Talk:Rolfing

Not proven?

When Ida Rolf was alive I was in an accident. I was treated by someone she trained. It gave me back the ability to move freely. More recently I was in another accident and getting the deep massage again has reduced pain and allowed me stand strait and move normally again. I was told that Ida Rolf developed her method to help a pianist friend after an accident. One should not confuse the "spiritual" aspects of Rolfing with the deep massage. Saltysailor (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Except you can't know that you might have recovered (maybe recovered faster) without the intervention, or that it was just manipulation rather than any Rolfing-specific aspect which helped. This is why evidence-based medicine exists, and it is the basis of what Wikipedia will say about medical interventions. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ideological basis

This article currently makes a misstatement based on citations that do not support the statement. It says: It is based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body's "energy field" can benefit when aligned with the Earth's gravitational field. This is not true and is not claimed/substantiated by the cited sources. The first citation is a quote from Ida Rolf where she never uses the word "energy." The second is from the website skepdic.com, which makes a claim about Rolfing and "personal energy" by quoting Rolf as saying "Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field" and then she goes on to say: "and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field." This is no way says that all of Rolfing is based on aligning human energy fields. And this claim is misleading to put in the intro article of the text.

I replaced this misstatement with information that would be useful in the intro text, about the foundations of Rolfing. My new sentence was: "It is based on Rolf's ideas about returning the body to its optimum structure through realignment of fascia." This is a true and helpful statement that is backed up by two citations. The first is from The Guardian (a mainstream media publication) and the second is from the Ida Rolf Institute, which seems like a valid source on what Ida Rolf thought.

My edits were reverted. I and another editor attempted to restore them but were reverted (three times) by one user who gave brief dismissals in response to our well-reasoned explanations. I intend to restore my version again (or invite another to do so); but first will to see if anyone still disagrees, and why. Epastore (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf's actual words are quoted (emphasis mine):

Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field, and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field. This is our primary concept.

So it would seem your complaint is unfounded. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted those exact words in my own post, above. My objections are centered around how this quote is misused.

First, she does not claim that Rolfing is based on aligning energy fields. She says that the work they do can "reinforce" the body's energy field. This does not say that Rolfing is all about this process. It is a potential result of Rolfing.

Second, the cited source is a web page made by one person who makes a hobby of criticizing things he thinks are not scientific. This does not make his interpretation of Rolf's words valid. My sources are a mainstream media publication and an institute that has direct knowledge of the subject.

I do not see any justification for keeping the current misstatement in the intro, where it seems part of a concerted campaign to associate Rolfing with derogatory concepts. It would be much more rational and encyclopedic to simply state what Rolfing is, which my proposed edit does. Epastore (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ida said it's the "primary concept". So it's not a "misstatement". Wikipedia must do justice to the full radiance of Ida Rolf's vision as it was articulated, not try to water it down. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see you added those words in. They are not quoted in the article, so however you or I would interpret it would be original research, I suppose, right? In that case, I am stating that the quoted article does not substantiate its claim. Though my own interpretation would be that her word "this" has to do with aligning the body to gravity; not to vitalism (which is stated through implication by including a link to vitalism in this section).

I still do not see how this person's webpage is a good resource for describing what Rolfing is. I provided much more credible links and a much more un-biased explanation of the basis of the school of thought. I do not see a reason why the current text is more acceptable. Epastore (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you blathering on about "not quoted in the article" ? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not blathering; please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Some of the words he cites are in the article. But the article never quotes Ida Rolf as saying "This is our primary concept." Where is it cited? Epastore (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, then read the article again..... I will then accept your apology. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha, it's funny how arguments can come up through misunderstandings of nuance. I am referring to the cited article, not to the Wikipedia article. You are referencing a different part of the Wikipedia article; whereas I am referencing the cited article, which is used to substantiate in incorrect claim in the intro; as per my original post above. What does "This" mean in Dr. Rolf's sentence? There's that nuance thing again.Epastore (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cant see an apology. Carry on blathering. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not immediately recognize that the original replier and you were both referring to another thing with the word "article."

Now can anyone explain why the article should continue to contain the current misstatement; as I questioned above? I see no rationale for making the article associate Rolfing with vitalism; when that clearly is not what it is about and no credible sources say so. -Epastore (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Epastore that these sources don't hold water as proof that her ideas were vitalistic. She was writing and teaching in the 60's and 70's, and she was using the lingo of the day in some cases. But it's clear that what she was referring to was her concept of "alignment with gravity" - based partly on her study of yoga. Her writings and teachings - and the current field of SI - don't put much emphasis on "energy" but they do extensively address the concepts of gravity and alignment. For instance, how the arches of the foot function as shock absorption. These ideas are unproven but not woo-woo. Some editors here have made extreme efforts to try to make this practice sound more esoteric than it is. Or to discredit it by any other means. It's not good encyclopedic writing; the public entrusts us to accurately convey the topic.--Karinpower (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Carroll's Skepdic source

Among the sources that criticize Rolfing, I find this author has a sense of humor and also conveys some complexities of the topic, which is a pleasant contrast to some of the other anti-Rolfing sources cited that don't seem to have educated themselves on the topic at all. He does, unfortunately, include a number of factual errors. One of these errors is that he offhandly writes that it's a type of energy medicine. This seems to be a common belief among the anti-alternative-medicine crowd, where they all seem to reference each other in an ongoing echo chamber which claims to be sciency.

