Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2000, 3(2):54-59, type of study: ,art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Free full text   (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiy_M6L_L33AhXOm6QKHbvcDAMQFnoECAUQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvuir.vu.edu.au%2F501%2F1%2FMuscle_energy_concepts._A_need_for_change.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1PD1eCHyKi31FxdoZkLbJK)

Keywords:

muscle energy technique [180]
MET [640]
Fred Mitchell [1]
biomechanics [69]
article [2634]

Abstract:

The growth in popularity of osteopathic muscle energy technique (MET) over the last two decades with osteopaths, medical practitioners, physiotherapists, chiropractors and remedial therapists is likely testament to its clinical efficacy. The techniques were originally devised and described by Fred Mitchell Snr in the 1940s and 1950s and the first technique manual published in 1979.1 It is time to critically examine many of the concepts behind muscle energy as, while our understanding of biomechanics and manual medicine has increased since this time, the theory behind these techniques have remained relatively unchanged. This article aims to highlight areas of MET theory and practice that appear outdated, and offer what may be more plausible explanations and alternatives that are consistent with current knowledge.