Forums >Health and Nutrition>Graston Technique Question
Member Since 2008
Does anyone know how often the Graston Technique should be performed while rehabilitating a calf strain.
Super B****
Shouldn't the practitioner know that??
chasing the impossible
because i never shut up ... i blog
Ha, just took the course yesterday. Short answer is 2x a wk, long answer is depends.
What he said..
Short answer is 2x a wk, long answer is depends.
I'm very much against the Graston Technique. No evidence exists for its effectiveness.
Except for two small studies involving mice (1995 - pro-Graston, and 2009, con-Graston), no serious controlled studies have been performed. ZERO.
Quite simply, it's snake oil. Pure marketing propaganda. I believe strongly in massage therapy, trigger point therapy, and physical therapy (conducted by certified therapists), but Graston should be avoided.
Read this article and see if you agree:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-graston-technique-inducing-microtrauma-with-instruments/
It really all boils down to a handful of mice pro, a handful of mice con, one human pilot study showing no advantage over manual mobilization, and a lot of testimonials. Would you be willing to try a new pharmaceutical treatment on the basis of nothing but one favorable mouse study out of two, and one pilot study? Would you agree to let someone deliberately injure you on such flimsy evidence? I would be very happy if the Graston Technique proves useful, but for the time being it must be considered experimental.
PRs: 5K 19:41 (5/2017) 10K 45:27 (1/2017) 10m 1:10:41 (4/2017) 13.1 1:36:00 (6/2017) 26.2 3:31:58 (10/2017)
Fwiw, one of the most respected Physical Therapy places in my area is now using the Gastron (and ART). The owner (and PhD in PT) doesn't lightly start using new techniques or methods without doing her homework.
I'm very much against the Graston Technique. No evidence exists for its effectiveness. Except for two small studies involving mice (1995 - pro-Graston, and 2009, con-Graston), no serious controlled studies have been performed. ZERO. Quite simply, it's snake oil. Pure marketing propaganda. I believe strongly in massage therapy, trigger point therapy, and physical therapy (conducted by certified therapists), but Graston should be avoided. Read this article and see if you agree: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-graston-technique-inducing-microtrauma-with-instruments/ Excerpt: Summary of the Evidence It really all boils down to a handful of mice pro, a handful of mice con, one human pilot study showing no advantage over manual mobilization, and a lot of testimonials. Would you be willing to try a new pharmaceutical treatment on the basis of nothing but one favorable mouse study out of two, and one pilot study? Would you agree to let someone deliberately injure you on such flimsy evidence? I would be very happy if the Graston Technique proves useful, but for the time being it must be considered experimental.
Excerpt:
Summary of the Evidence
I definitely respect your opinion, but I personally wouldn't use it unless some research existed to prove its value.
Regarding PT centers: one of the most respected PT centers in the Orlando area helped me greatly in 2012 after my cycling crash -- 4 months of seriously painful shoulder rehab following AC surgery. Great place, great people and doctors -- thanks to them, I'm fully recovered. But they also recommended the Graston technique. I asked for supporting documentation and didn't receive any, so I selected different therapy techniques. I still have great respect for them, but I disagree with their use of Graston.
Another article supporting my take:
http://runnersconnect.net/running-injury-prevention/undertstanding-graston-and-active-release-technique/
FWIW, I'm not trying to be argumentative on this topic -- I'd like to be proven wrong ...
I don't have any experience with Gastron in terms of being used on me. Gastron just seems a bit goofy to me.
ART is what I'm most familiar with, and have had success with (as a patient).
This is my "sample size of 1" story:
For many years I suffered with calf issues that prevented me from running more than a mile or two before I'd hobble home. I spent about 10 years going to PTs (on and off) who did the traditional deep tissue therapy, but nothing worked. Upon a revisit to one of the PT places, the therapists recognized me and said, "You've been here before. If what we did last time didn't work, there's no point in going through another round of treatment because we're only going to do the same kind of treatment." He went on to mention another client with a similar history who eventually reverted to finding a chiropractor that did ART and that got them on the road to recovery. He suggested I do the same, or consider some other form of exercise that didn't aggravate the calfs. So, I found a chiropractor near my work who performs ART. This man has a history of treating runners and is respected in the running community (by the HS coaches) for being somewhat of a miracle healer . ART did the trick for me and my calves. It was explained to me that ART is very effective at breaking up scar tissue.
If you think about what ART is, it's really not much different than deep tissue massage, but the muscle is moved/expanded while the massage is being applied. I now do this myself whenever I start to feel aches and pains, and/or stiffness on my calfs (and now my hamstrings as they are my latest issue). It's quite simple and effective, for me.
As with everything, studies aside, everyone is different in terms of what works, and what doesn't work for them. I glanced at some of the comments in the RunnersConnect article and it seems it worked for more than it didn't. Sometimes, people get desperate for a solution to their running injuries, and if there's no side affects other than time or money with a form of treatment, it's worth a shot.