In fact, the credible sources that describe Rolfing in detail focus on practical aspects such as alignment in gravity and improvements in muscular balance during movement. Carroll himself spends more time on this than on "energy" and with quite a bit more factual support. He opens with quoting: "Rolfing's foundation is simple: Most humans are significantly out of alignment with gravity, although we function better when we are lined up with the gravitation field." His next two sentences are also okay (except one error: myofascial massage is a spin-off of Rolfing, not vice versa): "Rolfing® seems to be a kind of myofascial massage, but Rolfers prefer to call it "movement education." Whatever you call it, Rolfing involves touching the skin, feeling around for "imbalances" in tissue texture, and separating "fascial layers that adhere and muscles that have been pulled out of position by strain or injury."

Carroll later points to a good question.... we don't have evidence that alignment in gravity is beneficial. But we do have plenty of support for that being Dr. Rolf's "primary concept" (not the energy field thing).

While he doesn't explain how Rolfing is "energy medicine" he does spend some time questioning the emotional changes that some people report. In the past decade, the relationship between mind and body has moved from the sidelines to become a commonly acknowledged concept. Googling "mind-body connection" pulls up websites from major universities ex https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/mente, and other mainstream sources such as Johns Hopkins and Kiaser Permanente - and these are the top search results. These sites say that movement and mindfulness are important for both physical and emotional health. Improving movement and mindfulness are goals of Rolfing. Obviously this doesn't prove whether Rolfing is a helpful tool but it shows that such goals are not fringe or woo-woo. --Karinpower (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, Rolf wrote about energy so it would seem Carroll was right in identifying this aspect (it's an aspect of Rolfing, not the totality of it). It's something we should cover, then, for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is a big and important part of what Rolf wrote and taught, then yes, it should be somewhere in the article with proper context. However it isn't; and it certainly does not belong in the intro with a link to energy (esotericism). Albert Einstein wrote "Creation may be spiritual in origin," so should the article on him have a link to creationism in the intro text? -2001:470:FD:3:0:0:0:40 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely mirrors independent secondary sources. The energy Rolf invokes is esoteric (or do you want to name the type of energy it is and the units it is quantified in?) A bit of trivial googling[1] shows Rolfing is being sold with energy field in the pitch, which confirms Carroll was astute in highlighting this aspect. I wonder what an "electronic auric field" is though ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you reference is a university study from the 70s that appears to take a very non-esoteric approach to energy. It says: "There were measurements before and after Rolfing of anxiety states, brain hemisphere activity, energy field photography, DC recordings of energy flow in electrical voltage readings, EMG recordings from sixteen separate muscles, electromyograms of neuromuscular patterning of energy, and electronic auric field study." How does that in any way confirm that Ida Rolf based Rolfing on esoteric concepts of energy?

(And I don't know what an "auric field" is ether; but scientific instruments were used to measure such things in the 70s. Look at page 3 of the actual study, which says: "Electronic frequency data, EMG, EEG, and auric field were intercepted by a four-channel telemetry system produced by Biosentry , IRIG channels 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 using bipolar surface electrodes and recorded on a Nagra IV tape recorder.") You don't need to mock things you don't know about. Have an open mind... like a scientist. -Epastore (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like pseudoscience, reminiscent of E-meters. The point is "energy" is part and parcel of the Rolfing schtick and the energy field that is meant to align with gravity is not something in science, per any reliable source. If decent sources say it's energy medicine, Wikipedia has to follow. (BTW, there appears to be an entire book about Rolf and energy medicine. Fringe as heck so not usable on Wikipedia, but perhaps somebody could read it to see what the claims are? I note in the preface it says the "subtle life force energy" in Rolfing is the same as qi.) Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So in the 70s, some scientists (yes, they are real PhD's at real universities) decided to do a study on Rolfing and energy — and this somehow proves that the Rolfing "schtick" is all about energy? At the very best, this is a conclusion you make based on original research. Look at the facts. When mainstream secondary sources talk about Rolfing, they do not say it is primarily about energy manipulation. Here are the first things I find from credible secondary sources: Healthline, The Guardian, Dictionary.com, Tahoe Daily Tribune. There is no mention of energy work in any of those. It would be very misleading for Wikipedia to continue to show this misinformation in the intro text. -Epastore (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Carroll is an excellent source for altmed/quackery, so most apt for this topic. Reading a bit more of Structural Integration and Energy Medicine: A Handbook I see it describes how gravity alignment is meant to open up channels which let the energy flow, thereby activativing "the body's own healing process". This is textbook vitalism. So Carroll seems to be on-point, as we should expect from someone of his expertise. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2021

