Except it's not accurate at all. That's not what muscle knots are or how massage works, but it is a good way to describe it to a five year old.
Any explanation about knots being a physical thing in the muscle that can be removed/changed with physical touch is complete BS.
edit: I guess I should try to give my own simple explanation. It's probably not any more simple or clear than OP's explanation, but it is more accurate:
Muscle knots are irritated parts of a muscle. Massage simply makes you feel good and taken care of so everything relaxes more and that often helps the muscle knot feel better.
Any explanation about knots being a physical thing in the muscle that can be removed/changed with physical touch is complete BS.
I feel like we didn't read the same thing. The explanation is very clear that the knot is not a physical thing being removed or changed.
Massage does not work just by helping you relax and that makes you feel better. That certainly does help (although frankly not all techniques or types of massage are relaxing and in fact can be very intense) but that is more the focus of things like Swedish massage, and not deep tissue or myofascial release or trigger point work and so on. If you want to nitpick using the word wonkiness over irritation, yes, I agree that irritation is the better word choice. But simplifying it to massage helps you relax and that helps your muscles relax is not accurate at all and frankly an insult to the profession.
They are saying knots are not like a golfball that needs to be removed but then they go right along and say the "wonkiness" is physical layers being scrunched up that need to be smoothed out and that is what I was responding to. I know a lot of professionals think something like that but it's just not right if you look at modern research on "trigger points", and pain in general.
And yes, that is exactly how massage works, by psychological effects, and that's perfectly okay. But that is why massage wouldn't "work" on an unconscious person or on a numb body part or someone who doesn't like being touched: there is nothing in the tissue that it is working on, just the conscious experience of it that helps most people feel better, taken care of, and relaxed. I'm not disparaging the profession more than saying the common misunderstanding is wrong.
If you can figure out a way to ethically conduct a large scale RCT involving unconscious people who all have muscle knots in identical places that can reliably measured repeatedly pre/post massage, please let us know!
My anecdotal experience and the advice of my doctors does not line up with that take and it makes me curious about the parameters of the research you're referring to, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. I fully admit it's been a hot minute since I've read up on it and if there are new studies I haven't read them. Can you point me to the research you're referencing? This sounds very true for relaxation type massage, but for some other modalities I admit my eyebrow is still raised.
Here's a decent thread with a pretty good write up a few years ago with sources. It comes down to there not being any identifiable physical manifestation that people agree on. Are there painful spots? Of course. Can different practitioners feel them accurately or agree where they are on someone? Can they be accurately identified under a microscope or physiologically? Do the things we see objectively correlate with painful spots in people? The answer to all of those questions is no.
The hard truth is that nobody wants to think their pain or their treatments are mostly psychological in nature for some reason, even though that doesn't invalidate their experience at all, it just goes against their beliefs and that feels bad.
I think your comment deserves to be much higher- but you’re right, the truth makes people feel uncomfortable. I am a DPT manual therapist and after doing this for over a decade, can say that the very act of physical touch and reassurance can result in better outcomes. Summarizing the latest research, it does not seem to matter what TYPE of manual techniques are used, and in some studies, sham treatment resulted in equally improved outcomes.
This all seems to be specific to trigger points (and some research on dry needling, which is not massage) and not massage overall or in general. I don't see the conclusion that massage works only to the extent it makes people feel relaxed and taken care of.
I appreciate the discourse though.
Edit: spelling and finished thought. Mobile sucks.
DPT here, and I consider myself primary a manual therapist- the fact is: Trigger point, TPDN, Acupressure,myofascial release, massage (any type from Swedish to deep tissue), soft tissue mobilization, IASTM (Graston, gua shu etc), cupping, all claim to do something to muscle knots/adhesions (yes, I understand people claim these are different things but they are inconsistently defined), but there are exactly ZERO RCTs or systematic reviews that prove they work in the way they claim to work.
That is also true for most psychiatric medications.
I'm not claiming that there are. I was challenging the other commenter's claim that modern research claims it only works by making people feel cared for and relaxed.
I agree with the other commenter though. My point is that if it seems like the actual treatment method is irrelevant, one can draw the conclusion that the common denominator here is…helping the patient feel relaxed and cared for. Which itself can have physiological implications, rest and recover, etc. But research just does not back up any of the claims for manual therapy or massage.
Except it's not accurate at all. That's not what muscle knots are or how massage works, but it is a good way to describe it to a five year old.
