Talk:Rolfing

"Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted."

You're already building on sand here.

The article says things that the sources do not.

First, the article claims the principles of Rolfing "contradict established medical knowledge" while the source cannot support this statement. The appropriate statement is in the source.

> The principles of Rolfing differ from conventional medical opinion

This is the fact of the matter. The article is stating something else which is not fact.

Second, the book provides much better statements to work from.

"It is based on Rolf's ideas about how the human body's "energy field" can benefit when aligned with the Earth's gravitational field."

This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement venue.

> It is based on the observation that parts of the human body transmit Earth's gravitation through the body.

This is the fact. The author can speak for themselves. Wikipedia does not need to speak for them.

Third, one of our sources is wrong entirely.

> Rolfing is based on the unproven belief that such alignment results in improved movement, breathing, pain reduction, stress reduction, and emotional changes.

We have leapt from “Rolfing lacks high-quality clinical evidence” to “myofascial manipulation has no plausible connection to health.” That’s entirely invalid in the presence of conventional myofascial therapies.

Please address these matters with care. Wikipedia is not your soap box. "profringe" is a silly excuse. MrOllie's edit war is reported to the appropriate supervisory board.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Changing verbatim quotes is the worst sort of vandalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It would help the article conform to (NPOV) were the sources to be quoted accurately or using their own words.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind? I thought you were against letting WP:RS speak for themselves. I have more tolerance for writing obscenities than for changing verbatim quotes. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The sources also contain factual claims that we can use instead of the authors' opinions. (NPOV) directs us to avoid non-factual claims where factual ones are available. Wikipedia does not need to articulate the author's case when Wikipedia can rest on fact.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

> I have more tolerance for writing obscenities than for changing verbatim quotes.

I'm still curious about this case of vandalism you keep describing. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You seemed to randomly replace one quote with another.

Physics 101: you can't change the flow of the force field of gravity through your body. The laws of physics do not allow that: the field of the Earth is just too strong to care about your posture.

And energy fields are entirely fictional. Proof: search for them at arXiv and bioRxiv. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that the energy fields being discussed are fictional.

I changed the quote because the quote used is quite literally flavor text. I've already explained that (NPOV) directs us to use factual claims. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Except that Ida Rolf's claims are not facts. We can't write the article as though they are. MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the claims are true.

> We are the only group that recognizes that in order for a living body to be at ease in its spatial environment on earth gravity must be able to deal positively with it. We can’t change the gravitational field; we haven’t gotten that big yet. What we can do is to change the way the parts of the body fit together into a whole which can transmit the gravitational field through that body in such a way that it enhances its energy field. You can change the body by virtue of the fact that it is segmented, and when you have changed it appropriately, gravity can flow through. This is the basic concept of Rolfing. We are using gravity as our tool, not chemistry. When you come to look at it, this is quite an idea.

They are factual claims made by the author and they are significantly better citation material than the chosen one. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the claims are true.

False. See WP:RULES.

We are the only group that recognizes that in order for a living body to be at ease in its spatial environment on earth

Good for you. See WP:SOAP. DN (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RULES says that wikipedia is not to make false claims.

It says nothing about whether the claims in cited materials are true.

I really don't know what you're trying to say. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wrong again, see WP:V. Since you need help check with the WP:TEAHOUSE, otherwise see WP:COMPETENCE. DN (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You also really seem not to understand that this article is already soapboxing and should be fixed. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please drop WP:STICK, and see WP:NPA. DN (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40943880/ 95.99.135.172 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a primary study, it's from a predatory publisher in a journal that isn't MEDLINE indexed. Per WP:MEDRS we can't add it, as it is not reliable. MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am an ongoing financial contributor to wikipedia (and proud to be) because I use the site regularly and rely on your information as being accurate and factual. I was GREATLY disappointed to see your unexpectedly negative appraisal of Rolfing, AND Acupuncture as well. THAT has only been an excepted practice for 3,000 YEARS! Using the word QUACKERY is irresponsible and prejudicial. "QUACKERY" should never be used casually. I have benefited from both PRACTICES significantly over decades. I had a Rolfing session today, having experienced level 4 to 8 pain (while not laying down) almost continuously for 2 weeks. ONE session was enough to alleviate the pain! There is an old saying, "Don't knock it if you ain't tried it. Or at least talk to someone who has. You got your expert, I got mine. I've been there and done that! I expect your OPINIONS to be substantiated with facts. Thank You, ~2025-32656-03 (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream science. So, we are quite unapologetic about it. Donations aren't leverage over content. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,