This book actually differentiates between Rolf's ideas vs. the author's own vitalistic ideas. Check out the section called "Rolf's Recipe." The table of contents has a clickable link for it. This section has zero reference to energy, it just describes the Series. Then, in the next section, "The Energetics of the Body," the author explains Rolf's structural ideas vs. the author's energetic ideas about channels (which is not part of the teaching of Rolfing). This source actually supports the point that Epastore was making.

As to that study from the 1970's.... the efforts to make scientific readings of stuff people might call "energy" could be seem as an attempt to find scientific grounding for something that wasn't understood. Electricity, gravity, atomic physics, all of that was once mysterious. Science takes a lot of fruitless paths in the process of eventually making meaningful discoveries. "Energy field photography" (whatever that is) has faded away but various types of measurements using electrodes on the muscles and on the skull to read brain function have turned out to be useful. Regardless, the modern field of Rolfing doesn't use any of this, and neither did Dr. Rolf.

I think Epastor is on the right track with taking a survey of what sources are saying about Rolfing. Let's look at all the sources that offer at least one full page of description (the ones that are just one sentence or one paragraph don't seem to have bothered to educate themselves on the topic). We can stack them up and make a decision based on that. --Karinpower (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's backwards. The more terse a source is, assuming it's reputable, the more it is likely to focus on the core elements. The Cordón source also references the vitalistic/enery aspect of Rolfing. I think what we have is fine. It's always possible to ask at WP:FT/N for more editors with experience handling this kind of topic. We wouldn't want to whitewash away aspects of Rolfing that might appear too whacky, and that would give as a NPOV problem. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then use terse sources. Apart from the opinion of this one guy who makes a hobby of bashing anything he doesn't have a double-blind study to prove (nb: lack of proof ≠ disproof); every credible, mainstream, terse description of Rolfing does not talk about energy work or vitalism. See my links above. The only mainstream publication that is out of line with this is Wikipedia.

And I completely disagree with the term "whitewashing." I fully understand that many forms of alternative medicine are quackery. And I fully understand that some Rolfers engage in dubious pursuits (as do some MDs). But blindly labeling Rolfing as quackery just because it does not accept the same assumptions as does allopathic medicine is irrational. Rolfing is not about vitalism; and the vast majority of evidence amply demonstrates that fact. What I see here is not whitewashing, but mudslinging. The Wikipedia page on Rolfing is currently heavily biased; fitting in references and links to every easily-lambasted thought-system possible. It's time to get rid of the heavy bias in this article and restore some sense of encyclopedic fact-presentation. -Epastore (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

All we can do is follow sources. It seems IPR said energy was a central concept, independent sources say it is, and (some) Rolfers even do too. We used to have more on this which has gone AWOL for some reason. Anyway in medicine lack of proof kind of does equate to disproof, since the essential basis of evidence-based medicine is disproof of the null hypothesis - i.e. something is assumed not to work until shown otherwise. Selling stuff which isn't evidenced is, by definition, quackery ... which is no doubt why sources invoke that concept. As I say, for wider consensus, post at WP:FT/N (where Rolfing has already been much discussed over the years). Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. I see 311 possible definitions for the acronym IPR; what are you referring to; and what's the citation? These are my sources:

-Healthline

-The Guardian

-Dictionary.com

-Tahoe Daily Tribune

-Dr. Ida Rolf Institute (which, while a primary source, is undeniably an expert source on what Dr. Ida Rolf thought).

None of them talk about Rolfing as energy work. What are your citations; and how are they more valid? -Epastore (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IPR = Ida P Rolf. Those source you give are all quite weak for health content/pseudoscience, compared to what we already have. The rolfers Institute is obviously not usable per WP:FRIND; Wikipedia isn't here to amplify pseudoscience, but to reflect expert mainstream commentary on it.. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRIND applies to describing a "pseudoscience" correctly, but not to defining it. "Rolfing" is a registered service mark of the Dr. Ida Rolf Institute. That institute certainly has the ability to define what Rolfing is, as per both WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BIASED. And none of my other citations are decidedly bad by any definition: they are mainstream sources with editorial review. I don't see what citations you are saying they should be compared to, specifically about this topic. Except for that one guy's website; which is somehow the best source available? -Epastore (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VALID: pseudoscience is not described other than through a mainstream lens. Carroll is not "some guy with a website" and you haven't engaged with the Cordón source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cordón is a source that does dedicate a full page to the topic. At least it's not just one paragraph, or just one sentence, or even less, as some of the "critical" sources that have been cited in the past. Sources that are critical of alternative medicine in general are much more likely to play up this "energy" notion than sources that are neutral or favorable toward Rolfing... this seems to be a falsehood which has gotten echoed between those sources, without solid evidence. We do have reliable and unbiased sources on the topic. For your convenience I've gone to the effort to type some quotations from the texts and I stick faithfully to the author's intent. I'll start this in a new Section so discussion can continue on in this thread. --Karinpower (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

