kinesiology
kinesiology

The Art & Science of Kinesiology (Part 2)

By Joellie Gonseth, BS, LMT
February 2, 2019

The Art & Science of Kinesiology (Part 2)

By Joellie Gonseth, BS, LMT
February 2, 2019

It has been well documented that the body stores memories. Continuing research in this area has shown that overwhelming experiences can affect the brain, mind, and body in ways never thought of before and there are many groundbreaking scientific studies that provide us with a new understanding of how to help those who have been traumatized. Because this information is stored much like a computer stores information on a hard drive, the body can operate as the physical conduit through which we can access this information.

One of the ways this can be done is through muscle testing. Similar in some aspects, a polygraph monitors multiple ("poly") signals from the person being monitored. Baseline measurements are taken first and then "yes" or "no" questions are asked. The goal is to determine deception through the changes in body responses via physiological responses such as breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates to the probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions.

In both tests, the type of questions being asked is critical. For instance, I can muscle test for a particular treatment but what exactly is being asked? Is it being measured within the context of every other treatment the person is receiving or could be offered? Test for the thought of a stressful situation. What exactly are you asking the body? Is the situation stressful or just aspects of the situation (and in what way)? Because the answers are only as good as the questions being asked, they can be easily misinterpreted.

Is it Diagnostic?

The belief of some is that muscle testing (i.e., applied kinesiology) is considered to be a diagnostic tool during which muscular reactions are observed after a mechanical, biochemical, or psychological provocation. However, the use of muscle testing is not and never has been a stand-alone diagnostic tool; in other words, it should never be used separate and apart from standard and legally acceptable diagnostic tools such as blood, urine, hair analysis, assessment, etc. Therefore, I submit that it is the context in which it is used that may lend itself to being considered diagnostic, but even this has not been proven to be valid.

Among the many reasons for this involves the same foundation upon which many feel that a polygraph test produces results that are inadmissible within a legal context: a well-trained examiner can usually detect lying with a high degree of accuracy but because the interpretation can be subjective and each person can react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not infallible and can be fooled. One possible explanation is that a lie detector test doesn't actually detect lies; rather, it detects reactive responses to the questions. Accurate results depend largely on the training and experience of the examiner and the questions being asked. And if we consider the concept of energy and the effect of traumatic experiences, we know that its expression varies highly from person to person and can also affect test outcomes.

Intention & its Effect on Test Outcomes

Intention is defined as a directed thought to perform a determined action.1 There are studies that have determined that one's intention and belief system can have a powerful effect on the responses a person may have to a particular treatment or system of treatment. One study suggests that assumptions concerning blindness and randomization that are used in studies must take into consideration that subjects can modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their knowing that they are being studied (Hawthorne effect). Its conclusion was that it is important to account for and understand the role of both local and non-local observer effects, since both can significantly affect outcome and "if these effects occur in intention studies, they must necessarily exist in all studies."2

But, do the terms muscle testing and kinesiology even mean the same thing? During one of my early presentations a college professor from the kinesiology department at the University of Florida was in the audience and took great offense at those who call simplistic muscle testing "kinesiology." Due to previous encounters with those who did not know the muscles they were testing (and by extension, their structure and function), I assured him that I did and that the classes I had taken were weeks in length. For him and others like him, it's more than just semantics and it's important that we recognize that people may have a different understanding of the terms.

While true kinesiology involves both structure and function of the musculature and its relation to movement, applied kinesiology (and many of its derivatives) may or may not include those aspects and often focus on one muscle or specific groups of muscles in order to access information from the body for whatever purpose. It is this latter group that may be less interested in the structure and function of the muscle and more interested in its use as an assessment tool. From this perspective it can be said that the study of movement (kinesiology) involves muscle testing but not all muscle test-ing involves kinesiology.

Just as in verbal conversations, in order to hear what is actually being said in the conversations we have with our bodies, whether it's by speaking, "intuiting" or muscle testing, we must be able listen without an agenda or a particular treatment outcome. This can only be accomplished (in my opinion) by those who are properly trained to use the tool, have done and continue to do their own work to be balanced and grounded (to avoid issues with transference, counter-transference and other issues that can influence the outcome), and with the intention that whatever the end result, the goal is to empower others and not the tester. Our goal should be to work within the context of what a person believes is best for them.

When we look at the applications of muscle testing, we can all appreciate its purpose of bringing balance and healing to others. And while there is a great degree of self-responsibility on the part of the person being tested, this involvement in their own healing process only contributes to a person's sense of self-control in their health and well-being. Intrinsically connected to this is the training and experience of the practitioner and their ability to stay open and focused and not encumbered by inadequate training in, or understanding of the process.

Other than being appropriately trained and unbiased in our approach, what we as practitioners who use muscle testing can offer is to be an open and compassionate facilitator that takes into consideration the highest good and belief systems of those we are testing. Doing this empowers the client and can bring a level of healing that goes beyond other techniques or treatments. When we do that, we can not only assist in the communication with their true self, but bring tools and techniques that offer healing and balance to their body, mind, and spirit.


References:

1. Bonilla A. Evidence about the power of intention. Invest Clin, 2008 Dec;49(4):595-615.

2. Schwartz SA, Dossey L. Nonlocal­ity, intention, and observer effects in healing studies: laying a founda­tion for the future. Explore, 2010 Sep-Oct;6(5):295-307.


Resources:

• McTaggert L. The Intention Ex-periment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World. New York: Free Press, 2007.

• Haas M, Cooperstein R, et al. Disentan­gling manual muscle testing and Applied Kinesiology: critique and reinterpretation of a literature review. Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 2007 Aug 23;15:11.

• Riva G. The neuroscience of body mem­ory: From the self through the space to the others. Cortex, 2018 Jul;104:241-260.

• van der Kolk B. The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Penguin Books, 2014.