Dear Mel,
I have always thought that the idea of breaking down adhesions or scar
tissue sounds rather crude. As adhesions and scar tissue have a very
similar composition to the other structures between the frictioning fingers
and the lesion, could one hypothesis that if the manual force applied is
breaking down the scar that it would also break down the skin and other
structures.
I am not against their usage as they have their role but for therapists to
describe their action as previously described does them a disservice.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 02 December 1999 19:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CROSS FRICTION PARADOX?
>
> Here is a quick mini-paradox.
>
> Although deep transverse cross frictions certainly can work, the existing
> popular explanation for their effectiveness still seems rather curious.
> Presuming that this method breaks down existing adhesions or scarring by
> retraumatising them, is it not logical that they simply scar or adhere
> again
> to heal the re-damage? Of course, then one repeats the friction and the
> microdamage, and so on, thereby somehow mysteriously facilitating tissue
> regrowth and not scar formation.
>
> Do we hypothesise that this process of cross frictioning then results in
> optimal scarring, scar resorption and contractile tissue regrowth, or
> optimal
> repositioning of muscle fibres, myofibrils or connective tissue? Or is it
>
> that cross friction simply releases some localised muscle spasm and that
> it
> has no effect on some type of tissue repair?
>
> Either something like this or there must be some other explanation for
> this
> form of soft tissue therapy.
>
> Any suggestions or relevant references?
>
> Dr Mel C Siff
> Denver, USA
> [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|