I propose adding information about peer-reviewed research published since 2020 to the "Research and Evidence" section. The current article focuses heavily on pre-2015 reviews, and several studies have been published in indexed journals since then that readers should be aware of.

Proposed additions include:

• 2022 retrospective study in Journal of Clinical Medicine (n=383) on range of motion
• 2025 retrospective study in Healthcare journal (n=563) on mobility and trunk symmetry
• 2020 prospective study in Frontiers in Physiology on fascial tissue properties
• 2015 Harvard Medical School RCT on low back pain (this was published but not included)

Important notes:

• I am NOT proposing to remove existing systematic review criticisms
• All proposed text explicitly includes each study's stated limitations
• Language maintains NPOV (uses "reported" and "found" rather than "proved")
• References are properly formatted with DOIs
• Content gives appropriate weight to different levels of evidence

I have drafted complete text with citations. Before posting the full draft, I wanted to gauge if there are concerns with this general approach. The goal is to provide readers with current research while maintaining the article's neutral stance on efficacy.

Would editors be open to reviewing a draft of this addition?

Thanks, Tomerkurman (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC) ```

I think that links to the sources you propose would be better. Do they meet WP:MEDRS? - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 17:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

To reply to your question the answer is: partially.

MEDRS-compliant sources (secondary/review sources):

• Jacobson (2011) - This is a systematic review published in J Alt Complement Med. This meets MEDRS as a secondary source.
• Australian Government reviews (2015, 2022) - Already in the article, MEDRS-compliant, should remain as primary basis for efficacy claims.

Individual studies (primary sources - limited MEDRS compliance):

Most of the studies I proposed are primary research, which MEDRS generally recommends against using for biomedical efficacy claims. However, per WP:MEDRS, primary sources can be appropriate when used to illustrate (not prove) research directions, with explicit limitations stated.

Revised proposal adhering to MEDRS:

Rather than comprehensive additions, I'd suggest:

• Keep systematic reviews as basis for efficacy statements (existing content remains)
• Add brief mention that research has continued since 2011, with appropriate caveats
• Include the 2015 Harvard RCT as the highest-quality study
• Reference other studies sparingly to show research is ongoing (not to prove efficacy)

Would this approach work? Here are all the direct links you requested:

== Direct Links to All Proposed Sources ==

Range of Motion Studies:

1. Brandl et al. (2022) - Active Range of Motion study (n=383)

* Journal: Journal of Clinical Medicine

* Link: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/19/5878

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

* DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195878

* Full text freely available (open access)

2. Schleip et al. (2025) - Lower Limb Mobility, Respiratory Thorax Mobility study (n=563)

* Journal: Healthcare

* Link: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/13/18/1831

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12428785/

* Full text freely available (open access)

Fascial Tissue Properties:

3. Deutsch et al. (2020) - Fascial tissue stiffness, elasticity, blood perfusion (n=13)

* Journal: Frontiers in Physiology

* Link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.01050/full

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

* DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.01050

* Full text freely available (open access)

Low Back Pain:

4. Jacobson et al. (2015) - Harvard/Spaulding RCT on chronic low back pain (n=46)

* Journal: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

* Link: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2015/813418/

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4405211/

* DOI: 10.1155/2015/813418

* Full text freely available (open access)

Pelvic Floor Function:

5. Barassi et al. (2020) - Pelvic floor muscle EMG study (n=33)

* Journal: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

* Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9010

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7764274/

* DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17239010

* Full text freely available (open access)

Pediatric Applications:

