"TCM" style massage vs (maybe not the right term)

[James Boelter]

Calling all bodyworkers who frequent the forum....

I've been attending a local massage therapy school, and learned a nice, powerful basic "shiatsu" style massage routine. It seems to give very powerful relaxing and stress relieving results for the amount of time and effort required to give it (in fact, often giving it to another person will help boost my own energy levels, to the point I will get a little drunk on energy if I'm not careful). I am pretty excited about the possibilities inherent in the practice, especially since since shiatsu is traditionally practiced with the recipient fully clothed - hence no lotion or oil, no linens or laundry, much less possibility of a sexual harassment suit, and as I said, it seems much easier to give and has much more satisfying 'tonic' results. So I picked up several basic books on the subject, including 'Zen Shiatsu' by Masunaga.

All the books say that shiatsu is evolved from traditional Anma massage and Tuina/Ankyo massage originating from China. So I got a couple of books on TCM style massage to get a different perspective, and discovered a much bigger difference than I expected. The medians and tsubos seem to be basically the same, but the Chinese methods seem to have a much larger variety of massage methods - several varieties of vibratory techniques, each with a different intensity and depth, several rolling and pounding techniques, etc. In contrast, shiatsu is basically palming, pressing with the thumbs, or elbows or forearms, and joint rotations and stretching.

So my question is: did the Japanese lose something vital or important when they took the TCM approaches and simplified them to a 'Zen' style directness?

Certainly the authors of the Chinese massage books seem feel no need to simply their approaches down to shiatsu style practice - it seems as if they believe that each of the multiple special techniques exist for a reason, and each one has an effect that the others don't, or at least not as well. So I can't tell if the founders of shiatsu are SISSifying traditional massage or stripping away the non-essentials to get to the heart of the matter. (I've got a book by Masanuga, the creator of "Zen Shiatsu" called "Meridian Exercises"; based on what I read, I believe he was a genuinely great man. But I'm not sure he went deep enough, if you understand my concern. )

I suspect that the real answer lies in the perceptions and character of the
practitioner, of course. But I would welcome any opinions as to which tradition would be 'better' to specialize in in an attempt to a) help my clients as much and as profoundly as possible , and b) distinguish my practice from those of my colleagues (I would like to do well, as well as do good).

[bob_stra]

> effort required to give it (in fact, often giving it to another person will >help boost my own energy levels, to the point I will get a little drunk on >energy if I'm not careful).

Interesting. That usually works in reverse ie: the person is not mindful of their own actions and tends to wear themselves out.

> I am pretty excited about the possibilities inherent in the practice,
> especially since shiatsu is traditionally practiced with the recipient >fully clothed

"Traditionally", in all the books I've seen, Shiatsu is done with the patient partially unclothed. I know for a fact this is not modern practice - perhaps "coffee book "authors get confused between tuina, amma, accupressure and shiatsu.

>All the books say that shiatsu is evolved from traditional Anma massage >and Tuina/Ankyo massage originating from China.

Hmm. IIRC Amma is more an all encompassing physical therapy including exercise. Shiatsu, a subset, was practiced by the blind as a means to earn a living. I might be getting my wires crossed there, it's been a while.


>The medians and tsubos seem to be basically the same

Also similar in Thai style massage. The bulk of trigger points (70%) are on me meridians / tsubos. Which I always thought was interesting.

> but the Chinese methods seem to have a much larger variety of
> massage methods - several varieties of vibratory techniques, each with > a different intensity and depth, several rolling and pounding techniques, > etc.

Yes - like I said, the traditional roots were practiced as a complete system of manual therapy, where as shiatsu was an outcropping.

>So my question is: did the Japanese lose something vital or important >when they took the TCM approaches and simplified them to a 'Zen' style >directness?

No, I don't think so. Techniques actually mean very, very, little, beyond a certain point. For example, let’s take a chiropractic adjustment. If you know what you’re doing, you can sometimes achieve the same result using MET, or an Activator tool. Sometimes one tool is more appropriate than another however. A Type II facet problems takes some work to adjust with MET, and barely 30 seconds to address with HVT (if done right). Conversely, all the manipulation in the world won't address a soft tissue lesion / trigger point as quickly as TFF or Trigger point therapy, IMHO.

Though, the body is interconnected and invariably working on one thing affects another. Techniques aren't that important. Intent, however, is *VASTLY* important, because it shapes your approach. Unfortunatelly, some styles of bodywork, IMHO, have "poor" intnet towards the body / healing / people. The treat them as machines, things to be fixed.


>Certainly the authors of the Chinese massage books seem feel no need >to simply their approaches down to shiatsu style practice - it seems as if >they believe that each of the multiple special techniques exist for a >reason

Grey area. If I want to get from point A to point B, I can run, walk or cycle. Sometimes one is better than the other. Sometimes I have a flat tire, Sometimes I'm in a hurry and sometimes my feet hurt. Still all three work.

And god knows how many variations there are of walking, running and cycling, to torture the metaphor.

As for having different effects - grey area. Take the recent discussion on ART. TFF style massage claims to be able to loosen adhesions better than say pettrisage or tapotement. Well, I'm not sure that's ever been rationally explained. If anything, fascia responds poorly to direct pressure. IMHO the results are more likely to be neurologically based.

See http://www.barrettdorko.com/desk.htm

and especially

http://www.barrettdorko.com/articles/doing.htm


>I suspect that the real answer lies in the perceptions and character of >the practitioner, of course.

Yes.

