Talk:Rolfing#rfc 4B1D11B

I am neutral on this subject but really surprised that whoever keeps edit-warring back is obviously not. There is good science around Rolfing for cerebral palsy, fibromyalgia and back pain. I posted these (2014, 2015) sources but they were all deleted in favor of references that are over 20 years old and some which go to blank pages. This article currently states: "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" and references "page not found". Furthermore it says "...has been characterized as quackery" and then references two articles, neither of which mention the word quackery. Also the reference for this phrase: "The principles of Rolfing contradict established medical knowledge" is literally a book that was published in 1959. Cleajames13 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Cleajames13}} Don't push your luck. You could get indeffed at any moment. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

::But no comment on the substance of the question as to why not add updated science? Cleajames13 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

:::See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• WP:MEDRS sources are required for biomedical information. Contrary to what the OP asserts, the current content is WP:VERIFIED and the sources are good; none were published in 1959. For advice on dealing with web pages that are not forund, see WP:404. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

:@Cleajames13, can you please cite those sources here? I would like to see why @Bon courage thinks they are not reliable sources. Also, I agree with @Bon courage in that I don't even see the number 1959 on the page anywhere; which source are you referencing as outdated? Additionally, the 404 you are getting is from the link to the original, which is no longer available. That's why the first link in the reference is to the web archive. This is an appropriate reference.

:However, in reviewing that cited source ("Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance"), it does not really seem to support what the Wikipedia article claims. While the Wikipedia article says "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition," that cited source basically says that in a review of alternative therapies, the Australian government did not receive submissions of any sufficiently-rigorous studies in support of Rolfing. This is not the same thing as what the article claims. — Epastore (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

::{{tq|"the Australian government did not receive submissions"}} ← This is wrong. The reviewers performed a systematic literature review according to certain criteria and found:{{talkquote|There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of rolfing and therefore no reliable conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of rolfing for any clinical condition.}}{{pb}}This is explained in lay terms in the cited WP:SBM source (with discussion of selection methods). Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

:::You are right. I had trouble accessing that document yesterday, and misinterpreted what I read. I had better luck today, and agree with your assessment: it's a valid representation of the cited document. My apologies for the incorrect assertion.

:::And I still have questions for the OP, above. — Epastore (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

::Hi, response as requested:1.) the outdated resource I'm referring to is this one, under the "quackery" comment (published last in 1959): Clow B (2001). Negotiating Disease: Power and Cancer Care, 1900–1950. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0773522107. Before we explore medical reactions to therapeutic innovations in this era, we must stop to consider the meaning of 'alternative medicine' in this context. Often scholars use the term to denote systems of healing that are philosophically as well as therapeutically distinct from regular medicine: homeopathy, reflexology, rolfing, macrobiotics, and spiritual healing, to name a few, embody interpretations of health, illness, and healing that are not only different from, but also at odds with conventional medical opinion.

::2.) the other better recent studies (this was just a 10 minute search) are these ones

{{collapse top|List of fringe/unreliable sources}} (for exact notation go back to the version I changed): FIRST Structural Integration as an Adjunct to Outpatient Rehabilitation for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Pilot Clinical Trial.

::

::Eric E. Jacobson, Alec L. Meleger, Paolo Bonato, Peter M. Wayne, Helene M. Langevin Ted J. Kaptchuk, and Roger B. Davis

::

::A randomized a clinical trial conducted at Harvard Medical School and Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital compared the Ten Series of Rolf® Structural Integration (SI) as an addition to the current standard of outpatient rehabilitation (OR) to OR alone for chronic low back pain (n=46). Median reductions in pain intensity (visual analog scale, 0-100 mm), were −26 mm in SI+OR compared to 0 mm in OR alone, but were not significantly different between groups (p=0.075, Wilcoxon rank sum). However, median reductions in back pain related disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, 0-24 points) of −2 points in SI+OR compared to 0 in OR alone was significantly different

::SECONDMyofascial structural integration therapy on gross motor function and gait of young children with spastic cerebral palsy

::Rolfer® Karen Price collaborated with Heidi Feldman, Alexis Hansen and others on three studies of Structural Integration for children with spastic cerebral palsy (CP) at the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford School of Medicine in 2009-2015. Price provided all SI treatments in each study.

::THIRD - Clinical trials of Rolfing for fibromyalgia conducted by Paula Stal and summaried by Eric Jacobson.

::

::"Fibromyalgia syndrome treated with structural integration Rolfing®"[1] / conclusion was: Each of the three treatment regimens was effective with statistically significant reductions in pre treatment levels of pain intensity, anxiety, depression, and quality of life both immediately post treatment and at 3 month followup. Rolfing® and acupuncture are useful as adjunctive therapies for fibromyalgia patients.

