|
Massage in Science
Following
is commentary by Scott Hatch regarding the NY Times article (6/2/10),
"Phys Ed: Does Massage Help After Exercise?" by Gretchen Reynolds,
which reports the findings of a study conducted by Michael Tschakovsky,
associate professor, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's
University, Kingston, Ontario.
A
recent article in the NY Times outlines a study done on massage
performed on a muscle immediately following an exhaustive effort. It
only measured the removal of lactic acid, admitting that this might not
be a significant measure of the efficacy of massage in aiding muscle
recovery.
First, I would NEVER "massage" a muscle that had just been exercised to exhaustion.
I might hold it and rock it, but never would I apply compression that
soon. I have performed body work in tents at the finish lines of
marathons, triathlons and cycling races, but the brief work I do there
is vastly different than the more extensive work I do regularly in my
studio.
I have frequently turned away clients who had too recently exercised
harder than normal. For a sedentary person, this could be a walk
around the lake. For a marathoner, I would vastly prefer to work
with someone who had 24-72 hours of recovery and refueling before
helping recovery with massage.
Second, no one ever suggested that massage replace rest. Although
compression (massage) is one of the top four things a person should do
to speed recovery, it does not come before rest and ice.
Remember: Rest, ice, compression, elevation. 1, 2, 3, 4.
Third, the study was not measuring significant data.
Did they measure improvements in range-of-motion? Did they
measure improvements in the ability to perform the same exercise again?
Did they measure the reduction in chance of injuring the same
muscle in the future?
From the article: "More to the point, “most people think
that one of the main benefits of massage is that it removes lactic
acid,” he says, whether such dispersal is important or not. “We wanted to see if massage fulfills” that promise." - italics added for emphasis.
This suggests it is not important that what is being measured is
significant. The authors of the study are engaged in measuring
the factors that "most people think" are important. Isn't
the point of science to prove what is true independent of what most
people think?
Most of my clients simply say that a massage helps them relax.
And race faster. And stay injury-free. They don't care about
lactic acid.
The study also did not account for the recent research has found that
lactic acid is not muscle waste, but appears in high concentrations
when a muscle is in need of fuel. Scientists do not know if
lactic acid itself is a fuel (some believe it is). Recent studies
also suggest that it is not the lactic acid itself that causes muscle
soreness. The article raises, but readily dismisses this point.
Another huge flaw in the study
is that (everyone knows) an experiment should only have one
variable. Don't even get me started on the variables in technique
a massage therapist might use. Or the variables (between
different bodies/between the same bodies on different days) in the
ability of a body to remove lactic acid. If they were testing the
elite wave of a marathon after exactly the same training program, after
all of them had rested two weeks, there would still be a huge variation
in speeds of lactic acid removal.
And what about the size of the study?
The study used "12 healthy young men." And this was
published in the Times?! Can you imagine a study on aspirin
performed on "12 healthy young men?"
Without further ado, here is the article in question:
Does massage help after exercise?
[ NY Times.com artice ]
Valid studies and publications suggest massage is effective in treating athletes for improvement and injury reduction.
Read some:
Journal of Massage Science
Lance Armstrong gets a LOT of massages.
Olympic Swimmers: In the pool, on the massage table
"Dara Torres books a massage three times a week."
|
