In modern massage therapy, new “treatment methods” appear on a regular basis. As a rule, these methods are presented as fully developed from the very beginning — ready-made, turnkey systems. They come with ready-to-use theory, manuals, training programs, video materials, and one or more authoritative-looking gurus.
High effectiveness is almost always claimed. Most often, we learn about such methods through advertising, which is saturated with scientific-sounding terminology and promising but vague statements. Visual materials usually demonstrate mysterious techniques, usually slightly trimmed, apparently to avoid revealing the “secrets”
Attractive presentation and confident claims can easily persuade practitioners to invest money and move forward without hesitation. Nevertheless, even when a method looks scientific and promising, it is worth conducting at least a basic verification before making a decision. In fact, the information typically available in promotional materials is often sufficient to distinguish a genuinely effective approach from a pseudoscientific imitation. Here are a few tips on how to do it
The Name
The first thing worth examining is the name of the method. Usually, it is carefully constructed, sounds impressive, and is packed with complex terminology, yet provides little real understanding of what the method actually involves.
This alone should raise questions. In the history of science and medicine, names often emerged gradually, sometimes only after a concept or technique had proven its practical value. Early on, many legitimate approaches functioned without grand or definitive titles.
If a method’s name includes vague or fashionable terms such as “alignment,” “reciprocal,” ”energy,” “neurofascial,” neuromuscular,” “integration,” or loosely defined “neuro-” concepts without a clear, testable meaning, there is already over a 50% chance that the method belongs to pseudoscience.
Sometimes method names appear as catchy acronyms, for example: MET, SMRT, ELDOA, C.O.R.E. RAPID, and so on. This significantly increases the likelihood that you are dealing with pseudoscience.
Main Idea of the Method
The next step is to understand what the method is actually based on. Even brief promotional descriptions usually reveal the underlying principles. If this foundation itself rests on pseudoscientific assumptions or concepts that cannot be empirically tested, then the method cannot be considered scientific, and investing time in it makes little sense.
Sometimes a method is presented as a completely new, original development by the author with no analogues. This is a serious red flag. In the vast majority of cases, such claims are misleading. In these situations, patience is the most reasonable approach. If a method truly works as advertised, information about it will soon appear from independent sources. One can look for evidence of its adoption and spread within the professional community. Effective methods tend to disseminate quickly and organically. If nothing can be found, the safest course of action is to postpone engagement.
Another common scenario is the revival of long-forgotten methods that were abandoned due to proven lack of effectiveness. Typically, a “miracle” treatment is proposed decades ago, promising to address a wide range of conditions. Over time, clinical experience reveals that the outcomes do not match the expectations. In practical terms, the method shows no meaningful effectiveness. As a result, it fades from use — a logical and appropriate outcome.
Later, such approaches may reappear under the label of “unjustly forgotten” knowledge. A historical narrative, references to pioneers, and a sense of tradition are used to create an impression of credibility and depth. In reality, in most cases, this is little more than repackaged failure. If a method genuinely works, practitioners continue using it, and it does not disappear from practice.
As examples, one can mention the Feldenkrais Method, Dorn Method, Shiatsu, or the Alexander Technique. Despite periodic revivals and renewed interest, these approaches have never become integral parts of mainstream clinical practice, which itself reflects their limited practical effectiveness.
The Key Criterion
To define the main criterion for evaluating any method, a simple conceptual model is sufficient. Imagine that you are a massage therapist with solid basic training, practical experience, and a well-developed personal technique. Let us conditionally define your current professional level as 1.
You aim to improve your skills, which is both reasonable and professionally sound. To do this, you choose a new method, A. After studying method A and applying it in practice for some time, it is reasonable to expect that your professional capabilities will increase, let us say from 1 to 2.
In this case, one can conclude that method A has meaningfully enhanced your effectiveness.
If, however, after mastering method A, your practical level remains at 1, then the method does not work. It is, in effect, a non-functional construct. You may have learned new terminology, improved your theoretical knowledge of anatomy or physiology, and expanded your general understanding, but none of this translates into better practical outcomes.
Practical effectiveness — measurable and reproducible — is the primary criterion for any therapeutic method. Everything else is secondary and cannot justify its use in clinical practice.
Advertising notice
In my massage clinic in Calgary SE, I deliberately evaluate and filter out pseudoscientific approaches. I rely only on methods that have practical value and real clinical effectiveness. You can book and expect a thorough, high-quality therapeutic massage based on what works best at the present time — not on trends or marketing claims.