::There are tons more:

1. Stal P, MJ Teixeria. (2014). Fibromyalgia syndrome treated with the structural integration Rolfingr method. Rev Dor Sao Paul0, 15(4), 248-52.

::2. Stal P., Kosomi JK, Faelli CYP, Pai HJ, Teixeira MJ, Marchiori PE (2015). Effects of structural integration Rolfing method and acupuncutre on fibromyaligia. Rev Dor Sao Paul0, 16(2), 96-101.

::1. Hansen A. B., K. S. Price, H. M. Feldman (2012). Myofascial structural integration: a promising complementary therapy for young children with spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 17(2), 131-35.

::2. Hansen A., Price KS, Feldman HM (2010). Myofascial treatment for children with cerebral palsy: a pilot study of a novel therapy. Pediatric Academic Society Annual Meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada: May 2010

::3. Hansen A., Price KS, Loi EC, Buysse CA, Jaramillo TM, Pico EL, Feldman HM. (2014). Gait changes following myofascial structural integration (Rolfing) observed in 2 children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Evidence Based Complmentary & Alternative Medicine, 19(4), 297-300.

::4. Loi ED B. C., Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Pico EL, Hansen AB, Feldman HM. (2015). Myofascial structural integration therapy on gross motor function and gait of young children with spastic cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3(74), 1-10.

::5. Loi E., Buysse CA, Hansen AB, Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Feldman HM (2013). Gross motor function improves in young children with spastic cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics Annual Meeting September, 2013

::6. Findley N., Jaramillo TM, Loi EC, Buysse CA, Hansen AB, Price KS, Feldman HM (2015). Gross motor function improves in young children with spastic cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. University of California,San Francisco, student symposium.

::7. Buysse C., Loi ED, Price KS, Jaramillo TM, Hansen AB, Pico EL, Feldman HM (2015). Gait improvement in children with cerebral palsy after myofascial structural integration therapy. Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics Annual Meeting 2015.

:: Jacobson E, Meleger A, Bonato P, Wayne P, Langevin H, Kaptchuk T, Davis R. . Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2015:813418, 2015.

{{collapse bottom}}

::Again - it looks like research in the last 15 years has validated Rolfing technique to treat at least a few conditions. I came to Wikipedia to read about it after I saw it as an option approved to be paid by my relatively conservative insurance company. Was really surprised to see all this old stuff here as I've come to rely on Wikipedia for better (and certainly more current than 1959) information. 73.189.249.162 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:::See WP:PSCI and WP:MEDRS. MEDRS says you have to have at least systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE in order to make medical claims inside Wikipedia. And WP:REDFLAG still applies. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

::::Clow's book was published in 2001, not 1959. Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36233746/

The information on this Rolfing Wikipedia page in outdated and needs to be updated. The Ida Rolf Institute has changed some of the original philosophies to keep with current research on fascia. 2605:A601:ACA2:6400:3093:314C:95A5:9F97 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

:Have they got a time machine then? No action taken as no sources presented. Bon courage (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

::The source was in the message but it was at the top so you might have missed it. I did upon first reading. Here it is: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36233746/

::There are many other studies that I would be happy to provide links to so they can be represented here on this page. Perhaps in a new section for the page called Current Research?

::In looking at the WP:FRINGE/ALT, it seems like current research should be included. It is research that leads us to new understandings and much new research has been/is being done into this practice as well as the underlying presumptions that began this practice 50+ years ago when we knew far less than we do now. The article cited here is measuring AROM which fits into the definition provided for Alternative theoretical formulations as part of the scientific process. Thanks! Wileshadow (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::See WP:MEDRS for why this "research" is hopelessly inadequate for our purposes. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 07:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Indeed, primary research in an WP:MDPI journal. Junk. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::I looked at your reference pages but I fail to see where it states that these kinds of research are junk. Research into anything begins where it can and I think it bears informing people that this research is happening. I agree that the individual research projects themselves have not yet risen to a level of changing the top tier of clinical guidelines but I think we might all be able to agree that that kind of thing could be rather fraught and a very long-term goal to achieve for a load of reasons. I do not think that it is untoward or lending undue credence to inform people that there are research projects on this subject. Is that not what Wiki pages are for in the end, to inform the public of a balanced view on a subject? Wileshadow (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::Nope, WP:RULES are WP:RULES. Obey our rules or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Who is the "our" you are referring to? The general public that Wiki is supposed to be informing? Wileshadow (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Yes. We are protecting them from being misinformed by stuff added by people who do not understand how science works and are unaware that they do not understand it. See WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::::That is a primary study. Therefore, it fails WP:MEDRS. We will wait until reliable secondary sources collect several such studies and find that the results are consistent. As any competent scientist would do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Ok gotcha thank you for your responses. Wileshadow (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

