Muscle-Testing for "Allergies" and "Deficiencies"
Muscle-Testing for "Allergies" and "Deficiencies"
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Throughout North America, practitioners are testing the strength of people's arms (or legs) and telling them what's wrong with their body and what vitamins to take. This practice, usually called "applied kinesiology" or "AK," has been promoted since 1964 by a Michigan chiropractor named George J. Goodheart, Jr. Its basic notion is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a specific muscle weakness, which enables diseases to be diagnosed through muscle-testing procedures. Most people doing it are chiropractors, but naturopaths, medical doctors, dentists, bogus nutritionists, physical therapists, massage therapists, nurse practitioners, and multilevel distributors are also involved. Note: Applied kinesiology should be distinguished from kinesiology (biomechanics), which is the legitimate scientific study of movement.
AK proponents claim that nutritional deficiencies, allergies, and other adverse reactions to foods or nutrients can be detected by having the patient chew or suck on them or by placing them on the tongue so that the patient salivates. Some practitioners advise that the test material merely be held in the patient's hand or placed on another part of the body. A few even perform "surrogate testing" in which the arm strength of a parent is tested to determine problems in a child held by the parent.
Finding a "weak" muscle supposedly enables the practitioner to pinpoint illness in the corresponding internal organs in the body. For example, a weak muscle in the chest might indicate a liver problem, and a weak muscle near the groin might indicate "adrenal insufficiency." If a muscle tests "weaker" after a substance is placed in the patient's mouth, it supposedly signifies disease in the organ associated with that muscle. If the muscle tests "stronger," the substance supposedly can remedy problems in the corresponding body parts. Testing is also claimed to indicate which nutrients are deficient. If a weak muscle becomes stronger after a nutrient (or a food high in the nutrient) is chewed, that supposedly indicates "a deficiency normally associated with that muscle." Some practitioners contend that muscle-testing can also help diagnose allergies and other adverse reactions to foods. According to this theory, when a muscle tests "weak," the provocative substance is bad for the patient. AK "treatment" may include special diets, food supplements, acupressure (finger pressure on various parts of the body), and spinal manipulation.
Although AK claims are so far-fetched that testing them might seem a waste of time, competent researchers have subjected the muscle-testing procedures to several well-designed controlled tests. Some have found no difference in muscle response from one substance to another, while others have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos. One study, for example, found that three practitioners testing eleven subjects made significantly different assessments; their diagnoses of nutritional deficiencies did not correspond to the nutrient levels obtain by blood serum analysis; and that the responses to nutrient substances did not significantly differ from responses to placebos. Another study found no effect from administering the nutrients "expected" to strengthen a muscle diagnosed as "weak" by AK practitioners." Other researchers who conducted an elaborate double-blind trial concluded that "muscle response appeared to be a random phenomenon." Yet another study showed that suggestion can influence the outcome of muscle-testing. During part of this experiment, college students were told that chewing M&M candies would give them instant energy that would probably make them test stronger. Five out of nine did so.
AK proponents claim that nutritional deficiencies, allergies, and other adverse reactions to foods or nutrients can be detected by having the patient chew or suck on them or by placing them on the tongue so that the patient salivates. Some practitioners advise that the test material merely be held in the patient's hand or placed on another part of the body. A few even perform "surrogate testing" in which the arm strength of a parent is tested to determine problems in a child held by the parent.
Finding a "weak" muscle supposedly enables the practitioner to pinpoint illness in the corresponding internal organs in the body. For example, a weak muscle in the chest might indicate a liver problem, and a weak muscle near the groin might indicate "adrenal insufficiency." If a muscle tests "weaker" after a substance is placed in the patient's mouth, it supposedly signifies disease in the organ associated with that muscle. If the muscle tests "stronger," the substance supposedly can remedy problems in the corresponding body parts. Testing is also claimed to indicate which nutrients are deficient. If a weak muscle becomes stronger after a nutrient (or a food high in the nutrient) is chewed, that supposedly indicates "a deficiency normally associated with that muscle." Some practitioners contend that muscle-testing can also help diagnose allergies and other adverse reactions to foods. According to this theory, when a muscle tests "weak," the provocative substance is bad for the patient. AK "treatment" may include special diets, food supplements, acupressure (finger pressure on various parts of the body), and spinal manipulation.
Although AK claims are so far-fetched that testing them might seem a waste of time, competent researchers have subjected the muscle-testing procedures to several well-designed controlled tests. Some have found no difference in muscle response from one substance to another, while others have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos. One study, for example, found that three practitioners testing eleven subjects made significantly different assessments; their diagnoses of nutritional deficiencies did not correspond to the nutrient levels obtain by blood serum analysis; and that the responses to nutrient substances did not significantly differ from responses to placebos. Another study found no effect from administering the nutrients "expected" to strengthen a muscle diagnosed as "weak" by AK practitioners." Other researchers who conducted an elaborate double-blind trial concluded that "muscle response appeared to be a random phenomenon." Yet another study showed that suggestion can influence the outcome of muscle-testing. During part of this experiment, college students were told that chewing M&M candies would give them instant energy that would probably make them test stronger. Five out of nine did so.
Some people who undergo AK muscle-testing report that although they resisted as hard as they could, the practitioner was still able to pull down their arm. Differences from one test to another may be due to suggestibility; variations in the amount of force, leverage, or follow-through involved; variation in the direction or timing of the push; and/or muscle fatigue. Distraction can also play a role. (Touching another part of the body just before pulling down the arm may cause the patient to focus less on resisting.) But trickery may also be a factor. A sudden slight upward movement can cause a "set" muscle to relax so that it can be immediately pulled downward. I have found that when this is done quickly, the person being tested is unlikely to detect the upward motion.
My advice about AK muscle-testing is very simple: if you encounter anyone who relies on it for diagnosis, head for the nearest exit.
===
Dr, Barrett, a retired psychiatrist, operates the Quackwatch.org and 22 other consumer-protection Web sites. Foir more about applied kinesiology, see T http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html
Upcoming Events
Thursday, Jul 29 at 5:30 pm
Friday, Aug 27 at 9:00 am
Thursday, Sep 9 at 6:30 pm
Thursday, Sep 16 at 6:30 pm
Featured Products
Everything Pure Mineral AstringentOnline Store:
Product Information Only: CLICK HERE for Product Info
