You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I will offer an alternative opinion. Full disclosure my wife is a chiro. She graduated from the UofA with a physiology degree and attended the Canadian Chiropractic College in Toronto. All of her non-chiro classes were taught by faculty of the U of T med school. She has been practicing in Calgary for about 25 years. She has taken continuing education annually as well as additional courses such as graston technique, taping, etc.

To say she is not trained in manipulation or the mechanics and treatment of necks, the spine or the entire musculoskeletal system is simply ignorant and not based on the actual facts. I won't comment on the qualifications of a kinesiologist other than it only requires a 4 year undergraduate degree, is not a regulated profession and has a voluntary certification. If they wish to manipulate they can take additional courses, the same as a physio. Four years of daily hands on training or several weekends of courses. You decide.

Chiropractic is recognized by the Health Professions Act and is a regulated profession.

I know there is an incredible bias against the profession on this board against Chiro. None of the comments I have read over the years have been based in fact. Chiros treat and help millions of people a year whose ailments generally improve after intervention.

It doesn't help everyone, like most treatments.
Not all chiros are good. Some are better, some are worse. Some are simple grifters trying to get rich. Same as most professions. (except teaching. No one is getting rich teaching)

Sometimes people get hurt. That is sad but again, no different than any other treatment and much safer than some.
Chiro is not backed by science. This is simply not true. A simple google search will show the amount of research that has been conducted.

Anyways. I tend to turn the other cheek when this is brought up and don't wish to have a debate. I just tire of the drive by insults like the above that are not based in fact.

I will say I have seen a Chiro and one of my best friends is a Chiro (he runs part of Google's wellness program).

That being said some of what Chiropractic is founded on isn't 100% factual.

There is still argument about Vertebral Subluxation.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I will offer an alternative opinion. Full disclosure my wife is a chiro. She graduated from the UofA with a physiology degree and attended the Canadian Chiropractic College in Toronto. All of her non-chiro classes were taught by faculty of the U of T med school. She has been practicing in Calgary for about 25 years. She has taken continuing education annually as well as additional courses such as graston technique, taping, etc.

To say she is not trained in manipulation or the mechanics and treatment of necks, the spine or the entire musculoskeletal system is simply ignorant and not based on the actual facts. I won't comment on the qualifications of a kinesiologist other than it only requires a 4 year undergraduate degree, is not a regulated profession and has a voluntary certification. If they wish to manipulate they can take additional courses, the same as a physio. Four years of daily hands on training or several weekends of courses. You decide.

Chiropractic is recognized by the Health Professions Act and is a regulated profession.

I know there is an incredible bias against the profession on this board against Chiro. None of the comments I have read over the years have been based in fact. Chiros treat and help millions of people a year whose ailments generally improve after intervention.

It doesn't help everyone, like most treatments.
Not all chiros are good. Some are better, some are worse. Some are simple grifters trying to get rich. Same as most professions. (except teaching. No one is getting rich teaching)

Sometimes people get hurt. That is sad but again, no different than any other treatment and much safer than some.
Chiro is not backed by science. This is simply not true. A simple google search will show the amount of research that has been conducted.

Anyways. I tend to turn the other cheek when this is brought up and don't wish to have a debate. I just tire of the drive by insults like the above that are not based in fact.

They're rich in time.

Sick defense of your wife, though, dude. I've never been to a chiro, but I would try it as an option if other avenues failed. And if I ever need that I'm reaching out to you for your wife's contact info. You made a great pitch here hah.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wasn't suggesting a kinesologist should manipulate necks, I don't think anyone should, and that's what I've heard from doctors. I mean there are other things you can do to relieve pain and generally improve long term issues that don't involve the risk of a neck manipulation.

Just wait until you're in your 50s and sneeze wrong.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I will offer an alternative opinion. Full disclosure my wife is a chiro. She graduated from the UofA with a physiology degree and attended the Canadian Chiropractic College in Toronto. All of her non-chiro classes were taught by faculty of the U of T med school. She has been practicing in Calgary for about 25 years. She has taken continuing education annually as well as additional courses such as graston technique, taping, etc.

To say she is not trained in manipulation or the mechanics and treatment of necks, the spine or the entire musculoskeletal system is simply ignorant and not based on the actual facts. I won't comment on the qualifications of a kinesiologist other than it only requires a 4 year undergraduate degree, is not a regulated profession and has a voluntary certification. If they wish to manipulate they can take additional courses, the same as a physio. Four years of daily hands on training or several weekends of courses. You decide.

Chiropractic is recognized by the Health Professions Act and is a regulated profession.