After reading through old logs, it's clear to me that whoever controls the Rolfing page seems to be stubbornly against considering that Rolfing might actually help many people. It's too bad. Many people get surgeries for herniated disks or steroid shots, not knowing that alternative treatments might be more effective for pain management and increased movement.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7522439/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rolfing#:~:text=Research%20conducted%20at%20UCLA%20shows,and%20refined%20patterns%20of%20movement.&text=Other%20recent%20research%20has%20demonstrated,body%20structure%20for%20the%20better. Figure08 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:WP:GOODBIAS is relevant. Wikipedia is 'stubbornly against' using low quality sources, and demands sources that meet WP:MEDRS requirements (what you have linked here does not). MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:The page has had 530 editors in its time. Linking to deprecated AI-generated pages does not exactly strengthen your case. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::Calling Rolfing "quackery" is a subjective opinion and not based on any scientific research. You can say on the page that there isn't any scientific research that proves Rolfing helps pain for example, but using bombastic terms and slander serves only one purpose - to dissuade people from trying an alternative treatment that can save them from pain and surgery. My orthopedic doctor is a proponent of Rolfing and to paraphrase, "If a treatment improves your posture, helps with flexibility, and cures your pain, then what's not to like." Go on and keep your absolutely incorrect Wiki page. Continue to ignore the many authors who have written about Rolfing and how it has improved their lives. I guess all the dancers, athletes, Olympic medalists, musicians, artists, and regular people who want to feel better are just crazy and wasting their money right? Just because something hasn't been studied for 50 years in a lab doesn't mean it's "quackery." Figure08 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:::'Quackery' is indeed what the scientific sources have to say, you can review them by clicking on the little numbers in the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am planning to make a series of neutral, policy-compliant improvements to this article. I would like to state my approach clearly here first to maintain transparency and invite constructive input.

Goals of the proposed edits:

• Strengthen the History section with fully verifiable details from primary and secondary sources, focusing on the factual development of the discipline.
• Improve the Method section by clarifying terminology and technique descriptions in a way that aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:V.
• Add a Current Research section summarizing recent peer-reviewed studies (where they meet WP:RS and WP:MEDRS where applicable). No medical claims will be added unless supported by systematic reviews or otherwise compliant with MEDRS.
• Improve overall citation quality — for example, addressing dead links, replacing or clarifying outdated or ambiguous references.

Scope limitations:

• I will not be adding testimonials, promotional material, or non-neutral descriptions.
• I will respect WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:MEDRS standards throughout.
• I will not attempt to change the overall balance of the article beyond what is justifiable by reliable sourcing.

Intent:

This is an effort to improve article quality and neutrality, not to promote or debunk Rolfing. I welcome input from project members and regular editors on ensuring full policy compliance as I proceed.

Thanks in advance for constructive feedback.

-- EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Improvement always welcome. As ever, it all comes down to sourcing: WP:MEDRS for biomedical material, and{{snd}}since this is a fringe topic{{snd}}WP:FRIND sourcing overall. And, of course, given this page's long history of COI-tainted editing and recruited editors, any WP:COI must be declared up-front. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend removal of citation 25, Jann Bellamy (17 September 2015). "Massage Therapy rubs me the wrong way". Science-Based Medicine.

::She writes that:

::“…the public is inadequately protected from bodywork practices such as Rolfing because of the lack of independent oversight; instead regulation is carried out within a ‘closed loop’ system by such bodies as the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork.”

::States—not NCBTMB—do the actual regulation. The NCBTMB does not license anyone. It issues optional certifications that some states accept as part of licensing requirements.

::State boards are independent government agencies, not “closed loop” industry bodies.

::“Closed loop” misrepresents the structure.

::State regulators are often appointed by governors or legislatures, include public members, and are bound by sunshine laws, audits, and public accountability mechanisms.

::This is not an insular or self-policing system controlled by a private board. State or jurisdictional licensing boards have regulatory power, and will exercise disciplinary action against bodywork professionals including Rolfers. 2600:6C47:BF3F:A4B3:5DBC:A6F3:B1B3:6987 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Changed "regulation" to "certification", so accurately reflecting the source. Bon courage (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Concern: Misclassification and Undue Weight in Lead Section and Criticism

The lead currently frames Rolfing® primarily as “pseudoscience” based on outdated and narrowly interpreted sources. This framing does not reflect the practice’s contemporary development, nor does it adhere to Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) or Undue Weight guidelines.

