Touch for Health

Applied kinesiology and its chiropractic origins

Touch for Health was adapted from applied kinesiology, a diagnostic and therapeutic system founded by George J. Goodheart, Jr., a Michigan chiropractor. A history of the system by Gin and Green states that Goodheart claimed, in 1964, to have corrected a patient's chronic winged scapula by pressing on nodules near the origin and insertion of the serratus anterior muscle. The authors describe this as the first method developed in applied kinesiology.

The same history describes later components of the system. Procedures for neurolymphatic and neurovascular reflexes and for cerebrospinal fluid flow were developed from ideas attributed to other clinicians. Goodheart later incorporated acupuncture meridian therapy, influenced by the writings of Felix Mann, and added the vertebral challenge method and therapy localization technique, which are based on phenomena proposed by L. L. Truscott. The authors state that research on applied kinesiology was then in its infancy.

Touch for Health and John Thie

The organizations that maintain Touch for Health state that the method was developed in the early 1970s by John F. Thie, a chiropractor from Pasadena, California, and that his book Touch for Health was published in 1973. The same account says that Thie founded the Touch for Health Foundation in 1975 to support education and training, and that a member-run association, the Touch for Health Kinesiology Association, was created in 1990. This is an organizational account rather than an independent history, and it does not give the date of a first edition or describe Thie's training.

A 1983 article in the German-language nursing journal Krankenpflege was titled Touch for Health. No abstract is available in PubMed, so the record shows only that the name was in German-language print by that year. The sources opened for this page do not settle when the first edition appeared or describe the collaboration between Thie and other authors, so those details are left open.

Touch for Health and applied kinesiology

In the organizational history, Touch for Health names a system derived from applied kinesiology, a foundation that trains people in it, and a member association. The historical and review literature uses applied kinesiology, often abbreviated AK, for the broader system from which it was adapted. Most of the research discussed on this page concerns applied kinesiology or manual muscle testing, so its findings cannot be assigned to Touch for Health without a study of that method.

The word kinesiology is broader and easily confused with other uses. Hall and colleagues describe kinesiology as a diagnostic and therapeutic complementary therapy that uses subtle change in manual muscle testing results to evaluate the body's energetic balance and to select healing modalities. The authors' review was of applied and specialized kinesiology, and its conclusions apply to that field as they define it.

Manual muscle testing as a term

Cuthbert and Goodheart note that the manual muscle test has been published in peer-reviewed form since 1915. In applied kinesiology, a graded result is read only as better or worse, with no assumption about the size of the difference. The same review uses the term for both standard orthopedic strength testing and the applied kinesiology technique. Haas and colleagues argue that this blurs two different uses, and that the reliability of strength testing does not establish the validity of the applied kinesiology procedures.

Rosner and Cuthbert note a multiplicity of derivatives of applied kinesiology in the literature and state that several of them lack one or more of the essential attributes of AK as they describe it. Readers therefore need to check which procedure a study or practitioner means before applying one finding to another.

The diagnostic framework of the system

Rosner and Cuthbert describe applied kinesiology as a system that tries to evaluate structural, chemical and mental aspects of health by manually testing muscles alongside other standard diagnostic methods. Its adjunct procedures, challenge and therapy localization, are described as a way of identifying articular, soft tissue, biochemical or emotional issues believed to underlie muscle function. The authors state that the efficacy of muscle testing within these techniques has not been established in published, peer-reviewed research.

The organizational history places Touch for Health within this tradition and describes the method as taught through education and training programs run by its foundation. The sources opened for this page do not describe session content in detail, so this page does not set out procedures. Because the organizational history is its own account, its descriptions of practice should be read with the same caution as its dates.

Treatments that may follow testing

Rosner and Cuthbert list the treatments that applied kinesiology practitioners may use after testing. They include joint manipulation or mobilization, myofascial therapies, cranial techniques, meridian and acupuncture skills, clinical nutrition and dietary management, counseling, evaluation of environmental irritants, and reflex techniques. These are attributed to the system as a whole, and the review does not describe which of them are part of any Touch for Health course.

The history by Gin and Green shows that the system's treatment components were added over time and were drawn from several earlier clinicians' ideas. A treatment named within applied kinesiology should therefore not be assumed to be part of every Touch for Health course or session, and the training content of any particular course is a question for its provider.

What the system says muscle testing can assess

Practitioners of applied kinesiology describe muscle testing as a way to assess structural, chemical and mental aspects of health. Rosner and Cuthbert report that the system's treatments are believed to be consistent with an expanded construct validity of the manual muscle test, and that this belief has been tested mainly in outcome studies rather than in diagnostic studies.