Any explanation about knots being a physical thing in the muscle that can be removed/changed with physical touch is complete BS.
edit: I guess I should try to give my own simple explanation. It's probably not any more simple or clear than OP's explanation, but it is more accurate:
Muscle knots are irritated parts of a muscle. Massage simply makes you feel good and taken care of so everything relaxes more and that often helps the muscle knot feel better.
I feel like we didn't read the same thing. The explanation is very clear that the knot is not a physical thing being removed or changed.
Massage does not work just by helping you relax and that makes you feel better. That certainly does help (although frankly not all techniques or types of massage are relaxing and in fact can be very intense) but that is more the focus of things like Swedish massage, and not deep tissue or myofascial release or trigger point work and so on. If you want to nitpick using the word wonkiness over irritation, yes, I agree that irritation is the better word choice. But simplifying it to massage helps you relax and that helps your muscles relax is not accurate at all and frankly an insult to the profession.
They are saying knots are not like a golfball that needs to be removed but then they go right along and say the "wonkiness" is physical layers being scrunched up that need to be smoothed out and that is what I was responding to. I know a lot of professionals think something like that but it's just not right if you look at modern research on "trigger points", and pain in general.
And yes, that is exactly how massage works, by psychological effects, and that's perfectly okay. But that is why massage wouldn't "work" on an unconscious person or on a numb body part or someone who doesn't like being touched: there is nothing in the tissue that it is working on, just the conscious experience of it that helps most people feel better, taken care of, and relaxed. I'm not disparaging the profession more than saying the common misunderstanding is wrong.
This is a bold thing to claim without a study demonstrating it.
If you can figure out a way to ethically conduct a large scale RCT involving unconscious people who all have muscle knots in identical places that can reliably measured repeatedly pre/post massage, please let us know!
My anecdotal experience and the advice of my doctors does not line up with that take and it makes me curious about the parameters of the research you're referring to, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. I fully admit it's been a hot minute since I've read up on it and if there are new studies I haven't read them. Can you point me to the research you're referencing? This sounds very true for relaxation type massage, but for some other modalities I admit my eyebrow is still raised.
Here's a decent thread with a pretty good write up a few years ago with sources. It comes down to there not being any identifiable physical manifestation that people agree on. Are there painful spots? Of course. Can different practitioners feel them accurately or agree where they are on someone? Can they be accurately identified under a microscope or physiologically? Do the things we see objectively correlate with painful spots in people? The answer to all of those questions is no.
The hard truth is that nobody wants to think their pain or their treatments are mostly psychological in nature for some reason, even though that doesn't invalidate their experience at all, it just goes against their beliefs and that feels bad.
I think your comment deserves to be much higher- but you’re right, the truth makes people feel uncomfortable. I am a DPT manual therapist and after doing this for over a decade, can say that the very act of physical touch and reassurance can result in better outcomes. Summarizing the latest research, it does not seem to matter what TYPE of manual techniques are used, and in some studies, sham treatment resulted in equally improved outcomes.
This all seems to be specific to trigger points (and some research on dry needling, which is not massage) and not massage overall or in general. I don't see the conclusion that massage works only to the extent it makes people feel relaxed and taken care of.
I appreciate the discourse though.
Edit: spelling and finished thought. Mobile sucks.
DPT here, and I consider myself primary a manual therapist- the fact is: Trigger point, TPDN, Acupressure,myofascial release, massage (any type from Swedish to deep tissue), soft tissue mobilization, IASTM (Graston, gua shu etc), cupping, all claim to do something to muscle knots/adhesions (yes, I understand people claim these are different things but they are inconsistently defined), but there are exactly ZERO RCTs or systematic reviews that prove they work in the way they claim to work.
That is also true for most psychiatric medications.
I'm not claiming that there are. I was challenging the other commenter's claim that modern research claims it only works by making people feel cared for and relaxed.
I agree with the other commenter though. My point is that if it seems like the actual treatment method is irrelevant, one can draw the conclusion that the common denominator here is…helping the patient feel relaxed and cared for. Which itself can have physiological implications, rest and recover, etc. But research just does not back up any of the claims for manual therapy or massage.
OK. Appreciate the input.
THANK YOU. My therapist tried explaining this and I just could not get it until now.
Muscle knots aren’t real.
Yep. Literally can’t be detected in any kind of imaging. So much quackery going on in massage world.
Spasms are real, and massage doesn’t help with spasms. Waiting does.