An argument that sources have all got it wrong and we should listen to Wikipedia editors instead, is beginning to take us into WP:DE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have to speculate, we can just look at the preponderance of what the quality sources are saying to get the picture.--Karinpower (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I'm writing to ask Alexbrn if he could please post the text of the new Ernst source which appears on pages 192-193. These pages aren't publicly available. Thank you.--Petrichori (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation. The text is available from Springer, or from a library or ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Quotes have been provided from multiple other sources. Is this one different? --Petrichori (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is publicly available. When properly cited, brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. But extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. This is basic copyright policy which WMF mandate, and is non-negotiable since it is a matter of law. I have a paper copy of the book, so if you have some specific query I can reply. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you're wanting to lead with this source on two sections and claim it is cutting edge, could you paraphrase what the two pages say and what the citations are?Greenriverglass (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase: Rolfing is a load of old bollocks; thumbs down in every respect, expect maybe expense. Ernst cites the Rolfing "Guild", IPR herself, etc. As the world's foremost authority on altmed, his view is certainly valuable, and this is an up-to-date source. It seems modern science had no time for this quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that paraphrase. I'm now reading the Ernst source. Interesting to read the list of claims made.

I'm ambivalent about the energy argument but it does seem that the article currently lacks enough detail about *what this method is actually trying to do* - the definition and the claims made make sense to go in the opening paragraph. When reading the claims-made that Ernst lists, I went hunting for a comment previously made, suggesting a list of claims including sources. I found it in the section below this one. This is the suggestion that was made:

"Rolfing aims to align the human body in relation to gravity[Jones][8]. This is based on a belief that such alignment can result in improved healing[4], movement [Jones], comfort [7], and even emotional changes [Jones][5]. Ida Rolf also discussed her work in terms of energy.[5][13]

(4 and 13 are Ida Rolf sources, 5 is Carroll, 7 is American Cancer Society, 8 is Australian, and Jones doesn't have a current citation.)"

Ernst says "Proponents claim that Rolfing can bring relief from chronic back, neck, shoulder and joint pain, improve breathing, increase energy, improve self-confidence, and relieve physical and mental stress."

Ernst's list is slightly different than the claims in the proposed edit but there is some overlap. Comfort = less pain so this could be cited for that, or the wording could be changed to pain relief (comfort sounds like marketing talk to me). Emotional changes, well self-confidence would be an example of emotional changes while the other sources cited aren't so specific. Do other sources mention a claim of improved breathing? Or stress relief? Also Ernst does include the claim of "realign and balance the body's myofascial structures." That's the definition of it that he gives. If Ernst includes these claims, we should report it as such, with appropriate language to show it's just a claim, not proven.--Petrichori (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The book has 150 different altmed modalities? I guess someone could be an expert in general altmed issues, but surely not an expert in 150 modalities. Does Ernst give any references besides Ida Rolf and the Rolfing Guild? Does he have any reputation in bodywork/myofascia, or does he show any reputable citations? If he summarizes the claims in a neutral way that might be part of a summary, but claims about measurable results should have good sourcing throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenriverglass (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Responding to Petrichori's question about what claims are mentioned in other sources, Physical Therapist Houglum and the Gale Medical Encyclopedia do mention claims of improved breathing. As to stress, the American Cancer Society's paper says that while bodywork doesn't *treat* cancer, "it may be used to enhance quality of life" and that there are individual reports of it being used along with medical care for symptom reduction and stress reduction. So yes, breathing and stress could be included in the list of claims made for this method.--Karinpower (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This has simmered for several weeks with no objections so I have made the edit, resting heavily on Ernest, Carroll, American Cancer Society, and Jones' review study. I also made a minor reorganization of the content in the lede to put the sentences in an order that mirrors the article: Basis/Claims, then Description, then Criticism. This required only moving one sentence, plus adding in a line break, hopefully this is not controversial and it really improves the readability. --Karinpower (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

PS. I concede Petrichori's comment that "comfort" sounds like marketing jargon and actually saying pain relief is more accurate to the sources. So that's the language I used. --Karinpower (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dreadful change, packing the lede's opening with weirdly expressed uncritical woo. Reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Filling the lead even more with cites and a listing of what rolfing hasn't been shown to do seems rather silly. Better before. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

