Home • AltMed Home • Search

According to an article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, there was no difference in muscle response from one substance to another, while others have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos.  In this study, three practitioners testing eleven subjects made significantly different assessments; their diagnoses of nutritional deficiencies did not correspond to the nutrient levels obtained by blood serum analysis; and that the responses to nutrient substances did not significantly differ from responses to placebos.

Another article in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics found no effect from administering the nutrients "expected" to strengthen a muscle diagnosed as "weak" by AK practitioners.

A double-blind trial reported in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics concluded that "muscle response appeared to be a random phenomenon.

Another study in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry showed that suggestion can influence the outcome of muscle-testing.  During part of this experiment, college students were told that chewing M&M's would give them instant energy that would probably make them stronger.  Five our nine felt stronger.

The Journal of Complementary Therapy in Medicine reported a study in which four AK practitioners tested seven patients who were extremely sensitive to wasp venom.  Altogether, 140 muscle tests were done to see how the patients responded to preparations of venom or salt water in a bottle.  If the tests were valid, the venom bottles should result in "strong" reactions and the salt-water bottles should produce "weak" test reactions. However, the practitioners were unable to identify which bottles contained which.

The Journal of Orofacial Pain in 2005 conducted a study that aimed to determine the reliability and the validity of visual leg measurements used in dental kinesiology such as occurs in temporomandibular disorders.  It concluded that "visual evaluations of leg-length inequality and internal foot rotation were unreliable and are not valid for TMD diagnoses. The results of chiropractic visual leg measurement procedures in dentistry should be interpreted with caution, particularly when clinical decisions may lead to nonreversible dental treatment."

The Journal of Dental Research in 2005 published a study that examined test-retest reliability of AK.  The results confirmed the working hypothesis that "the reliability of AK would not exceed random chance."

A critical review article found in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift determined that "there is to date a lack of evidence for the effectiveness, validity and reliability of "Applied Kinesiology". The following requirements are thus vital: "Applied Kinesiologists" must develop clear criteria for single subgroups of "Applied Kinesiology", prove the effectiveness of their methods, and explain their findings in agreement with current medical knowledge.

As mentioned in other parts of this web-site, AK practitioners claim to be able to treat learning disabilities via AK.  There is a one subset of AK termed Neural Organization Technique that includes the notion that the skull is an "extension of the spine."  NOT's proponents claim that "blocked neural pathways" caused by misaligned skull bones can cause learning disorders, cerebral palsy, schizophrenia, Down's syndrome, colorblindness, bedwetting, nightmares, and various other problems. Its practitioners claim that "adjusting" these bones by applying pressure to various structures of the head can cure these problems.  This claim is not only unsubstantiated but clashes with the fact that the bones of the skull are tightly fused by age two.  NOT came to public attention in 1988 when chiropractors subjected children to it in a "research" program sponsored by school officials in Del Norte County, California. For five months, dozens of children from age four to sixteen, with epilepsy, Down's syndrome, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, and various other learning disorders, were "treated" by having their skull compressed with viselike hand pressure. The children were also forced to endure painful thumb pressure against the roof of the mouth and finger pressure against their eyes. According to news reports, the children struggled, cried, and screamed as they were forcibly restrained. One reportedly experienced his first seizure when his eye sockets were "adjusted."  In 1991, a jury ordered Ferreri to pay $565,000 in damages to seven children and their parents who had filed suit for physical and emotional pain related to the treatment. Two other chiropractors involved in the case settled out of court for a total of $207,000.

According to www.cancer.org, "Applied kinesiology procedures are considered relatively safe, although conclusions drawn from it may be incorrect. Treatment that is based on applied kinesiology has occasionally resulted in harm, including at least one death, due to wrong diagnosis or treatment selection. Relying on this diagnostic method alone, and avoiding or delaying conventional medical diagnosis and treatment, may have serious health consequences."  At least one other website reports specific cases in which AK has caused harm.  In one, "the technique was used by a clinical ecologist to tell a mother that her children were not allergic to peanuts with the result that when given peanut butter their allergic reactions nearly killed them. AK was used by an Arizona chiropractor to assure a patient that she did not have cancer. She subsequently died due to lack of treatment."

There are also "tricks" the tester can perform to disrupt the strength of the patient.  A sudden slight upward movement can cause a "set" muscle to relax just enough so that it can be immediately pulled downward.

Many of the proponents of AK, criticize articles that detract from the validity of AK.  A common theme of attack is directed towards the study design.  However, a review of 20 research papers published by International College of Applied Kinesiology concluded that because "none of the papers included adequate statistical analyses, no valid conclusions could be drawn concerning their report of findings."

It is the opinion of the collaborator of this web page, that the burden of proof lies squarely on the practitioners and otherwise proponents of applied kinesiology.