I know there is an incredible bias against the profession on this board against Chiro. None of the comments I have read over the years have been based in fact. Chiros treat and help millions of people a year whose ailments generally improve after intervention.

It doesn't help everyone, like most treatments.
Not all chiros are good. Some are better, some are worse. Some are simple grifters trying to get rich. Same as most professions. (except teaching. No one is getting rich teaching)

Sometimes people get hurt. That is sad but again, no different than any other treatment and much safer than some.
Chiro is not backed by science. This is simply not true. A simple google search will show the amount of research that has been conducted.

Anyways. I tend to turn the other cheek when this is brought up and don't wish to have a debate. I just tire of the drive by insults like the above that are not based in fact.

You and I specifically have had this discussion before on this forum (under your old 'Titan' name). As you did back then, you're conflating Fuzz's criticism of chiropractic as a discipline for criticism of your wife who is a chiropractor.

No one has said your wife isn't trained in the manipulation / mechanics of the neck, spine, musculoskeletal system, etc. But there are many things problematic with chiropractic's underlying theory, particularly the idea of 'subluxations'.

I'm not going to go through it again, because you and I have done this song and dance once before. I will, however, direct you to some reading on the general concerns people have about chiropractic here.

One small point, recognition by the Health Professions Act is not on its own any endorsement of the efficacy of a discipline or if it is based in science. A quick read of the Act will reveal that Acupuncturists and Naturopaths are also recognized in the Act. This shouldn't tempt anyone to suggest that acupuncture as a discipline is based in an actual scientific understanding of human physiology.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You and I specifically have had this discussion before on this forum (under your old 'Titan' name). As you did back then, you're conflating Fuzz's criticism of chiropractic as a discipline for criticism of your wife who is a chiropractor.

No one has said your wife isn't trained in the manipulation / mechanics of the neck, spine, musculoskeletal system, etc. But there are many things problematic with chiropractic's underlying theory, particularly the idea of 'subluxations'.

I'm not going to go through it again, because you and I have done this song and dance once before. I will, however, direct you to some reading on the general concerns people have about chiropractic here.

One small point, recognition by the Health Professions Act is not on its own any endorsement of the efficacy of a discipline or if it is based in science. A quick read of the Act will reveal that Acupuncturists and Naturopaths are also recognized in the Act. This shouldn't tempt anyone to suggest that acupuncture as a discipline is based in an actual scientific understanding of human physiology.

Agreed on your points. Although Fuzz, implied a kinesiologist is trained in spinal manipulation and chiros are not. Agreed on the HPA recognition, again that was more a rebuttal of kinesiology as a health care profession than a (what's it called, appeal to authority or something?). Also, your link to Quackwatch is not particularly compelling. One dude with a vendetta does not a scientific abstract make. Having said that, there are definitely different schools of thought in chiro. My wife, and CMCC in general, are 'mixers' which means they follow a 'scientific' approach to the practice, as opposed to 'straights'. Mixers, in short, believe that pressure on a nerve is a bad thing and if a muscle can be released, which will take pressure off the bone pressing on a nerve, then that will be a good thing. (Think garden hose with something crimping it, move the thing crimping it and water flows better) I am not doing the argument justice but it is certainly much different than releasing the hobgoblins that live in your spine. There is a spectrum of the profession that did and do believe in the more mystical solutions. Maybe it was ignorance of anatomy or not understanding the bio mechanics of it, but they are also largely the fringes of the profession. I may be wrong here but I am not sure if they are even allowed to use the term subluxation anymore.

I would suggest that a more nuanced review of the topic would be in order before calling an entire profession into question, or even quackery. I know there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies about the bio-mechanics, efficacy etc. of chiro. Much like there are for a lot of different interventions. Some say it helps, some say not so much.

The only reason I am going into detail with you is the respectful way you approached the conversation, and I am grateful for that. I asked my wife why this does not bother her. She says because she gets the daily interaction from her 10-25 patients a day that come to her because they are in pain and that leave with the pain either substantially reduced or a plan to get it reduced.

I sit at a desk all day reading rabble rousers.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I will say I have seen a Chiro and one of my best friends is a Chiro (he runs part of Google's wellness program).

That being said some of what Chiropractic is founded on isn't 100% factual.

There is still argument about Vertebral Subluxation.

Agreed 100%. Although, I suspect most modern chiros don't spend a lot of time arguing about it and just go about their day. Did the profession come from the most 'noble' roots? Maybe not, but it has grown immeasurably since the beginnings.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Agreed on your points. Although Fuzz, implied a kinesiologist is trained in spinal manipulation and chiros are not.