To get an overview of the evidence for a modality, you do not need detailed knowledge of it. Instead, you need expertise regarding study design and execution. Ernst has that. Alternative medicine practitioners don't. As soon as they learn it, they have to decide whether to stop practicing something that does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ernst makes a point of describing what the claims are. So does American Cancer Society. These are an important aspect of the description of the method.... otherwise how are readers supposed to guess what it is even claiming to do? Let's discuss wording for how to represent what these highly credible sources are telling us. --Karinpower (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is meant to be a summary. Something like "Practitioners falsely claim that Rolfing has medical benefit for a wide variety of conditions" ? In the lede. The "falsely" is crucial. In the body I'd not object to two or three of the false claims being given as an example, preferably something different from the alignment stuff already mentioned at length, to give readers an idea of the breadth of the fraud. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the language needs to be more carefully phrased to make it clear that the claims are unproven. (The studies haven't shown that the claims are false or fraudulent; the studies are simply inadequate.) There are really two issues here:

1) The article lacks a clear definition, including what the heck this method is supposed to do. Ernst says Rolfers use manipulation of the soft tissue "allegedly to realign and balance the body's myofascial structures." That's his definition and it fits with other sources; shall we quote that?

2) Some sort of summary of the claims made is needed. Let's omit the "improved healing" as that only has one reference and it's from Rolf herself; also it's vague and is covered "pain relief" etc. The other claims are mentioned briefly enough that it's perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedic summary... especially since good sources like Ernst and Carroll bother to include them in their brief 1-2 page summaries. Adding in the word "unproven" makes the wording a bit clunky, any suggestions?

Rolfing makes unproven claims that such alignment can result in improved movement (ref name=Jones/>, breathing(ref name=ee150/>(ref name="Houglum"/>(ref name="Gale Mental"/>, pain reduction(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=acs/>, stress reduction(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=acs/>, and even emotional changes(ref name=ee150/>(ref name=carroll/>(ref name=Jones/).--Petrichori (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Any further suggestions on how to make a summary of the claims, that reflects the sources?--Petrichori (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the revised edit with those changes. Since there's been no further discussion in the past 3 weeks I'm going to move ahead. I agree that adding "unproven" to that line makes it perfectly clear (even though we state this over and over elsewhere in the article). Yeah it does make the sentence more clunky but I don't have a better suggestion for the wording.--Petrichori (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Quality sources that describe Rolfing as a physical method, not dealing with "esoteric energy"

1)Tracey Jones (MD at U of California) is cited for a review study in which she quotes Rolf on gravity but spends several pages elaborating on the alignment aspects of the quote while not writing at all about "energy."

2) The Australia review study states on page 125, Rolfing is "a system of hands-on manipulation and movement education that claims to organise the body in gravity. Rolfing is used in the management of a range of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal health problems." There is no mention of energy.

3) American Cancer Society's guide to alternative health which is cited in this article says that Rolfing is "deep bodywork in which Rolfers... place pressure on connective tissues. Their goal is to promote proper alignment by releasing constriction and making movement easier." (p 168) Again, absolutely no mention of energy.

4) Sherman is a source from the massage industry, offering a taxonomy for bodywork styles differeniating methods into "relaxation," "clinical," "movement re-education," and "energy work" (examples include Polarity, Reiki). In the section titled Principle Goals of Treatment, they specify that Rolfing/Structural Integration is usually a "clinical" approach meaning that the goal is to reduce pain and improve function. In the "Results" section they further state that "Structural Integration can be used to enhance athetic performance (relaxation massage), address a clinic condition such as scoliosis (clinical massage), or improve posture (movement re-education)." So they only category that doesn't apply is "energy work." That's pretty compelling.

5) Houglum, as a Physical Therapist has expertise in these matters yet sufficient distance from Rolfing to be objective: "A manual therapy designed to balance the body's segments... to provide optimal structure and function," etc. She provides a detailed description of the 10-session series and other facets with no mention of energy.

6) Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, p595, "bodywork that uses deep manipulation of the body's soft tissue to realign and balance the body's myofascial structure." They spend two pages on history, methods, etc and also quote The Guild for Structural Integration as saying that SI is "a mathod and a philosophy of personal growth and integrity... The vertical line is our fundamental concept. The physical and psychological embodiment of the vertical line is a way of Being in the physical work [that] forms a basis for personal growth and integrity." So this part points to some of those mind-body aspects yet without such a woo-woo spin. It still leaves us wondering how the vertical line is related to personal growth, but at least they seem to value having their feet on the ground. (That was a little joke.)

