Kinesiology, an integral part of the healing process

In two blinded Oxford studies, practitioners using muscle response testing correctly told truths from lies about 66% of the time — significantly better than chance (50%) or their own intuition (47%).

30 years ago I was lucky enough to find a chiropractor that also practiced kinesiology. I was ‘suffering’ from postnatal depression, I was overweight following the birth of my daughter 3 years prior, felt like crap at a time when I should have been in joy and embracing something that I had longed for – motherhood!

I went to the chiro because I had a sore back … a typical reason why most people find a chiro (or neck pain or something else musculoskeletal). I did not understand the mind body connection. The Chiro, using his amazing knowledge of neurology and anatomy combined with his kinesiology skills helped me untangle the mix of structural/emotional/toxic stuff I had going on. I didn’t just have a sore back because in a previous life I had been lifting a 35 lb plough anchor out of 100 foot of ocean at least three times per day (but that is another story).

He helped me see that the fertility pills I had been taking, the grief over the two miscarriages I had experienced (with no support), the controlling husband, the absent mother blah blah blah, etc, etc, etc were all part of the ‘who I was’ at that time in my life.

Kinesiology was a calm and very supportive way of helping me understand how stress was showing up in my body, my life. This practice can help explore the connections between emotions, nervous system, toxic load, and physical response.

30+ years ago kinesiology was very woo woo. Today, the value of it as a part of a ‘getting on with life and feeling ******* amazing’ program is still not truly understood.

I am very grateful that I was inspired to study Chiropractic, Kinesiology and now Counselling. It is such a valuable mix and I want to show that there are some studies that validate the ‘muscle response test’ which is at the foundation of Kinesiology.

Here is a synopsis of one such study …

A 2016 study published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Jensen, Stevens and Burls (University of Oxford) set out to test whether muscle response testing (MRT) — a form of manual muscle testing used to gauge neural control rather than raw strength — can reliably distinguish true from false spoken statements. Across two randomised-order, blinded experiments (48 practitioner–patient pairs in the first, 20 in a simplified replication), practitioners judged the truth of statements using MRT, and separately using intuition alone.

MRT correctly identified truths and lies about 66% of the time (accuracy 0.659, 95% CI 0.623–0.695), significantly better than both practitioners’ unaided intuition (0.474) and the 50% expected by chance (p < 0.01). The second experiment replicated the result, and no measured factor was found to explain the effect. The authors conclude that MRT showed a small but statistically significant ability to distinguish lies from truths, while cautioning that the finding does not necessarily generalise to other uses of muscle testing.

With great thanks to the author of the article. Jensen et al. (2016) BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

If you are interested in the full article, please contact me. I would love to share!

And, if you want to know more or experience kinesiology, make an appointment … I would love to help!

FAQ’s

What is muscle response testing (MRT)?

MRT is a form of manual muscle testing in which a practitioner applies light pressure to a muscle and observes whether it holds firm or gives way. Rather than measuring raw strength, it is used to gauge the nervous system's response — including, in some practices, a person's reaction to spoken statements.

Can muscle testing really detect lies?

In two blinded, randomised Oxford experiments, practitioners using MRT distinguished true from false statements about 66% of the time — significantly better than the 50% expected by chance. The effect was small but statistically significant, and it was replicated in a second study.

How accurate was muscle response testing in the studies?

MRT accuracy was 0.659 (95% CI 0.623–0.695), compared with 0.474 for practitioners relying on intuition alone and 0.500 for pure chance. The difference from both intuition and chance was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Is muscle response testing scientifically proven?

The research shows a measurable, repeatable effect under controlled conditions, which is encouraging. However, the authors caution that the findings apply specifically to detecting spoken lies and do not necessarily generalise to other uses of muscle testing. More research is needed before broad claims can be made.

Where can I read the original study?

The study by Jensen, Stevens and Burls was published open-access in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2016), DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2, and can be read and shared freely under a Creative Commons Attribution licence.