No I don't think he did.

You might of read it that way but I don't believe he meant it that way.


PS: I have a BSc in Kin.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I will offer an alternative opinion. Full disclosure my wife is a chiro. She graduated from the UofA with a physiology degree and attended the Canadian Chiropractic College in Toronto. All of her non-chiro classes were taught by faculty of the U of T med school. She has been practicing in Calgary for about 25 years. She has taken continuing education annually as well as additional courses such as graston technique, taping, etc.

To say she is not trained in manipulation or the mechanics and treatment of necks, the spine or the entire musculoskeletal system is simply ignorant and not based on the actual facts. I won't comment on the qualifications of a kinesiologist other than it only requires a 4 year undergraduate degree, is not a regulated profession and has a voluntary certification. If they wish to manipulate they can take additional courses, the same as a physio. Four years of daily hands on training or several weekends of courses. You decide.

Chiropractic is recognized by the Health Professions Act and is a regulated profession.

I know there is an incredible bias against the profession on this board against Chiro. None of the comments I have read over the years have been based in fact. Chiros treat and help millions of people a year whose ailments generally improve after intervention.

It doesn't help everyone, like most treatments.
Not all chiros are good. Some are better, some are worse. Some are simple grifters trying to get rich. Same as most professions. (except teaching. No one is getting rich teaching)

Sometimes people get hurt. That is sad but again, no different than any other treatment and much safer than some.
Chiro is not backed by science. This is simply not true. A simple google search will show the amount of research that has been conducted.

Anyways. I tend to turn the other cheek when this is brought up and don't wish to have a debate. I just tire of the drive by insults like the above that are not based in fact.

My buddy is a chiro. He's the only chiro I'd go to if I needed that level of manipulation. Based on his training and mentality, I'd say he's closer to a sports therapist and physiotherapist with chiropractic training than pure chiropractor.

He's worked with high performance athletes before and I actually spent a few months poking around and feeling him out before agreeing to going to him regularly for adjustment. In my personal situation, he waited until about the 2nd or 3rd appointment before adjusting my neck, which was actually one of the primary reasons why I went in the first place. I was having such severe neck/back pain and tension that I'd random run into debilitating and paralyzing pain that would manifest into a nearly full blown back/shoulder/neck spasms. Other physiotherapy, activities/rolling/exercises, regular massages, acupuncture etc. weren't effective and so in desperation I decided to add chiropractic adjustments to the regimen to address the issues.

I've chatted with him about the multiple lines of chiro. He is of the style (also went to U of T) that is science backed. He agrees that the line of chiropractic thinking where they think that there's fluid and stuff in your spine that causes diseases and stuff is pure bull#### and even other chiropractors disagree with that BS. He isn't like one of those online grifters that is most focused on ASMR and getting hot girls to hop on the table for them to film for the views and clicks.

Each time we basically discuss the lifestyle attributes that have occurred since the last appointment. He checks the state of my body + adjusts it and we discuss what seems to be working and what doesn't seem to be working. For me, it's not like a massage where it's just physical manipulation, shoot the #### and rinse and repeat with no further investigation and analysis. Like I said, my relationship with him and the services I request from him are much closer to physio and sports therapy with him basically using the chiropractic part to physically checking parts of my body on a regular basis to see if there's improvements or damage that's going on. The physical adjustment stuff for relief now is basically bonus for me and I haven't had debilitating spasms since I started going to him 1.5-2 years ago. I used to get spasms so bad I'd typically be locked in a position due to paralyzing pain for around 5-15 minutes with tears streaming down my face. This would happen a few times a month. I literally could kinda time it because the TV would be playing and I'd see how time had elapsed on the program.


As someone who also has defended chiropractors, you have to have a bit thicker skin and address the fact there's more than one school of thinking. My buddy took that head on and said that there's schools of thinking in chiro that are stupid and dangerous and not scientifically backed, but he is not of that school of thinking. He and I have defended that aspect to my wife. My wife literally has had to go to the emergency room due to a bad chiropractic experience before I met her. She will never go to a chiropractor ever again. My buddy and I defending the chiro stance is so that she doesn't freak out about me going to get chiropractic adjustment from him. He even apologized on behalf of all chiropractors to the bad experience she endured. My wife as acknowledged that there seems to be major differences in how my buddy describes how he'd approach her care and what was done to her. She still will never go to a chiropractor, but she respects my buddy working on me and my buddy respects that she doesn't want to go with him or any other chiropractor.

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Just wait until you're in your 50s and sneeze wrong.