I definitely respect your opinion, but I personally wouldn't use it unless some research existed to prove its value. Regarding PT centers: one of the most respected PT centers in the Orlando area helped me greatly in 2012 after my cycling crash -- 4 months of seriously painful shoulder rehab following AC surgery. Great place, great people and doctors -- thanks to them, I'm fully recovered. But they also recommended the Graston technique. I asked for supporting documentation and didn't receive any, so I selected different therapy techniques. I still have great respect for them, but I disagree with their use of Graston. Another article supporting my take: http://runnersconnect.net/running-injury-prevention/undertstanding-graston-and-active-release-technique/ FWIW, I'm not trying to be argumentative on this topic -- I'd like to be proven wrong ...
Here we go..........
If we wanna play that game then the only thing research really supports is exercise and manual therapy. Any good PT would do all the above (if Graston was indicated). Treatment example would be like this: warm up, graston, stretch, joint mobilization, exercise
I'm very much against the Graston Technique. No evidence exists for its effectiveness. Except for two small studies involving mice (1995 - pro-Graston, and 2009, con-Graston), no serious controlled studies have been performed. ZERO. Quite simply, it's snake oil. Pure marketing propaganda. I believe strongly in massage therapy, trigger point therapy, and physical therapy (conducted by certified therapists), but Graston should be avoided. Read this article and see if you agree: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-graston-technique-inducing-microtrauma-with-instruments/ It really all boils down to a handful of mice pro, a handful of mice con, one human pilot study showing no advantage over manual mobilization, and a lot of testimonials. Would you be willing to try a new pharmaceutical treatment on the basis of nothing but one favorable mouse study out of two, and one pilot study? Would you agree to let someone deliberately injure you on such flimsy evidence? I would be very happy if the Graston Technique proves useful, but for the time being it must be considered experimental.
ooooo def taking ART next, pricey but its good stuff
Hip Redux
Experimental is not the same as "snake oil". There is a lack of evidence to prove AND disprove its usefulness. And to compare Graston, which might bruise you as the worst outcome, to taking an experimental drug is just stupid. Most people try Graston as a last resort, nothing else is working technique - there is little downside to trying it.
I will tell you that it's worked on a lot of people, including myself. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but still more than people who have tried it with no benefit in my circle.
Your link is just a demonstration of more poor research - the author only looked at abstracts of the articles, and didn't read the full text of the study. How can you review by the abstract only and claim anything pro/con about the study? Or even claim it's a thorough review of the literature?
Experimental is not the same as "snake oil". There is a lack of evidence to prove AND disprove its usefulness. And to compare Graston, which might bruise you as the worst outcome, to taking an experimental drug is just stupid. Most people try Graston as a last resort, nothing else is working technique - there is little downside to trying it. I will tell you that it's worked on a lot of people, including myself. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but still more than people who have tried it with no benefit in my circle. Your link is just a demonstration of more poor research - the author only looked at abstracts of the articles, and didn't read the full text of the study. How can you review by the abstract only and claim anything pro/con about the study? Or even claim it's a thorough review of the literature?
Please - show me ONE study with facts. If you became healthy after enduring the pain of Graston, you may have simply healed for different reasons other than Graston. It's a premature conclusion to credit Graston with your positive outcome.
Since you criticized the research, show me one controlled study on Graston. like I said, I want to be proven wrong.
last but not least : I know I sound like an arrogant jerk, but I just have strong opinions against Graston, based on the lack of validation of its claims. But I'm sincerely happy that your health improved after using it, because being injured and unable to run is the worst.
I can only speak of my experience. I had some pretty serious lower leg issues two years ago. I went to many doctors, orthopedists, etc. I endured months of physical therapy which did nothing for me. A well known sports medicine clinic had me in a boot and the directions was "no running for 8-12 weeks". Whattttttt?
I found a local doc that specializes in Graston and ART. I went for a visit and it hurt like hades. But guess what? I was running in 3 days. Back to normal within 2 weeks. Total treatments were twice a week for about 4 weeks. Now, whenever I have an issue, its him that I go to first. He has helped me through many a running ailment.
Bacon Party!
Lack of scientific study of efficacy does NOT demonstrate that the treatment is ineffective; it only indicates a dearth of scientific study.
If you want to be proven wrong (or right or otherwise), perhaps you should fund a robust study?
Please - show me ONE study with facts. If you became healthy after enduring the pain of Graston, you may have simply healed for different reasons other than Graston. It's a premature conclusion to credit Graston with your positive outcome. Since you criticized the research, show me one controlled study on Graston. like I said, I want to be proven wrong. last but not least : I know I sound like an arrogant jerk, but I just have strong opinions against Graston, based on the lack of validation of its claims. But I'm sincerely happy that your health improved after using it, because being injured and unable to run is the worst.
Liz
pace sera, sera
Lack of scientific study of efficacy does NOT demonstrate that the treatment is ineffective; it only indicates a dearth of scientific study. If you want to be proven wrong (or right or otherwise), perhaps you should fund a robust study?
You missed the point completely -- no study exist on its effectiveness; but studies exist showing the treatment is ineffective. No need to fund any robust study when the evidence already exists. I'll save my money for proven techniques.
Except for the one flawed study in 1995 on 20 mice, no evidence exists to prove Graston is effective.
If people want to spend money on an unproven technique which introduces micro-trauma (i.e. bruising) to already injured tissue, more power to them. My last take: Caveat Emptor ....