>But I would welcome any opinions as to which tradition would be 'better'

But then again, you have stuff like manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder, where they do physically tear an adhesion. Is that neurological or physics (force)? Which comes first - chicken or egg?

Take the one that tickles your fancy - the one that stimulates your interests, that represents the way you want to work with people. Otherwise you are in for a hell of a miserable time. Oh, the stories I could tell... ;-)

[Arthur]

Shiatsu is an art that evolved by specialization in one particular method of the broader massage art. It is not a watering down, but a fleshing out of one aspect.

It is the technique of Dian Mo taken to an extreme.

Within Shiatsu there are many different styles, Masunaga's is one of those styles. His style is further removed from TCM than some of the others. He was a psychologogist as well, and placed a heavy emphasis on the psychological aspect of the meridian functions. Furthermore, his style tends to incorporate Macrobiotic ideas. Perhaps most notable in setting it apart from other styles of traditional Chinese/Japanese treatment is his belief that there are an "extra" 12 meridians. In Masunaga style all of the leg meridians have a reflection in the arms and vice versa... which makes sense in an extrapolated theory sort of way... but feels a bit strange to traditional practitioners.

Masunaga style also tendds to use lighter touch than many of the styles out there (this part I like, the extra meridians stress me out :wink: ).

The other 2 "big: styles out there are Namikoshi and Serizawa.

Namikoshi is not as concerned with meridians as Masunaga, and tends to see every inch of the body as a "point". Its a pressure based system with a bit of a shot gun approach.

Serizawa style is more tsubo (acupoint) focused, and attempts to use the functions of the points to solve problems.

There are many other styles of Shiatsu as well. Some are identical to styles of acupuncture, just without the needles, some are more like massage.

Japanese style traditional medicine gnerally allows for far more touching than Chinese styles because of culture. So things like whole body Shiatsu treaments are possible, as well as hara (stomach) diagnosis.

And speaking of hara diagnosis, the japanese even developed a specialized system of stomach massage (Ampuku) which through the holographic tendencies of the body, can be used to treat ailments all over the body. The Japanese sort of like specialization and have a way of making everything a bit more "Japanese".

Arthur
PS It is Anma which was traditionally done by the blind. anman is the sem charaacters as An Mo in Chinese or Chinese massage. One aspect of this is Tui Na which is likely what the Chinese massage book in question is on.
PPS Unfortunately there really aren't any "great" Shiatsu books on the market (one may have come out more recently, but I doubt it). When I trained we used mostly acupuncture books and the guiding hands of a good teacher.

[bob_stra]

Thanks Arthur – like I said, Oriental approaches to healing aren’t really my forte. I do have an interest in Thai massage as it somewhat resembles Accrossage and Shitasu, two approaches I think allow for great things.

You said what I wanted to say, better than I said it ;-)

I want to amend what I had written earlier. Two points

(1) Within the vast conglomerate that is bodywork are some things that really aren’t bodywork. Stuff like Hakomi, Trager, Reiki, psychosomatics, Alexander Technique etc. The difference is intent. Just because you’re touching someone doesn’t mean your trying to rub their sore shoulder.

(BTW, there was a big stink abt this in the mid 1990’s as American massage standards were being introduced. What is bodywork? What isn’t? etc).

I think Arthur might be able to tell you how this relates the various eastern approaches. For example, is Shiatsu a “massage”, an “energy clearing” or a “somatic” approach etc? This, I believe might account for the difference between Amma and shiatsu.

(2) Like I said tools for situations. However, I truly, honestly believe that there are very, very few situations which a somatic approach to “bodywork” can’t address, though some situations more indirectly that others (ie: burn wound healing, a strong point of Swedish). I cannot say the reverse for something like Swedish massage. That might be a personal bias of mine, induced by training in "crude flesh rubbing" but I like to think of working with rather than on a person. When I think bodywork, I think "working on" styles.

*sigh*

It very difficult to explain, but easy to recognise. The above website (Dorkos Desk) does a good job of describing what I’m trying to say, esp the “Ideomotor movement” and “Simple Contact” articles.

Summary – perhaps the difference between Shiatsu and Amma etc is intent? I dunno, but am curious to find out myself.

[James Boelter]

Bob and Arthur, thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful replies. I absolutely agree that "Intent" is the most important aspect of bodywork, and that there are few problems that a thorough and careful somatic approach can't help.

And thanks for the excellent link; that's two sites now that I probably never would have found if not for you, Bob. Even a cursory skimming of them has opened up many new avenues of thinking and inquiry.

You know you are in the right field for you when it's almost all you want to think about and you have to force yourself to stop pondering issues in the field and go to bed!

Again, my deep appreciation for your opinions and for sharing your deep background knowledge.

[Vbrown]

Tui Na, as it has been taught to me, has been ment to fit with a total treatment modality in TCM. Rather than a specialization to be practised on it's own, it's used in conjunction with other action or treatment to get the desired result. This is part of the reason for the wider array of manipulations, so you would have more tools to fit in with the other things like needles, moxa, etc.

Which is certainly not to say the shiatsu is not useful in a TCM picture. I'd agree with the assessment that it is an indepth study of some of the aspects that are found in tui na. I enjoy the heck out of it myself.

Vince

[Arthur]

Having some internet problems with my machine. :cry: Hopefully I'll have it fixed soon and I can post. (borrowing a computer at moment)

Arthur

[Arthur]

Its been a bad 2 weeks internet wise. Just wanted to check in. This is my first time logging back in on this forum since late January. Hope to get caught up and start posting again in the next few days.

Arthur