Oh my god that's bringing up a bad memory. I sneezed wrong and immediately fell to the ground in pain. Then to add insult to injury, the spasms kicked in. My wife found me groaning on the floor and I had to try and calm her down in that painful state to avoid her calling an ambulance for me. It wasn't helping that my eldest was like "Is daddy dying?" while my youngest crawled over and was slapping me in the face. Every laugh or cry or crying laugh hurt so much.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wasn't suggesting a kinesologist should manipulate necks, I don't think anyone should, and that's what I've heard from doctors. I mean there are other things you can do to relieve pain and generally improve long term issues that don't involve the risk of a neck manipulation.

I agree you probably heard that from doctors. You may be shocked to see how much they actually learn about the spine and benefits of spinal manipulation versus the risks.

Of course there are other ways to treat some things. Chiro is one of them. You have the right to that opinion.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No I don't think he did.

You might of read it that way but I don't believe he meant it that way.


PS: I have a BSc in Kin.

Fuzz: "My kinesiologist gave me some neck exercises. They are actually trained for this stuff."

I read it how it was written I think. At this point it does not matter. If I misread that I apologize.

And I also apologize if it came off as an attack of Kin in general. That was not the intent. I understand you are not going around cracking backs so i don't think my comments apply to you but if they do, well I guess I stand by my comments. Anyways, if the former, no offence intended.

Well, that mostly went better than I feared. I will slink back to under the rocks now. I appreciate letting me vent. See you in 3-4 years or so.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Fuzz: "My kinesiologist gave me some neck exercises. They are actually trained for this stuff."

I read it how it was written I think. At this point it does not matter. If I misread that I apologize.

And I also apologize if it came off as an attack of Kin in general. That was not the intent. I understand you are not going around cracking backs so i don't think my comments apply to you but if they do, well I guess I stand by my comments. Anyways, if the former, no offence intended.

Well, that mostly went better than I feared. I will slink back to under the rocks now. I appreciate letting me vent. See you in 3-4 years or so.

Dude it reads as it was intended, Kin can give exercises/stretches that can be done inspect of a neck cracking.

I didn't take it as an attack, hell I haven't worked as a Kin in this millennia.

You might have seen it as an attack, but I don't believe it wasn't.

[Locke]

I always chuckle at that scene from 'The Dark Knight Rises' when Bruce goes to the Doctor about his knee.

I've had the same experience with my ankles.

"What have you done to these??"

How much time do you have?

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Dude it reads as it was intended, Kin can give exercises/stretches that can be done inspect of a neck cracking.

I didn't take it as an attack, hell I haven't worked as a Kin in this millennia.

You might have seen it as an attack, but I don't believe it wasn't.

So you do think it was an attack then?


j/k double negative. All good.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Oh dear, unintentionally derailed this thread into a debate about chiropractic credibility.

I always found those adjustment videos freaky (they're used as asmr now which is..disturbing). Are human spines even supposed to be cracked like that?

I genuinely have no insight into that domain.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Fuzz: "My kinesiologist gave me some neck exercises. They are actually trained for this stuff."

I read it how it was written I think. At this point it does not matter. If I misread that I apologize.

And I also apologize if it came off as an attack of Kin in general. That was not the intent. I understand you are not going around cracking backs so i don't think my comments apply to you but if they do, well I guess I stand by my comments. Anyways, if the former, no offence intended.

Well, that mostly went better than I feared. I will slink back to under the rocks now. I appreciate letting me vent. See you in 3-4 years or so.

I also did not read that sentence the way you read it.

Does your wife use "Dr."?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I also did not read that sentence the way you read it.

Does your wife use "Dr."?

She can!

I have a Doctorship in Forestry from the State Community College of South-Eastern American Samoa! Go Land Crabs!

That is Dr. Locke thank you very much!

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Oh dear, unintentionally derailed this thread into a debate about chiropractic credibility.

I always found those adjustment videos freaky (they're used as asmr now which is..disturbing). Are human spines even supposed to be cracked like that?

I genuinely have no insight into that domain.

I mean, it's perhaps like cracking your knuckles, but bigger. Things like foam rollers or aggressive hoop rollers can also make a popping release sound when you roll as well. TBH, I've been releasing my own back and certain joints on my own since I was in high school. Before using hoop rollers, when I was younger, I'd occasionally hear those popping noises "naturally" in either the chest or back/spine if I were to lay down flat on a wood floor. Now, I don't because the body is far more tense and needs a lot more to release on occasion.

