Chiropractic treatment

[I Love Lamp]

I'm fortunate enough to have personal health cover through my employment. It's not an insurance scheme, as it provides me with 'allowances' for each of the services. It covers Dental and Optical treatment(s), additional to Physiotherapy & Chiropractic treatments.

I'm likely to inherit the 'bad back gene' which my fathers side of the family have, and my posture isn't exactly perfect (something I'm working on).

What are peoples thoughts on Chiropractic treatment? I'm tempted to visit for a general check-over, as I tend to have poor posture at work which leads to back-ache when lifting weights (even with the correct posture).

I hear mixed opinions, some say it can do more damage than good, doctors rarely recommend it.

P.S. The backache I suffer is more a muscular ache, usually after doing somethign strenuous. It's not a constant pain by any means. I wouldn't need a doctors note to visit a Chiropractic for a general check over.

[LightningMcSteve]

Read the following link and see what you think. Personally I'd avoid them and go to a Physiotherapist.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

[E21_Ross]

LightningMcSteve said:

Read the following link and see what you think. Personally I'd avoid them and go to a Physiotherapist.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

what a load of crap. first thing i read was "not science based"

there is shed loads if research out there. if it's so rubbish, why is it included in countless clinical guidelines, including those set by the national institute of clinical excellence?

the next bit about how chiropractors all believe subluxations are what causes pain etc etc is a load of st. it then goes on to say manipulations are what chiros think are needed for good health. errrr....no. this totally depends on the situation. and, contrary to belief, manipulations aren't just good for joint mobility (albeit, short term usually) it reduces pain, calms spastic musculature etc. read the electromyography ersearch carried out by walter herzog. i can give you the name of the paper if you like to read it? maybe if i point you in the direction of a paper reviewing nearly 50 randomized controlled trials, 16 clinical guidelines, and nearly 50 systematic reviews seeing the effectiveness of various manual treatment methods for various conditions, and seeing how chiro treatment stacks up. you'd be amazed, it did quite well.

again, why do sham/fake manipulation treatments never have the same results as proper treatment? chiropractic care doesn't consist of just manipulation (in fact, i'm getting chiro treatment for ITB friction syndrome, guess what...no manipulations involved! amazing huh?

OP - if you have a bad back, then by all means go along. if not, but you're worried about poor posture or worried you may get low back pain, go along and ask for some core & spinal stability control exercises and . if you don't fancy, i can rustle some up for you, but they really require clinical supervision to ensure you're doing them correctly.

Edited by E21_Ross on Wednesday 23 February 19:51

Edited by E21_Ross on Wednesday 23 February 19:57

[GWC]

I wasted a lot of money on Chiropractors many years ago, absolute waste of time in my experience. I now have my back 'tweaked' when necessary by a sports physiotherapist, just wish I'd done it back then.

[Driller]

LightningMcSteve said:

Read the following link and see what you think. Personally I'd avoid them and go to a Physiotherapist.

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

Wot he said ^^

[LightningMcSteve]

E21_Ross said:

there is shed loads if research out there. if it's so rubbish, why is it included in countless clinical guidelines, including those set by the national institute of clinical excellence?

Currently, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends spinal manipulation (as practised by chiropractors) as a treatment option for ONE condition: persistent lower back pain.

Here is a link to the 2009 Full guidline for Low Back Pain

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11887/44334/...

In this one case of lower back pain, there is evidence you will get results. However one case study from the link above says this

7.3.3.3 One well conducted RCT compared the effectiveness of the McKenzie method of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation and the provision of an educational booklet. After a 2-year follow-up, patients who had received chiropractic manipulation had only slightly better function and symptoms than patients who received an educational booklet.

E21_Ross said:

what a load of crap. first thing i read was "not science based"

Traditional Chiropractic is most definitely not science based.

Take a look at this link from the NHS website.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/chiropractic/Pages/In...

Here's a snippet

"Chiropractic is a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM). This means that chiropractic is different in important ways from treatments that are part of conventional western medicine. The use and principles of chiropractic are not always based on scientific evidence.

Chiropractic was founded in the US in 1895 by a Canadian grocer and magnetic healer called Daniel David Palmer, who had no conventional medical training.

Palmer argued that most human disease is caused by misalignments of the spine that apply pressure on surrounding nerves. He called these misalignments 'subluxations' (a term also used in conventional medicine, where it has a different meaning) and believed that they blocked the flow of a natural energy, or 'life force', through the body. Correcting these subluxations, he argued, could restore the proper flow of energy, and so restore health. Thus, he saw chiropractic spinal manipulation as a treatment for virtually all human conditions.

Palmer's ideas do not always form the basis on which chiropractic is practised today, but this varies widely between individual chiropractors. The GCC say that the idea that subluxations are responsible for illness 'is not supported by any clinical research evidence', and that this idea should be taught as a historical concept and not a current theoretical model.

There is good evidence that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for persistent lower back pain. Conventional treatments for lower back pain include painkillers, exercise and physiotherapy.

There is no good evidence that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for any other health condition. This means that the evidence on spinal manipulation is not strong enough in these cases to form the basis of a recommendation to use the treatment.

There is also no scientific evidence to support the idea that most illness is caused by misalignment of the spine."



To sum up, there is evidence it works for lower back pain only. There is no evdience it works for anything else (such as colic, irritable bowel, asthma etc)


Again, just see a Physiotherapist.

[E21_Ross]

agree, Palmer was a fking muppet, but chiro has come on a long way since then (for the most part). and i can assure you that you are certainly not taught about how spinal manipulation can treat colic etc. the subluxation theory is, quite literally, laughed upon.

for musculoskeletal conditions, anything a physio can do, a chiro is taught to do also. there are too many "old school" chiropractors out there, modern teaching of it, particularly in europe, is evidence based, and so (hopefully) these old "crack the back and you're done" chiropractors will get ousted just as they deserve.

we had an MD teach us neuroanatomy last year and they were amazed at the level we need to know, and we've now got a medical consultant radiologist taking radiology. He's also amazed at the level at which imaging is taught to and, i quote, "should teach this to the med students". it was quite patronising him asking us to point out the hilum of the lung on a chest film

edit - i think the problem lies that the majority of the public think that chiropractors just treat the back. if you have something totally different like, plantar fasciitis for instance, people would never associate treatment for that with chiropractic. However, physio and chiro treatment for that would be exactly the same; as applied to most other musculoskeletal conditions.

i might add, plantart fasciitis is certainly not caused by these mysterious subluxations to me, and the rest of the health care world, a subluxation is a partial dislocation of a joint.

Edited by E21_Ross on Thursday 24th February 18:23

[Mojooo]

I saw chiro a few years back for pain in my shoulder blades. It was effectivley caused by slouching at my desk.

Sessions were only around 15-20 minutes but costs something like £35. He did a couple of moves/clicks on me each time.

Initally when I was in a lot of pain it offered instant relieft, the joints were really tight. And to be fair he did get my stretching and told me the problem would never go away.

I have since seen 2 physios for knee problems - they have offered exactly the same advice. One of the physios also does the same types of clicking things the chiro did.


So IME it might not heal you but it could offer pain relief. But we wary of those that go in too hardcore and end up causing damage.

[Pickled Piper]

I would recommend a visit for a once over and see how you get on. I have no long standing back problems but have visited a Chiro for an Achilles tendon injury, shoulder injury and back pain with good results. I'm, sure a Physio or Osteopath could have achieved similar results.

pp