Be Informed — or Else

From the Author

The title of this article may sound like a warning. Some of us are sensitive to warnings, yet—as the saying goes—only the truth will set us free.

In this overview, I revisit a series of past “exciting slogans” promoted by dishonest and/or misguided individuals that significantly distracted the professional field of massage therapy. These narratives successfully divided our community into so-called “advanced” versus “simple” massage therapists, extracted large amounts of money from practitioners eager to learn “new” methods in order to feel part of an “advanced” group, and—most damaging of all—derailed the development of genuine professional skills and clinical understanding that are essential to helping people who suffer.

I am not interested in using inflammatory labels such as “special interests” or “con artists.” My goal is far more practical: to present a truthful and honest overview so we can understand the importance of being informed rather than being taken advantage of. On a personal level, I despise being fooled, and I believe most professionals feel the same way. I hope this discussion helps us become more resilient, more critical, and less vulnerable to manipulation.

A Few Words About the Slogan “Evidence-Based Massage Practice”

To better understand my position, it is necessary to briefly distinguish evidence-based medical practice from what has been promoted as “evidence-based massage practice.”

I was trained in, and for nearly 50 years have practiced, science-based medical and sports massage. Evidence-based medicine—largely shaped by pharmaceutical research—aims to determine which medications are most effective based on measurable outcomes. Massage therapy, however, is fundamentally different. It is both a science and an art.

While massage techniques can certainly be confirmed by scientific research and physiological principles, mastery develops through clinical experience, refined skill, and individualized application. Over time, within the framework of my original scientific training, I developed my own professional mastery by combining proven techniques with patient-specific approaches. The same has occurred with countless skilled massage therapists. This is the true nature of massage practice.

So when proponents speak of unified “evidence-based massage practice,” one must ask: evidence of what, exactly? We are not prescribing medications that can simply be replaced if they fail or produce side effects. We work directly with human tissue, physiology, and adaptive responses. It is essential to understand the difference between general biomedical research and the applied science of massage therapy.

At the end of this article, I will provide links to additional writings where these distinctions are explored in greater detail.

As always, thoughtful challenge and respectful disagreement are welcome.

The Long Shadow of Misleading Research

Recently, Dr. Ross posted the following in his group:

“JMS’s response to the New York Times interview with Prof. M. Tschakovsky on the effects of sports massage.”

Although the original New York Times article was published in 2010, its negative impact on perceptions of sports massage and athletic recovery continues to reverberate. The original JMS response can be found here:
https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/articles/science-of-sports-massage.htm

I fully agree with Dr. Ross. Even sixteen years later, new generations of massage therapists remain confused and discouraged after encountering misleading—or outright flawed—research papers. Professional journals indexed in PubMed, along with sports medicine and athletic training publications, have published these so-called “research papers,” which are now frequently cited without sufficient critical analysis.

As early as 1993, I developed an instructional video program #7 teaching pre-event sports massage, post-event sports massage, and full-body stretching. In that program, I explained—based on physiology, research , and most important clinical outcome and long observations —that lactic acid does not cause delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and clarified why post-event sports rehabilitation massage should begin 2 hours after vigorous exercise, not immediately.

The reaction was intense. The criticism was sharp. It took enormous effort and extensive discussion to persuade colleagues not to pursue the impossible task of “disposing of lactic acid.” Yet even today, many practitioners continue to blame lactic acid for muscle soreness.

A Necessary Reflection

In response to Dr. Ross’s recent post, I wrote:

“Past history is meant to be analyzed so we can become more informed, experienced, and smarter.
This so-called research paper, along with the interview, was published during the period of the ‘declaration’ of Evidence-Based Massage Practice and the self-proclaimed ‘Neuroscientific Revolution.’
In reality, it dismissed basic biomedical physiology. Confusion and ignorance overtook the massage therapy field. It was an unpleasant time, and hopefully we learned from it.
What was especially troubling was that many massage educators simply renamed what they were already doing to align with the new trend, rather than critically evaluating it.”

Why This Matters

Readers can examine the flawed research protocol by reviewing the JMS response linked above. Particular attention should be paid to the interview in which the professor claimed that massage disrupts blood flow—while simultaneously admitting that he and his wife enjoy receiving massage.

As clinicians, we understand that disturbances in blood supply contribute to disease, and that our work helps restore balance between injured tissue demand of increase of blood supply, and blood supply availability.This is precisely how pain is reduced and functional ability restored.

Despite these contradictions, the so-called “evidence-based massage movement” continued to cite this research. Many massage educators hastily rebranded their work as “manual therapy,” abandoning the identity and legacy of massage therapy.

I am proud that Dr. Ross openly challenged these trends. I am also proud that I did not remain silent. What unfolded was a damaging attempt to dismiss medical physiology, confuse generations of therapists, and replace a centuries-old, proven healing massage discipline with misleading slogans promoted by individuals who had never practiced what they claimed to teach.

Thousands of practitioners were misled—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked information.

Final Thoughts

To gain valuable perspective, I strongly encourage colleagues—selectively and thoughtfully—to read the articles linked below. This foundational knowledge helps us remain focused on advancing real massage skills rather than being distracted by trends that do not serve our patients.

Be informed. That is how we protect our profession—and those who depend on us.

Best wishes.

Crucial to understand .

• Biomedical Science vs. the Science of Medical and Sports Massage – Part 1 https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/biomedical-science-vs-the-science-of-medical-and-sports-massage-part-1.htm
• Biomedical Science vs. the Science of Medical and Sports Massage – Part 2 https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/medical-massage-prevention-ospinal-fusions-other-orthopedic-surgeries.htm
• Below is about, “evidence-based” “contribution” to the public health 
• FDA Requiring Patient-Reported Outcomes — Part 1 https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/fda-requiring-patient-reported-outcomes-part-1.htm
• FDA Requiring Patient-Reported Outcomes — Part 2 https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/fda-requiring-patient-reported-outcomes-part-2.htm
• Article, link below is about fooling, and to be informed. 
• Do pain receptors exist? https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/articles/do-pain-receptors-exist.htm
• My response to manual therapy movement’s attempt to destroy massage therapy fields. https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/articles/manual-therapy-vs-massage-therapy.htm