While some criticism is warranted and should remain, the current structure (1) overrepresents fringe criticisms relative to the field’s academic and regulatory standing, (2) relies on sources like Science-Based Medicine, which Wikipedia policy considers not peer-reviewed, and (3) ignores peer-reviewed studies and scholarly perspectives that contextualize Rolfing as part of a growing field of somatic education and fascia research.

Suggestions for Balanced Revisions

1. Acknowledge scientific complexity and avoid categorical language.

The claim that Rolfing is “recognized as pseudoscience” lacks attribution. No formal scientific body has issued such a blanket designation. In fact, leading researchers such as Dr. Helene Langevin (Director, NIH NCCIH) advocate for studying connective tissue and fascia in manual therapies [Langevin, NCCIH, 2018].

2. Address the limitations of the term “alternative medicine.”

Harvard’s Ted Kaptchuk argues the category of “alternative medicine” often reflects sociopolitical boundaries, not scientific ones:

“The boundary is not fixed by science, but by cultural perception and institutional authority.” (BMJ, 2011, doi:10.1136/bmj.d4340)

Many practices labeled “alternative” (e.g., yoga, manual therapy, interoception training) are increasingly supported by emerging research. Their grouping with pseudomedical claims risks misleading readers.

3. Correct regulatory misstatements.

The article currently cites Jann Bellamy’s claim that Rolfing lacks oversight in the U.S., but this is incorrect. Regulation of manual therapy varies by state and often includes licensure, national certification (e.g., NCBTMB), and scope-of-practice laws.

4. Add references to contemporary peer-reviewed research.

Examples include:

Schleip et al. (2024). “Myofascial Intervention Increases Lumbar Microcirculation.” [ResearchGate link]

Langevin et al. (2011). “Connective tissue as a body-wide signaling network.” FASEB Journal.

Rolf, I. P. (1978). Rolfing and Physical Reality (emphasizes structural, not mystical, rationale).

5. Distinguish Rolfing® from other schools.

The article often conflates Rolfing® (as taught at the Dr. Ida Rolf Institute) with broader or divergent structural integration approaches. This risks misattributing quotes or claims from other organizations, such as the American Guild for Structural Integration, which holds different philosophical positions.

📚 Proposed Additional Sources for Balance

Kaptchuk, T. J. (2011). “Placebo Studies and the Logic of Healing.” BMJ, 343, d4340.

Langevin, H. M. (2018). NCCIH Director’s Message: The Scientific Promise of Integrative Health.

Jonas, W. (2018). How Healing Works: Get Well and Stay Well Using Your Hidden Power to Heal.

Larson, E. J. (2021). “Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View and the Problem of Pseudoscience.” Information, Communication & Society.

This article would benefit from revising language to reflect the current state of the field more neutrally, distinguishing Rolfing from unrelated pseudomedical claims, and incorporating academic sources that offer historical and scientific context. Constructive dialogue is encouraged to improve this article’s fairness and accuracy in line with WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. 2600:6C47:BF3F:A4B3:5DBC:A6F3:B1B3:6987 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:We can't rely on fringe-pushing outfits like the NCCIH, this is a non-starter. And we don't do 'balance' here, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the independent sources are critical the Wikipedia article will be as well.

:And why are you throwing trademark symbols in your comments? Are you some kind of official representative or employee? MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is this WP:LOGGEDOUT? or WP:UPE? NCCIH and Kaptchuk's old stuff are WP:FRINGE and not really useful. The Jonas book is useless WP:MEDPOP. The pseudoscience designation is settled and it's important we're upfront that Rolfing is pseudoscientific, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi MrOllie — thanks for the question. No, I’m not an official representative or employee of the Dr. Ida Rolf Institute. I’m a subject matter contributor aiming to help ensure the article reflects accurate and verifiable distinctions as taught in formal training programs.

::You’re absolutely right that trademark symbols (®) don’t belong in Wikipedia article text or talk page discussions unless they’re directly relevant to a legal point. I included them originally for precision, but I agree they’re not needed here and I’ll omit them going forward in line with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for trademarks.

::My main goal is simply to improve clarity around a common misconception—that the Ten-Series is equivalent to the entire system of Rolfing. If you’re open to it, I’m happy to focus just on the verifiable sources and proposed neutral language edits.

::Thanks again for raising the point. 2600:6C47:BF3F:A4B3:5DBC:A6F3:B1B3:6987 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)