Clinical studies prove MRT works, but a few claim it doesn't.
Don't let others make up your mind for you - take a deeper look.
The validity of Muscle Response Testing (MRT) is clearly evidenced by its massive growth. In today's fast-changing world of commerce, technologies survive only when the consumer receives benefit. Millions of people have benefited from MRT. It has been steadily evolving and gaining momentum in the last 50 years, with over 50 techniques in use worldwide today.
Thousands of health professionals, including medical doctors, use various techniques in Muscle Response Testing (MRT) in their practice, and based on the results with their own patients, have an unshakable conviction of its legitimacy.
With its increasing popularity, clinical studies have been performed on different forms of MRT. The results have been mixed. We've included reviews of both favorable and an unfavorable studies below, along with links to the source documentation.
Overall, they consistently demonstrated an 17% increase in muscle strength in true vs. false statements. Test subjects were kept unaware of what changes in muscle strength, if any, would occur. They had no preconceived notions of how their muscle strength should respond.
This study is highly significant because the JET Technique for Kinesiology uses the key element of the true/false stimulus in most of our testing protocols. These protocols have been refined and perfected at JSI over the last 10 years.
Editor's note: The unfavorable clinical study in the next section is part of an article which appears when you search for "kinesiology" or "muscle testing" on the web. The article is titled "Stay Away from Applied Kinesiology" . It's important to look into both sides of this story. For your convenience, we've included the links below. However, at JSI we do not use the same methodology as Applied Kinesiology, which is only one of over 50 techniques in kinesiology in use worldwide today. Consequently, the arguments on both sides are not necessarily relevant to our protocols. |
MRT failed to perform well during these clinical trials. Statistical analysis yielded no significant judgmental reliability between testers, and no consistent correlation of test results with standard biochemical tests for nutrient status.
Double-blind and placebo elements created inconsistencies with test results, with subjects testing incorrectly on placebo elements thought to be nutrients. The conclusion reached based on these clinical trials: Applied Kinesiology was an unreliable methodology.
In addition, the Ridler points used in the clinical study were not even Applied Kinesiology techniques. Plus, the three "qualified" kinesiologists used in the study were actually two lay persons and one chiropractor whose education in Applied Kinesiology was not identified.
They also point to several other significant studies establishing both the validity and reliability of their testing methods. The ICAK has amassed a considerable amount of positive research over the years, and accepts only physicians licensed to diagnose into its curriculum. Applied Kinesiology and the ICAK are very well established worldwide.
Millions of people over the past 50 years have experienced MRT. Thousands of health professionals, including medical doctors, utilize it in their practices. Its validity may be able to rest on these solid statistics instead.
In a final analysis on the validity of MRT, a little common sense might come in handy. If one person says it works, they may have an overactive imagination. If 100 say it, you can get 100 people to do anything. But if millions of people worldwide over the last 50 years have used MRT, then maybe it’s time you looked at it.