7) Fundamentals of Complementary and Alt Medicine surprised me by breaking down the "energy" aspects in terms of physics etc: "The theory of Rolfing is based primarily on physical considerations of the interaction of the human body with the gravitational field of the Earth.... storing potential energy and releasing kinetic energy... the balance between the two is equivalent to the amount of energy available to the body [Karinpower's note, this part doesn't make sense to me - but it's not esoteric]... The worse the posture, the more energy we consume on a baseline level, and thus less we have available for normal activity.... the physical energy of the body is in direct proportion to the "vital energy" of the person." This author is perhaps not familiar with "vitalism" as this use of vital seems to be more of a layman's use, along the lines of whether you still have energy left to go out dancing after a full day of work.

In conconclusion we have plenty of neutral sources including all three of our review studies and respected secondary sources from various arenas of the medical world that are in agreement that Rolfing is a physical practice with physical goals. Not energy medicine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of those sources seem fringe. We have sources saying there is an Energy component, and Rolf's own words make it clear she saw it as the chief purpose. There's obviously a move among a faction of the Rolfers to whitewash what they see as the whackier aspects of Rolferism, but Wikipedia doesn't play that game. We say it is physical manipulation "based on" Rolf's ideas about energy. That's right. We're not got to remove well-sourced content because it's "off-message". (Incidentally, checkong on rolf.org I notice they have an entire journal issue dedicated to Rolfing and energy[2] - you might find this interesting. It is just wrong to imply that "non-physical energy" (!) is not part and parcel of the Rolf schtick. I was particularly struck by this quotation from Rolf in which she says the massage aspects are just a "bait" for the switch to Rolfing's true purpose: "I hope that among you there are the kind of fish that will go out and bring in another school of fish . . . Not to get their aches and pains taken out, not to have their symptoms removed, but that they might contribute to the understanding of energy in the human universe."). Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How interesting that you would lump our three review studies as Fringe.... these are literally the best three sources we have. As to the others, while they aren't MEDRS for proving health benefits like a review study could be, they are perfectly legitimate for providing us with a detailed description of the method (and probably a dozen more sources would weign on this side of the issue as well, I just stopped at 7). We now have enough sources on each side to say that there is controversy on this point.--Karinpower (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)--Karinpower (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To say there's controversy we need a source that says there's controversy. I'm not sure what point is meant to be controversial anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We have controversy over whether or not Rolfing is characterized as energy work. On the one side are a couple of deliberately-critical, deliberately-derogatory sources saying it is; and on the other side are journal articles, mainstream media, the Rolf Institute (which, again, owns the trademark for "Rolfing," so should be able to contribute to its definition), and others. In response to this, you present your own original research, trying to interpret the primary source of Ida Rolf. We don't do that here, right? More importantly, what Rolf thought/said does not equate with what Rolfing is today. This article is about Rolfing, not the ideas of Rolf.

I am not seeing a justification for characterizing Rolfing as energy work when the weight of legitimate secondary sources does not support that claim. At best, we could say that "some critics believe" or such. But it is incorrect for Wikipedia to make an affirmative and unqualified statement like this, when clearly the bulk of the evidence does not support that, and we the editors do not seem to agree. -Epastore (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to state that it is controversial but we do need to report what the sources say. We can give more details in the body of the article but in the lede a simple summary is enough. All sources prioritize the goal of alignment; this should be highlighted in the lede and currently it's oddly missing.

The current sentence in the lede about energy is too specific to be appropriate for the lede; as Alexbrn pointed out she seems to mention energy in several ways and the energy of gravity is just one. So we can give a more general summary, and then the body of the article provides more detail (as it should).

How about the following, using the three review studies, as well as Carroll and two Ida Rolf original sources: Rolfing aims to align the human body in relation to gravity[Jones][8]. This is based on a belief that such alignment can result in improved healing[4], movement [Jones], comfort [7], and even emotional changes [Jones][5]. Ida Rolf also discussed her work in terms of energy.[5][13]

(4 and 13 are Ida Rolf sources, 5 is Carroll, 7 is American Cancer Society, 8 is Australian, and Jones doesn't have a current citation.)

Of course, additional edits to the body of the article need to be hashed out but this is a start.--Karinpower (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)  

That would be original research because Rolf did not "also discuss her work in terms of energy", but is quoted as saying reinforcing the body's energy field was the "primary concept" of Rolfing. Rolf, Rolfers and secondary sources make much of this point so the wish of some on this page to downplay it with WP:OR is puzzling. We also don't want to air the faked medical claims of Rolfing without immediate contextualizing sanity. Wikipedia must not promote woo. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The original research seems to be about what are considered proper references to use. Seems like the typical arguments we get all the time with fringe topics: independent refs vs in-world viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems like a recurrent theme even here. I recall this section[3] from a few years ago, where it is apparent that in the "real world" out there Rolfers are up to their eyeballs promoting all this energy bullshit and fake medical claims. This article is not a soft-selling brochure for this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of this comes down to what's going to be summarized and cited in the Wikipedia article. While private website claims can be referenced here in talk, they wouldn't be cited in the article. If there was an organized study on the topic of claims or opinions of practitioners, then it could be cited in the article. If the sources above meet the criteria for inclusion in the article, then they can play some kind of role. People come to Wikipedia for more information and resources, and it can be a connection hub for many types of resources. If the American Cancer Society is publishing information about Rolfing, that is eligible for inclusion.Greenriverglass (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No one on this thread is in favor of promoting woo. It is appropriate to list the claims that Rolfing makes - particularly the claims that are echoed by quality sources including critical sources. Our lede will certainly continue to contextualize that those claims are unproven. Readers come to Wikipedia to find out what it is, and what it is attempting to do.... so the claims are a key part of the factual information in this article. If sources say it promises to make you grow two feet taller, we would need to include that even though the claim is obviously not realistic. The word "claim" itself does provide context, versus a word like "benefits" which sounds more like a sure thing.