6. Hansen et al. (2014) - Cerebral palsy gait study (n=2 case study)

* Journal: Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine

* Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2156587214540466

* PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25053754/

* DOI: 10.1177/2156587214540466

7. Loi et al. (2015) - Cerebral palsy RCT (n=29)

* Journal: Frontiers in Pediatrics

* Link: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2015.00074/full

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4550901/

* DOI: 10.3389/fped.2015.00074

* Full text freely available (open access)

Previous Reviews Referenced:

8. Jacobson (2011) - Systematic review noting limitations

* Journal: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

* Link: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2010.0258

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3198617/

* DOI: 10.1089/acm.2010.0258

* Full text freely available (open access)

Cervical Spine (Additional):

9. James et al. (2009) - Cervical spine dysfunction study (n=31)

* Journal: Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies

* Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360859208001393

* PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19329051/

* DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2008.09.004

Fascia Research Context (Supporting Background):

10. Bordoni & Simonelli (2024) - Fascial nomenclature update

* Journal: Cureus

* Link: https://www.cureus.com/articles/197799-fascial-nomenclature-update-2024

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10858998/

* DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52682

* Full text freely available (open access)

11. Gromakovskis et al. (2025) - Fascia in myofascial pain syndrome

* Journal: Frontiers in Pain Research

* Link: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2025.1712242/full

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12597954/

* DOI: 10.3389/fpain.2025.1712242

* Full text freely available (open access)

12. Fede et al. (2023) - Myofascial unit review

* Journal: International Journal of Molecular Sciences

* Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/5/4527

* PubMed: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10002604/

* DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054527

* Full text freely available (open access)

I understand that per MEDRS, we wouldn't use all of these for efficacy claims. But I wanted to provide complete transparency about what research exists. I'm proposing to use them selectively and with appropriate caveats. Tomerkurman (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I picked the Jacobson study at random. Its conclusion: "Evidence for clinical effectiveness and hypothesized mechanisms is severely limited by small sample sizes and absence of control arms." So, in other words, useless here unless you want to use it to reinforce the statement in the intro that "there is no good evidence Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition". Is that how you want to use it? --McSly (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's precisely how I'd propose to use it.

The Jacobson (2011) review's conclusion—that evidence is "severely limited by small sample sizes and absence of control arms"—should remain the foundation of the article's position on efficacy. I'm not proposing to change or contradict that.

What I'm suggesting is updating the article to reflect that:

1. The 2011 Jacobson review is the most recent comprehensive systematic review

2. Research has continued since then (the studies I listed)

3. Those subsequent studies have the same limitations Jacobson identified—small samples, often no control groups

4. Therefore, the conclusion remains unchanged: insufficient evidence for therapeutic effectiveness

The goal isn't to make the article more favorable to Rolfing, but to make it more current and accurate. Right now, a reader might think no research has happened since 2011.

I should also clarify: not all the sources I listed are for efficacy claims. Some (like the fascia research papers—Bordoni 2024, Gromakovskis 2025, Fede 2023) are background context about fascia biology, not claims that Rolfing works. These would only be to explain the theoretical framework practitioners use, similar to how articles on other alternative therapies explain underlying concepts without endorsing them.

Would something like this work for the research section?

"A 2011 systematic review concluded that evidence for Rolfing's clinical effectiveness is 'severely limited by small sample sizes and absence of control arms.' Subsequent studies, including a 2015 randomized controlled trial at Harvard Medical School that found some improvement in disability (but not pain) for chronic low back pain, and retrospective studies examining range of motion and other parameters, have continued to show these same methodological limitations. As of 2025, systematic reviews have found no clear evidence of therapeutic effectiveness."

This reinforces the "no good evidence" statement while acknowledging research exists. The other sources I mentioned (fascia research) would be for a different section explaining the biological context, not making efficacy claims. Thoughts? Tomerkurman (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

So basically, nothing has changed, and you want to report that as latest developments using sources that tell us nothing new has been found, as expected, yes? - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 23:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I too see this as not really changing the gist of the page. I guess the question I have is whether some of our current sources are needlessly old, and if so, would it be useful to replace them with more current ones? That could potentially be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Jacobson's article is published in an altmed journal, so is automatically unreliable. We shouldn't use such sources for WP:BMI even if they happen to be sensible, especially when we have decent (uh) alternatives to hand. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)