferable, but given that there isn't really > too much of that, it's got to be at least > scientifically plausible. > > Physiologically considering the healing process, this > just doesn't make me very comfortable, particularly if > i'm going to be investing a lot of my own money in it > (the situation for physical therapists in terms of > status and salary being very different from > Westernised countries, but that's a different > story...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 2:40:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, accdoc@... writes: <<<I'm certified in Graston and do some of ART work.. I went through the same dilemma as you when trying to decide which one to go with first.. I have interviewed doctors who practice both techniques and here are my findings. As far as outcome goes...both are pretty good. They both complement eachother..so if you could do both, by all means do both. <SNIP> I think both are good tools to have but don't think it's a cure all..they serve as one of the tools I use in a rehab program..they are never a stand alone therapy by themselves in my opinion and shouldn't be used that way...>>> Tony - Thanks for bringing up the potential for self-injury! This subject is near to my heart, as I am studying manipulative therapies and have met far too many practitioners that were forced to retire due to injury. I will not comment upon any one type of manipulative therapy, as each has its own risks for the practitioner. Suffice it to say that it is common to suffer significant injury to the thumbs, fingers, wrists, shoulders, and back. Any one of these can reduce the therapist's effectiveness or even force them to find a new profession. When the health care provider is injured, how can they help others? It is critical for all manipulative therapists to have a solid, consistent self-care regimen that addresses the specific negative impacts of their practice. Failing to take a proactive approach that includes joint health and mobility greatly increases the chances of career-ending injury. This is vastly under-emphasized at EVERY teaching institute I am even remotely familiar with, and NONE require students to learn methods of addressing the problem. Good body mechanics while practicing on clients is very important and it seems that many schools cover that, but that's only part of the greater picture. Other life events, past trauma, nutrition, etc. affect how well your body tolerates the volume/intensity of your practice, even when your mechanics are excellent. Simply being " in good shape " says nothing about how well your hands, wrists, thumbs, etc. are prepared to treat clients on a daily basis. In my studies, I have treated professional therapists who are very athletic but who do not countercondition against the specific physical demands of their professions. Those who have also received appropriate exercise instruction (and incorporated it into their overall regimen) all report significant improvements in pain-free ROM and increased capacity to treat clients with less sense of strain or fatigue. For myself, I've had to rehab too many things to ever want to go down that path again. I take a VERY proactive approach, and have found that I simply do not suffer the aches and pains regularly reported by others in the same program of study. It has also made me much more aware of my body mechanics during treatment, and that has made me a more effective practitioner for my clients. And isn't that really the point? To take care of ourselves so we can do more good for others? kson, CST Minneapolis, MN USA _www.ClubbellTrainer.com_ (http://www.clubbelltrainer.com/) " Better Living Through Movement. " " Be good to yourself. If you don't take care of your body, where will you live? " - Kobi Yamada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.