I keep hearing posters referring to muscle testing to determine if an herb or ABX is good for them. Is this something you can do for yourself at home? or do you need it done by a practioner?
Thanks for your input.
CherylSue
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
You can do a search here by clicking on the little word "search" up above. You will find hundreds of links. ... hundreds
Posted by Truthfinder (Member # 8512) on :
Here's a recent thread on learning to muscle test yourself. However, if you are unfamiliar with muscles testing, I think you would benefit from seeing a professional first to determine for yourself the validity of the answers you may receive. As with any other modality, finding a good practitioner is key.
Maybe some of those with considerable experience will chime in here....
Posted by CherylSue (Member # 13077) on :
Thanks for your replies. I can't believe what I found it, and I'm not sure this is correct. It's just another version of the pendulum swing, ouija board, etc. This doesn't have a true scientific basis because your mind is what is subconsciously directing it. It's another way of saying trust your gut instinct.
I actually thought it was a physical test.
Prove me wrong, somebody?
Thanks, CherylSue
Posted by Looking (Member # 13600) on :
CherylSue:
Here's a pubmed article on muscle testing you might find interesting:
I was interested to read what you found on PubMedCentral regarding muscle testing. However, I don't see where the "muscle testing" described in this article is the same thing as holding a possible allergen or remedy in one's hand and reacting to it as described in this thread.
Perhaps I am not seeing it....
-- Shaz
Posted by hardynaka (Member # 8099) on :
LOOKING, thanks for the article of Pubmed!!
CHERYL, nope, muscle test is a pure physiological response of your body (muscle tone) while pendulum is something else, more 'ethereal'.
SHAZ, the article LOOKING posted is about if muscle tests/ kinesiological tests are reliable, if they can be used as a tool of diagnosis, its history, some clinical researches on various areas, but the main topic is on the validity of muscle tests as a tool.
Conclusion: it seems a valid tool to HELP on diagnosis, but there's need for more studies to confirm it (or disregard it, who knows?)
The other thread was discussing people USING muscle tests for a variety of things such as measuring herbs, testing allergies, testing compatibility of food, whatever. It was mostly anedotic stories of muscle testers (or people that did/do kinesiology). I am one of them!
Selma
Posted by Greatcod (Member # 7002) on :
This is one scientific confirmation of the validity of muscle testing for substances. I have no idea how this works, I was quite cynical about it, but amazingly, there is something to it.
1: Int J Neurosci. 1998 Dec;96(3-4):237-44.Links Correlation of applied kinesiology muscle testing findings with serum immunoglobulin levels for food allergies.Schmitt WH Jr, Leisman G. Applied Neuroscience Laboratories, The College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel, Israel.
The pilot study attempted to determine whether subjective muscle testing employed by Applied Kinesiology practitioners, prospectively determine those individuals with specific hyperallergenic responses. Seventeen subjects were found positive on Applied Kinesiology (A.K.) muscle testing screening procedures indicating food hypersensitivity (allergy) reactions. Each subject showed muscle weakening (inhibition) reactions to oral provocative testing of one or two foods for a total of 21 positive food reactions. Tests for a hypersensitivity reaction of the serum were performed using both a radio-allergosorbent test (RAST) and immune complex test for IgE and IgG against all 21 of the foods that tested positive with A.K. muscle screening procedures. These serum tests confirmed 19 of the 21 food allergies (90.5%) suspected based on the applied kinesiology screening procedures. This pilot study offers a basis to examine further a means by which to predict the clinical utility of a given substance for a given patient, based on the patterns of neuromuscular response elicited from the patient, representing a conceptual expansion of the standard neurological examination process.
PMID: 10069623 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted by shazdancer (Member # 1436) on :
When in doubt, ask the source.
I emailed one of the authors of the PubMed Central article posted by Looking. (The authors are pioneers in this field for 40 years.) His response:
quote:Off the body testing of nutritional products ARE NOT approved (in fact they are condemned) ICAK procedures.
By "off the body testing" he meant the practices I described to him of holding allergens or medicines in the hand. I believe GreatCod's article about muscle testing allergens refers to ingesting them.
I hope that helps clarify,
Shaz
Posted by hardynaka (Member # 8099) on :
Shaz, you put the stuff you test in your mouth, ingest it or not, for me they test the same, before and after.
If you don't believe it's possible (or other guys don't believe), you all can just use muscle tests after ingesting bits of the stuff you would like to test. Why not?
If the test seems valuable like suggested in Greatcord's article to test allergies ONLY if ingesting, I would ingest everything I test to check!!!
No problem in that!
What you could do is to make a big table with test results, before and after ingestion and compare results!!! You'll be surprised! Of course, if the thing you would like to test is in metalic boxes, thick plastics etc, you won't be able to test for sure. I was never able to do that, only when the food is 'open' or with thin plastics
Selma
Posted by Greatcod (Member # 7002) on :
I'm not sure what "oral provocation" means. My guess is that the put the stuff in their mouths, but did not necessarily swallow it. In any case, the wonders never cease.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)