My buddy said that it always weirded him out and even now as a chiro, he's met less than a handful of people that could do it on their own. I just go to him now because I can't adjust certain positions on my own starting a few years ago and I required someone else to release it for me.

He's warned me to always test out and try to check out the maximum range of motion before doing those self adjustments, but admits that I have a very good BQ and trusts I know what to avoid not to eff myself up with the self adjustments. The ones I typically leave to him and do not try and force the release myself are knees, ankles, upper back and neck.

But yes, I find it weird and disturbing that a lot of the content is considered soothing to some in the same way some people love the sound of bubble wrap being popped. That's just reckless. There's only around 2-3 guys that I've watched quite a few videos for that I honestly believe they are true masters of their craft and they are more focused on science and ensuring QOL for their clients. Then there's quite a few who might be science focused, but I wouldn't trust their knowledge, skills and expertise at all.

Like, if you can see them feeling up a muscle group and in thought as they analyze and decide the next step, that's usually pretty solid. Good masseuses do this as well to judge the best approach before going all in on wrestling with a tense muscle. Bad ones just go through the motions without evaluating the level of strength to use. The chiros that just announce what they're going to do next with seemingly little analysis of the body prior to doing it and positioning the clip on mic... holy ####, stay away from those types of dudes in real life. I grimace when I see videos from chiros like that.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Locke

She can!

I have a Doctorship in Forestry from the State Community College of South-Eastern American Samoa! Go Land Crabs!

That is Dr. Locke thank you very much!

I'd be all for it for you guys...Doctors of Taxicology . Two certainties in life...doctors help prevent/mitigate one of them, you guys do the other!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Agreed on your points. Although Fuzz, implied a kinesiologist is trained in spinal manipulation and chiros are not. Agreed on the HPA recognition, again that was more a rebuttal of kinesiology as a health care profession than a (what's it called, appeal to authority or something?). Also, your link to Quackwatch is not particularly compelling. One dude with a vendetta does not a scientific abstract make. Having said that, there are definitely different schools of thought in chiro. My wife, and CMCC in general, are 'mixers' which means they follow a 'scientific' approach to the practice, as opposed to 'straights'. Mixers, in short, believe that pressure on a nerve is a bad thing and if a muscle can be released, which will take pressure off the bone pressing on a nerve, then that will be a good thing. (Think garden hose with something crimping it, move the thing crimping it and water flows better) I am not doing the argument justice but it is certainly much different than releasing the hobgoblins that live in your spine. There is a spectrum of the profession that did and do believe in the more mystical solutions. Maybe it was ignorance of anatomy or not understanding the bio mechanics of it, but they are also largely the fringes of the profession. I may be wrong here but I am not sure if they are even allowed to use the term subluxation anymore.

I would suggest that a more nuanced review of the topic would be in order before calling an entire profession into question, or even quackery. I know there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies about the bio-mechanics, efficacy etc. of chiro. Much like there are for a lot of different interventions. Some say it helps, some say not so much.

The only reason I am going into detail with you is the respectful way you approached the conversation, and I am grateful for that. I asked my wife why this does not bother her. She says because she gets the daily interaction from her 10-25 patients a day that come to her because they are in pain and that leave with the pain either substantially reduced or a plan to get it reduced.

I sit at a desk all day reading rabble rousers.

I'm happy you acknowledge it, and DoubleF did a good job of bringing up the problem when he said "As someone who also has defended chiropractors, you have to have a bit thicker skin and address the fact there's more than one school of thinking. My buddy took that head on and said that there's schools of thinking in chiro that are stupid and dangerous and not scientifically backed, but he is not of that school of thinking." That's the big problem with chiropractic; you have people taking some of the more benign aspects and then mixing scientifically-backed practice into it (mixers) and then you have people who might as well be biological flat-earthers with some of the absurd sh-t they propose doing. Chiropractic's inability (or lack of desire) to remove these wacky practices from its umbrella are why it gets the reputation it does.

As for "[...] your link to Quackwatch is not particularly compelling. One dude with a vendetta does not a scientific abstract make", I never said I was linking to a study. I said I was linking to the 'general concerns people have with chiropractic practice', simply a summation of those concerns written by someone who had more experience and knowledge on the subject than either you or I do, because as I said before: we've had this conversation previously, so no need to go through it again.

I save my delving into scientific papers and trials these days for subjects of more interest to me, or when people start bringing up the work of that insufferable twat Michael Pollan and need to be smacked around a bit.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'd be all for it for you guys...Doctors of Taxicology . Two certainties in life...doctors help prevent/mitigate one of them, you guys do the other!

They also issue top-notch degrees.