Comments on: Holford on Applied Kinesiology testing: “there is little doubt that it works”

By: Claire

Claire — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:50:18 +0000

These people seem unconvinced of the benefits of AK: http://www.allergy.org.au/content/view/262/1/

“…Kinesiology (Evidence Level II: inaccurate test)

Kinesiology is based on the concept that exposure to exogenous toxins or allergens will be reflected in a reduction in muscle strength. Muscle strength is measured before and after exposure to food. “Provocation” to food occurs by having drops of food extracts given under the tongue or by holding a vial of food extracts in one hand. Children are assessed by testing the parent’s strength first and again while holding the child’s hand. The two test results are then subtracted to give the final results. Controlled study has shown that kinesiology results are not reproducible and are no more accurate than guessing. Unfortunately, kinesiology and other unproven diagnostic techniques are used as the basis of unorthodox treatment techniques as well. “

By: jonhw

jonhw — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:03:31 +0000

Ratty – interesting to hear about your AK school. Which national paper is the article going to be in? You can e-mail me at holfordwatch at googlemail dot com if you’d rather not say on a public blog…

I’d be curious to know why you see AK as more plausible than dowsing. Have you conducted blind testing yourselves, to see whether your results are reproducible?

By: Ratty

Ratty — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:53:32 +0000

I have to say that the comments regarding – “As John Garrow has shown, Applied Kinesiology produces results similar to chance when subjected to blind testing.” to be slightly grating. I run (with my partner) the longest running school in the UK. We do NOT advocate dowsing, or any belief system whatsoever. Muscle testing (done/taught properely) will produce exact results. If you can understand a basic electrical circuit, i.e. on or off, then you have got to grips with basic kinesiology!! The easiest persons in the world to explain muscle testing too are mechanics and electricians. If your body is intolerant to say wheat or dairy, you would perform a muscle test and lets just say it is strong (the client holds the (light) pressure from the kinesiologist with no problem, sponginess or shaking (I have witnessed the most diabolical testing when a practioner at a seminar has applied so much pressure they have actually injured someone, probably because they assumed the test would be weak!!!) and then wheat or dairy is placed on the cheek, then repeat the muscle test, it will go weak. And vica versa for nutrition – muscle test performed and you have weak muscle test – have the client hold the nutrition against the cheek and when the relevant one is introduced to the circuit you have a strong muscle test. It is so simply and logical and is not rocket science. THE big problem is mainly, that to perform a muscle test you need to have a clear mind and not assume anything, which a lot of people just cannot do. The other problem is lack of legislation, which obviously can lead to poorly trained practitioners. We will be having a article coming out soon in a national newspaper soon, which will show the benefits of kinesiology when used by an expert and not belief systems, etc. Another thing I find amazing is that people cannot understand we now more than ever need nutrition/supplements when we all no the state of mass produced food/farming practices. The nutrients are just not there like they were in years gone by.

By: Patrick Holford and The Whole Health Dowsing Kit « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:59:26 +0000

[...] CV, he was spending time as a student of Drs Hoffer and Pfeiffer. Did he learn about the value of applied kinesiology and health dowsing while ’studying’ with [...]

By: Shinga

Shinga — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:47:55 +0000

Too many to reproduce as it is littered through books and articles: one example is quoted by David Colquhoun in his discussion of the ASA ruling against Holford. You may enjoy some Patrick Holford juvenilia which indicates that he may once have been more trusting in Nature while simultaneously pushing the case for supplements.

By: anandamide

anandamide — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:30:22 +0000

“The myth of the balanced diet”?

[baffled]

Where’s that particular gem? One really does begin to wonder how the human race survived the past 100,000 years without the IoN helping up through the nutritional minefield that is life.

By: Shinga

Shinga — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:27:01 +0000

Judging by his references to “the myth of the balanced diet”, he doesn’t believe in the nutritional adequacy of the foods that we eat.

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:37:35 +0000

Is there anything Holford doesn’t believe in?