Our three meta-studies are our best sources, and they are our guiding light for how to portray this topic. They don't say that Rolfing is about energy but rather about alignment. So that needs to have center stage. Dr Rolf often used emphatic language and so there are plenty of quotes that say that something or other is primary point.... In this case this quote is talking about alignment, with an additional lens of the energy BS. So we need to represent both of those aspects - with alighnment first and the energy piece as a secondary thing (hence the word "also," it's a conjunction, not original research). The current situation where energy is more predominent than alignment is misleading and it misrepresents the sources.--Karinpower (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The meta-studies are good on the clinical aspects, but NPOV requires us to be explicit about pseudoscience (both the alignment woo and the energy woo) and for that WP:PARITY is often necessary, since academic medical articles rarely deign to deal with that aspect of a topic. The notion of a body's "alignment in gravity" is pretend science just as much as the energy field stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• And in any case, Karinpower, you cannot use the Jones source which explicitly says "The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension" to say that Rolfing's goal is "alignment". Jones also includes Rolf's "energy field" quotation in the opening paragraph of her article! You are reminded this is a topic under discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually we can trust an MD who is doing a peer-reviewed paper to describe the basic tenets of this field to us. My point about the Jones paper is that she uses that same quote and then discusses it entirely in the context of alignment, thereby demonstrating that the important part of that quote is the alignment aspect. She doesn't go on to discuss energy - she doesn't say that Rolfing works with energy, she doesn't say that energy is a vague word which can mean a wide variety of concepts, she doesn't address it at all - which is a good sign that in her many hours dealing with this topic, energy is not a major aspect of it.

She also specifically discusses "the alignment of the spine, pelvis, and extremities" in regards to how the weight of the torso presses downward toward the ground. She does reference the earth's gravitional force here - and she is referring to physics rather than esoteric energy.

That said, there are enough sources that do talk about energy that we certainly need to continue to include it, but with adjustments to be more accurate to the full scope of the sources. We have many, many sources that say that Rolfing's goal is alignment (including many of the Skeptic sources).

Jones' first sentence says that it's a "specific way of viewing body alignment, structure, and function." And as you said, she also writes, ""The goal of Rolfing is to release the body from learned patterns of movement and tension *that cause disfunction and pain*" That's why I cited her in the edit that I proposed above, saying that Rolfing has the belief is that improved alignment will prompt changes in healing, movement, comfort (aka pain), and also cause emotional changes. All of these claims are echoed in multiple types of sources; that's why I cited a mix of review studies, Carroll, and IPR writings. It shows that a wide swath of people agree that these are the claims/beliefs.

Under "Principles" Jones talks about dysfunctional movement patterns and disorganized tissue and quotes "The only permanent remedy is to balance the joint; frequently this requires balancing the entire body, for these various fascial links can elicit compensatory strain over wide areas," aka organization of the body.

