Wheres The Myo?

Whatever Ever Happpened to the MYO in Myofascial Release?

This is a commentary on the role of Fascia in the structural function of the body.

So far, I have mostly referred to John Barnes of Myofascial Release fame, and his point of view on fascia. John has done a lot for the Myofascial Release and Bodywork Communities. However, there are some long-standing points-of-view that I consider to be very misleading when it comes to the nature of fascia. I address some of them here.

About 15 years ago or so, I read in an article in Massage Magazine written by John Barnes, founder of the very well-known MyoFascial Release technique, that there is really no such thing as muscle, that there is only fascia, or connective tissue. This, after his lengthy attempt at philosophical discussion on the dangers of “reductionism” in modern science. He bemoaned the artificial breaking down (reduction) of the body into separate parts by medical science and he attempts to pontificate on this topic as a “wholistic” philosopher.

Then, after warning us of the dangers of reductionism, he then turns around and “reduces” all the many different muscles and connective tissues of the body down to the single name of fascia. Given what we are often told about fascia and how it wraps around every structure of the body, this is the equivalent of saying that since all the food in my refrigerator is wrapped in Saran Wrap, there is no such thing as food, there is only Saran Wrap. But if you treat Saran Wrap as if it were food, making no distinction between them, you will get a more inferior result than if you treat Saran Wrap as Saran Wrap and food as food. If for no other reason, I do not expect that Saran Wrap is very tasty.

This is a very common occurence in the so-called wholistic fields of thought and the incessant quest for “oneness” at all cost. The bias against analytical or linear thought, which requires varying levels and aspects of reductionist thinking in order to understand certain problems, shows up in many ways. In this case, Barnes attacks reductionism, praises wholism, then turns around and engages in the ultimate reductionism by calling all the tissues in question by one name: fascia. Since the characteristics of fascia and muscle are almost completely different, neither can be effectively addressed or even thought about when their individual realities are obscured or denied by a linguistic or semantic sleight of hand.

Barnes is by all means correct to point out that modern medical science has gone way too far in treating every system and component of the human body as completely seperate and denying the all to obvious and important, intimate relationships between them. This destructive characteristic is present in much of so-called science (and described well by Candace Pert in her excellent book Molecules of Emotion). Yet to deny the individual characteristics of various components and systems is equally misleading at best, destructive at worst.

In the tradition of Ida Rolf, John Barnes correctly puts a lot of attention onto fascia that was formerly lacking. Fascia is a very important organ of metabolism and structural support with important implications to the health of the human body. (Its wide range of important functions are well described in Deane Juhans’s exceedingly great book Job’s Body: A Handbook for Bodywork.) Fascia is, however, quite distinct from muscle and must be treated with a significantly different set of considerations.

It is clear that since Barnes is (or was at the time of writing his article) psychologically biased toward the idea of fascia being the prime tissue of postural and structural support (his professional reputation is in large part based upon this), his possibly unconscious bias prevents his philosophical viewpoints from being complete or fully accurate. Ida Rolf was also biased toward fascia being the prime factor in postural distortion, as was Joseph Heller, founder of Hellerwork, an offshoot of Rolfing. (Heller was the president of the Rolf Institute for several years.)

In an article in the Journal of Bodywork, published by Leon Chaitow in England, the issue of fascia was discussed along the same lines that Rolf and Heller think. Interestingly, the article sites, as references in support of the ideas in the article, the writings of Rolf, Barnes, etc. They do not quote outside sources, they merely quote each other. Scholarly, academic discussions of fascia and related tissues are hard to come by, however, because the medical establishment does not invest significant resources into such questions. The 37th Edition of the well-respected, English publication of Gray’s Anatomy stated that the term fascia has been so widely and loosely used to have lost much of its meaning. (That statement was removed in the 39th.)

Like bone, fascia is “structurally passive,” it has no ability to execute an “action” on its own. Muscle can execute an action because it has contractile fibres that, according to modern theory, function similar to ratchets that shorten and lengthen to achieve movement. Fascia, on the other hand, has no contractile fibre. (Recent research has found contractile fibers in the fascia, yet these turns out to be contractile muscle fibers that have grown in after some kind of an injury. It has also been suggested that certain ligaments have a rudimentary form of contractile fibre, but this appears to actually be muscle fibers embedded in the ligaments. For example, the deepest layers of gluteus maximus embedded in the sacro-tuberous ligament.) Therefore, the ability of fascia to create “movement” or change in size substantially on its own, is reliant on the change of plasticity within its fibers (colloidal fibers) through chemical change (heat, motion, etc.). With no motor nerves apparent in the fascial structures, there is no way for a human to consciously — or even unconsciously, for that matter — produce a change in length of their fascia the way they can a muscle. Fascia, like bone, only goes along for the ride when it comes to actual mobility.

