By Arlene Green
In Touch for Health we balance muscles by using a wide array of energetic reflexes that turn on the circuits to an entire muscle. When manual muscle testing a specific muscle, we push from its contracted position to extension to assess its ability to hold that position. If it is able to easily hold, then we assume that the various energetic circuits that feed that muscle are functioning well. If the muscle is unable to hold position against pressure then we normally check the various circuits to identify the imbalance. We check the neurolymphatic reflexes, the neurovascular reflexes, tracing the associated meridian, acupressure holding points, origin/insertion, golgi tendon, or spindle cell techniques. Occasionally a nutrient may be the key to turning on the energy to the muscle too. And sometimes the vibration of a sound or the awareness of an emotion may balance out the energy to the muscle.
Each gross muscle is comprised on many smaller muscle fibers. Together they function to allow the muscle to contract and relax. Ideally they are all working together in concert to support the muscle to function optimally. Much like players on the same team. A team could win a contest by a small margin, still winning, yet not all the players playing their best. When all the team members play to their best potential, then the overall performance of the team will be far superior.
30 years ago, I started testing muscle fibers in a muscle, in much the same way that I had watched chiropractors testing vertebral subluxations. Some chiropractors used muscle testing to identify which vertebrae were out of alignment and then muscle tested for which direction to adjust it. It occurred to me that one could do the same with muscles. Touching an area with a couple of fingertips, and using an indicator muscle to see if the muscle fiber was in balance or not. If the indicator muscle held strong, then I assumed the fiber was in balance. If the indicator muscle unlocked, then I assumed it was not. Something in the electrical conduction of the muscle fiber was out of balance.
Simplicity is one of the greatest features of this technique, not only in its method of detection, but also in its correction. To determine the correction, once an area is found weak/unlocked, stroke one direction, then its opposite. One direction generally unlocks and the other usually locks the indicator muscle. The correction is to stroke in the direction of strength (lock). I found that doing an entire muscle – all the fibers that comprise that muscle, enhances the ability of that muscle to function considerably. For the very best results one needs to thoroughly reset not only the muscle that is injured, but all the surrounding muscles for an optimum outcome. Like in TFH and AK, a very basic premise is that opposing muscles also play an essential role in functional integrity.
Over time I discovered that working on the soft tissue was only one level that mattered, but that often the key for the correction was in the electrical field surrounding the area of imbalance. As Richard Gerber, in his book Vibrational Medicine called it, the etheric interface between the physical and energy bodies, the template of the physical body. It is worked in much the same way that we assess and correct on the soft tissue level.
What the Specific Neuromuscular and Energy Reset Technique (SNERT) is particularly effective for are for those muscle and joint problems that are a result of overuse or injury. If the fibers have been overstretched or injured, the resetting of the fibers seemed to address not just the symptom of the problem but also the cause. Sprains and strains in particular respond very quickly. If done thoroughly, corrections are longer lasting and injuries have much quicker recouperation time. This is true of both chronic and acute injuries. Muscles that have tension and restricted movement often respond immediately.
The SNERT can be used anywhere on the body. I used it on a client in 1991, who had had a TMJ problem everyday for ten years he said. The pain was so bad at times he couldn’t sit to read. He had tried everything he knew to try and had seen several TMJ specialists. In one session using SNERT, he was out of pain and never needed another session on the jaw as the correction held permanently.
This technique has been effective with movement restrictions that might be the result of surgery too. One of my friends who had a mastectomy back in 1990, was unable to lift her arm up after the surgery more than 30’ in front of her. I was visiting her about two to three weeks afterwards and she showed me her restriction and said the doctor told her it would be another six months before she would gain full range of motion. I used the SNERT on her and within less than ten minutes she had full range of motion with no pain. The freedom of movement was permanent.
I have taught this technique in my Top Ten Pain Releasers course over the past 20 + years, and what has been most gratifying to see is when students, who are just learning muscle testing for the first time, use this technique and get instantaneous, positive results. In one of my classes last year, a student who hadn’t been able to raise her arm past shoulder level in almost a year, had full range of motion and no pain after her partner did the SNERT practice on her. The partner was somewhat stunned that it worked so well and so quickly. She followed the directions and the body did the rest!
The positive results of this technique by myself and my students over the years, motivated me to develop an entire class dedicated to going more in depth with it and also doing a research project on it.
Summary of Research
There were 211 subjects (students/clients) used to gather data on the SNERT.
Less than 10% of the testing was performed by me personally, and more than 90% of the testing was performed by my students, most of whom had just learned muscle testing the hour before and were performing this technique for the very first time.
The duration of symptoms ranged from days to several years. About 70% of the subjects had their symptoms (pain) 6 months to several years (up to over 40 years).
About 70% of the subjects indicated that their symptoms were caused by injury or overuse. Some of the data collection did not ask that question so it is possible that number could have been higher.
A scale of 0 to 10 assessment of pain was used by the subjects; 10 indicated the most severe pain and 0 no pain.
PRE SCORE TO POST SCORE
Changes in pain level by the subjects showed 4 stayed the same and 207 improved; and the average improvement was 3.5 units.
The duration of the symptoms did not seem to be a factor in rate of improvement. The rate of improvements depended more on where one started out.
The subjects that had the highest pain scores tended to have the greatest improvement. The correlation was a coefficient of .69, which is statistically significant.
Based on the findings, a predicated equation of Y = 0.20 + 0.65 X (where Y is the change in pain level and X is the pre score) could be used to indicate a subjects level of improvement which they might plausibly anticipate.
Based on this finding if a person had the below pain level, on average the second number would be the improvement, the third number the post level of pain at the session.
Pre score Improvement Post Score
10 6.7 3.3
9 6.05 2.95
8 5.4 2.6
7 4.75 2.25
6 4.1 1.9
5 3.45 1.55
4 2.8 1.2
3 2.15 .85
2 1.5 .5
1 .85 .15
Range of Motion
Range of Motion was another measurement used by the subjects where there was some measurable restriction in ROM before, or the subjects chose to record as such.
No one got worse, 11 subjects stayed the same, and 88 improved; the average improvement was 20.8 units.
Subjects whose range of motion improved the most also showed the greatest decrease in their pain level. The correlation coefficient of 0.40 was statistically significant. The correlation would give some validation to the self-reported assessment by subjects.
FOLLOW UP GROUP
49 subjects gave follow up feedback a week to 2 weeks later. The symptom range, duration of symptoms, before and after results from that group did not seem to be much different from the other subjects in the study. Therefore, while not definitive, it is an indication that just because someone followed up doesn’t indicate that they had better follow up results than those who did not.
The changes from pre-scores to the follow-up scores (n=49 subjects with follow-up data) are: 1 worse and 48 better, mean=4.0, standard deviation =2.4 – in other words, similar to the changes which are observed from pre-score to post-score.
Looking at this another way, the changes from post-scores to follow-up scores:
15 slightly regressed from post score, 19 maintained post score improvements, and 15 improved from their post score (with only 1 going back to their original score), mean=-0.1, standard deviation 1.2 – On average, the follow-up values were similar to the values after the intervention. Both were statistically significant and the benefits of the SNERT appear to hold over time.