At the end of the Principles section she says that clients are taught more efficient movement patterns to incorporate the changes into their daily movements. And then she mentions that emotional changes have been reported in many anecdotal cases though it hasn't been examined in trials. This is all included and referenced in the edit that I proposed. I also cited Carroll for saying that Rolfing claims to make emotional changes. As usual we will continue to include in the lede that all of these claims are unproven, as we should.--Karinpower (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a discussion of Rolfing starts by quoting Rolf on its primary purpose, is a "good sign" of what its primary purpose is. In any case, we should not misrepresent sources. Per WP:PSCI pseudoscience needs to prominently described as such in our article. To be fair, your edit looked reasonable, except for the fact that it failed WP:V with respect to the sources cited, which is a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that. In that case, could you propose a modification of my wording that you feel would stick true to the sources and avoid making conclusions beyond what the sources state? The article currently doesn't represent the fact that every source says it's a physical method that focuses on alignment, and only a fraction of the sources mention energy. So the first part must get mentioned first, and the second part must also be included but with a caveat that puts it into context. --Karinpower (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the new Ernst sources clinches it: the conceptual basis of this stuff is vitalistic. The "alignment" talk is woo so shouldn't really be indulged other than in context of rational sense, which we already do. We are already straining at the boundaries of NPOV by indulging it as much as it is. Alexbrn (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether the alignment claim is "woo" isn't the question here. The question is what the sources say. Ernst is part of the same echo chamber as the other sources that push the energy aspect.... yet we have dozens of sources that don't agree, including quality medical sources and mainstream sources. I'm fine with reducing the length of the detailed info on alignment, but it must be mentioned first in the lede. --Karinpower (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That it is woo is pertinent, because policy directs us only to discuss such woo through the lens of mainstream, rational thought. Independent sources talk about Energy, the Rolfing quacks research it and push it today, and Rolf herself continually harped on it as the central mission of Rolfing. Maybe you think Rolf was part of the "echo chamber" you problematically imagine? The continual efforts of WP:PROFRINGE editors to whitewash and brochure-ize this article is rising to the level where it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is getting far too disruptive. It seems rather blatant PROFRINGE to dismiss refs by stating Ernst is part of the same echo chamber as the other sources that push the energy aspect.... yet we have dozens of sources that don't agree, including quality medical sources and mainstream sources. --Hipal (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I've just noticed that PMID 21875349 on Structural Integration: Origins and Development, which we already cite, says "the explicit goal of her method was the integration of the individual's energy field with that of gravity." Okay, so it's a fringe source offering an in-universe view, but it does further clarify the particularly flavour of woo Rolfers are invested in. What seems to be happening (a bit like with osteopathy/chiropractic) is that these days some more marketing-oriented types in the movement are trying to brush the more zany-sounding woo under the carpet to present a more reasonable public face. Wikipedia must not buy into that game. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Safety information in lede

"Studies have not proven that Rolfing is safe" seems to be an odd sentence. Is this what any study would set out to prove? Wouldn't they instead focus on proving a null hypothesis, such as Rolfing is not safe for cancer patients. If enough cancer patients undergo Rolfing without adverse events, the null hypothesis is rejected. So the sentence should be something like "adverse events due to Rolfing have not been sufficiently studied for any conclusions to be reached" or "the absence of adverse events due to Rolfing cannot be established due to a lack of evidence in published studies." This is actually closer to the conclusion of the cited Australian Report. It doesn't deal with safety, it deals with effectiveness for clinical conditions. The cited Science-Based Medicine blog extrapolates that: "The review concluded that there is a lack of evidence effectiveness of Rolfing for any clinical condition. Consequently, the safety, quality and/or cost-effectiveness of Rolfing could not be determined." That wording just says safety cannot be determined.Greenriverglass (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Solid points. Wording that more closely represents the source is welcome. And interestingly, regarding the case of cancer, The American Cancer Society source is actually rather supportive of the use of bodywork such as Rolfing for quality of life and comfort (provided tumor areas are avoided, logically). The fact that they are saying it can be used that way seems to imply a degree of safety.--Petrichori (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Greenriverglass, "studies" of quack remedies almost always start out to "prove" the claims of the quacks who promote them. They are a marketing exercise, not science. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect people who sell a purported medical intervention to prove it is safe and effective. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's circular logic; quality studies are the bar by which alt-med app--Karinpower (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)roaches can become vetted. Saying that such studies are inherently invalid just shows your bias; not all alt-med methods are quackery. Since there's no federal money for this, we can't expect perfect impartiality but we can expect reasonable scientific integrity. Some of the more recent studies on Rolfing are decent, they are just too small and there are too few. In fact the studies that have been done point toward a relatively good degree of safety, low adverse events, and a high rate of completion/compliance which shows that participants felt comfortable continuing forward - however since we don't have a fresh metastudy looking at these newer studies, they aren't able to be cited here.--Petrichori (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried to find the claims you just refuted in the contribution you responded to but failed utterly - no circular logic, no "inherently invalid". There is no connection between what Guy said and what you seem to respond to. Something must have gone seriously wrong with your edit. Are you even on the right Talk page?

By the way, if a study is "too small", it is by definition not "decent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A study can be small and still be decent. Small studies can be the basis for larger, more expensive studies with diverse populations. But I don't think a small study would set out to prove anything as safe. There may be studies that try to prove Rolfing is safe, but those probably are not worth looking at or including in this wikipedia article. Is the "Studies have not proven Rolfing is safe" sentence meant to directly address sham studies? It doesn't read like that to me. There's no citation for that. The Australian study simply says there's not evidence for effective treatment of clinical conditions. It's not saying Rolfing is unsafe, and it's not refuting any studies that claim to prove Rolfing is safe. It's just simply saying there hasn't been sufficient study of clinical effectiveness, so there's no basis for using tax dollars to pay for Rolfing appointments.Greenriverglass (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed edit that more closely represents what the Australian source says about safety? The American Cancer Society source is also quite relevant. --Karinpower (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)