As well, one of the primary features of fascia is that it is VERY flexible (bendable) but also VERY resistant to lengthening out. This is one of the things that makes it useful. The most common estimates I've seen are that connective tissues — tendons, ligaments and fascia — have a maximum of 4 to 6 per cent of extensibility, meaning the capacity to lengthen out without tearing.

It has also been pointed out* that when a person, even a very aged one, with significant postural distortion, such as scoliosis or a hunched back, receives full-body anesthesia for surgery, all their postural distortions disappear as the muscles relax and lengthen out. As the anesthesia wears off and the person becomes more conscious, the postural distortions return as the muscles tighten back up and shorten again. Since fascia has no neurological motor inputs or contractile fibre that would allow it to “relax” dramatically and in such a short period of time the way muscle does, the fascia would not respond to anesthesia in a way that would allow the postural distortions to dissolve.

(Deane Juhan does so in Job's Body.)

Another favorite idea of the fascia crowd is the illustration of a sweater. They point out that if one pulls on a thread in one corner of a sweater, that thread will pull all the way through the whole sweater, creating some degree of distortion. Of course, only some sweaters are knitted in a fashion that this will happen, but it does neatly illustrate a valid concept. The question is, does this concept, valid for certain kinds of sweaters, apply to ANY of fascia?

This is, again, reminiscent of a New Age or pseudo-wholistic physics concept that says that when a butterfly flaps its wings, it could start a hurricane in some other part of the world. Even the originator of this idea said that the idea is purely theoretical, and leaves out important factors, such as localized friction in the atmosphere, that would limit the ability of air pressure from vibrations generated by butterfly wings to start huricanes. But this, like the also mythical Hundredth Monkey Theory, does not stop the fuzzy thinkers of the world who will ignore much in order to prove a little.

Anyway, the dense construction, the toughness, and structure of fascia, as well as the jobs it has to do, are such that it's very usefulness requires that it NOT be that extensible, and the way it is attached to structures and other factors also indicates that it performs no such actions.

I DO believe that it can, via its piezo-electric characteristic, create certain kinds of micro-movements that cause it to slightly "contract" with certain stimulus. It can also shrink a small percentage with dehydration. And some research indicates it might even have a capacity of some kind of memory.

Anway, the chemical and non-contractile properties of fascia leads me to believe quite strongly that the primary source of postural distortion is the muscles, not the fascia.

SHORT STORY: The Hellerworkers in L.A.

I was teaching a 3 Hour introductory seminar on what I now call DSL EdgeWork in Los Angeles in the early 1990’s, which a couple of Hellerwork practitioners attended. (Joe Heller was president of the Rolf institute for 12 years and openly admits that his work, Hellerwork, is heavily based on Rolfing, with some modifications and innovations.)

One of the Hellerworkers in attendance had a small degree of scoliosis (sideways curvature of the spine) for a number of years. Several Hellerworkers had tried to straighten it, including Joe Heller himself. When I described how I worked on scoliosis, he was intrigued because, since the Hellerwork model is (or at least was at the time) based on the idea of fascia as the primary cause of postural distortion, they had always worked on the opposite side than I would have. So he came in for a session the next day. If I remember correctly, he only had a little less than an hour available, which is an awfully short time to straighten a scoliosis. So I worked on the side with the shortened muscles, opposite of the side they had been working on and, sure enough, it began to straighten right then and there.

They had operated on the idea that the fascia on the convex side of the spine was pulling it laterally to one side. I used the idea that the muscles on the concave side were bending the spine.

I was subsequently offered to come lecture to the local Hellerwork support group, but could not at the time. And, unfortunately, most of my contact numbers from that time were lost, so I never got the opportunity. Last I heard, though, they were paying a lot more attention to those shortened up muscles, and had moved somewhat away from the shortened fascia idea!!!

Thanks for Reading and Take Care,
David Scott Lynn
DSL: Your Hi-Touch Up-Link to the Inner-Net