Haas and colleagues describe the claim that applied kinesiology can diagnose organic disease or pre-clinical conditions and conclude that the evidence reviewed does not support it. Cuthbert and Goodheart report that 43.2 percent of surveyed chiropractors said they used applied kinesiology in 2000. That figure describes use within one profession and does not show whether the method is effective.

Why people use the practice

Hall and colleagues note that anecdotal evidence suggests kinesiology is helpful, and they set out to test that impression against the published literature. The sources opened for this page do not include survey data on why people choose Touch for Health specifically. Reasons for use should therefore be attributed to practitioners and to people who use the method, rather than read as findings about its effects.

Cuthbert and Goodheart's review lists 19 applied kinesiology case reports and describes them as hypothesis-generating rather than proof of efficacy. Case reports of this kind can describe what a practitioner observed in a particular patient, but they cannot establish how often a result occurs or whether it was caused by the procedure.

Reliability and validity of manual muscle testing

Cuthbert and Goodheart reviewed more than 100 studies of manual muscle testing and applied kinesiology, drawing on PubMed and CINAHL searches from inception to June 2006. They concluded that the test shows good reliability and validity in patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction. Within the review, reported inter-examiner agreement ranged from 82 to 97 percent and test-retest agreement from 96 to 98 percent, within one grade. The authors also state that examiner training and experience strongly affected consistency.

Haas, Cooperstein and Peterson argue that this finding does not transfer to applied kinesiology's unique diagnostic procedures. They state that the review's search was incomplete, that its inclusion rule was applied in a way that predetermined a positive conclusion, that studies of differing quality were given equal weight, and that test accuracy was treated as diagnostic validity. They conclude that, when applied kinesiology is separated from standard muscle testing, the few studies of its unique procedures either refute or cannot support their validity. The 2007 review discloses that its authors have roles in the International College of Applied Kinesiology, and readers should weigh both the review and its critique with that in mind.

Reviews of applied kinesiology and the gaps in trials

Hall, Lewith, Brien and Little reviewed applied and specialized kinesiology in 2008. Their abstract reports 22 original relevant studies, with poor methodology. Quality scores on diagnostic-accuracy reporting items ranged from 1 to 11 of 14, JADAD scores for the clinical studies were all zero of five, and CONSORT reporting scores ranged from 4 to 6 of 22. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence for diagnostic accuracy, for the validity of muscle response, or for effectiveness for any condition. They recommended a pragmatic effectiveness study as the most appropriate next step.

Rosner and Cuthbert's 2012 review reports that the efficacy of muscle testing in therapy localization and challenge techniques has not been established in peer-reviewed research, and it describes numerous gaps in the literature. The 2007 review cites 12 randomized trials showing that muscle-testing findings were not dependent on examiner bias. Haas and colleagues point out that these trials tested treatment efficacy rather than diagnostic accuracy, so they do not validate muscle testing as a diagnostic method.

Searches run for this page

A PubMed search for applied kinesiology combined with systematic review and diagnostic accuracy terms returned no systematic review of its diagnostic accuracy. A PubMed search for reliability and validity reviews of manual muscle testing returned 27 records, and a search for applied kinesiology in titles and abstracts returned 101. A combined PubMed query for Touch for Health and Thie returned no records. Web searches located the critiques and the 2008 review, which were then opened for verification. No controlled trial of Touch for Health itself was identified.

Relying on muscle testing for diagnosis

The most clearly stated concern in these sources is diagnostic. Haas and colleagues conclude that the evidence does not support using manual muscle testing to diagnose organic disease or pre-clinical conditions, and they describe the broader use as insupportable. Rosner and Cuthbert advise that applied kinesiology derivatives be approached with caution. A muscle-test result should not be treated as a diagnosis, and symptoms that could reflect a medical condition need assessment by a qualified clinician.

Cuthbert and Goodheart note that examiner training and experience affect how consistently the test is applied, and that muscle weakness may have several causes, so a single treatment in a single area may produce poor outcomes. The sources reviewed for this page do not measure harm from applied kinesiology or from Touch for Health, and this page does not describe harms that the sources do not report.

Harms, care boundaries and training

The sources reviewed do not report adverse events, contraindications or interactions for Touch for Health, and the reviews of applied kinesiology do not measure harm. The absence of reported harm in these sources is not evidence that the method is free of risk. This page is educational and is not individualized advice. Anyone with a symptom, a medical condition or a current treatment plan should discuss this practice with their clinician, and the practice should not delay or replace necessary medical care.

Training is also relevant. The organizational history describes Touch for Health as taught through its foundation and member association, and the critiques discussed above come from authors with ties to the applied kinesiology profession. The sources opened for this page do not describe a professional registration standard for Touch for Health instructors, so this page does not cover one. Questions about a practitioner's training and approach to diagnosis are reasonable to raise before a session.