MET and PNF

[melharris]

Hi All,

Can anyone plase help. I am confused on the difference between PNF and MET. I undertsand the differences when applying the technique but I am confused whenboth of these should be used. The Louise Tucker book has one paragraph which is not very helpful.

Does anyone have a simple description or can advise?

Thanks

Mel

[sportstherapy]

Hi Mel,
I think over the years the terminology has changed quite a lot, with different interpretations. PNF has been used for about 50 years in physiotherapy, asa rehab tool, and is used to stretch and mobilise (it can also be used to a certain extent to help strengthen). MET, should be Muscle Energy TECHNIQUES, of which PNF is one of them. There are others, most of which are covered in the book Hands on Sports Therapy, by Keith Ward. Leon Chaitow also has a good book dealing with the more clinical aspects of MET's, its hardback called 'Muscle Energy Techniques', it comes with a cdrom of techniques too.

[Alan D]

A paperback edition of Chaitow’s book is due to be published in July. For a guide to PNF stretching, I would recommend ‘Facilitated Stretching’ by McAtee and Charland (published by Human Kinetics): I find this slightly more readable than Chaitow. But I agree that the video coverage of Chaitow demonstrating MET techniques is very useful (I assume that the new CD-ROM will still cover the same ground as the 1996 video which accompanied the first edition of his book).

Alan

[DFNU]

Having being taught directly by Leon, he placed great emphasis in the difference between the physical and physiological 'barrier'
The physiological barrierbeing the length of the muscle BEFORE the activation of the muscle spindles (point of first bind)
ie: the Therapist can feel a restriction BUT THE CLIENT CAN'T
---where MET is generally performed
The physical barrier being the length to which the muscle can be STRETCHED (obviously muscle spindles will be active at this time)
ie: When the CLIENT CAN FEEL a stretch
-- where PNF is generally performed

Hope this helps :eek:

[Alan D]

Apologies for reviving such an old thread, but I was reminded of this one by the recent thread on ‘stretching resources’. There is one significant distinction between PNF (as described in ‘Facilitated Stretching’ by McAtee and Charland and taught in the UK by Rachel Fairweather at www.jingmassage.com ) and MET (as taught by Leon Chaitow and Mel Cash). That is the amount of force to be used by the client during the isometric contraction. McAtee and Charland use ‘a strong isometric contraction of the target muscle’. By contrast, Chaitow’s MET calls for “only minimal force during the isometric phase”.

Personally I would normally be happy with a fairly strong contraction when treating a nine-stone marathon runner, but I tend to ask for only a minimal (5%) contraction if I am treating an 18-stone shot putter or rugby player!

Alan

[AvalonDove]

Wow... I was taught these both as facilitated stretch techniques, and this wasthe difference:

MET - the muscle relaxes, therefore stretches more,after it's contracted for 8 seconds- you relax for a few seconds between each of the 3 contraction and stretch cycles
PNF - the muscle relaxes after its opposing musclehas contracted for 8 seconds, with no relaxing in between the 3 contraction/stretch cycles.

[sm=scratchchin.gif]

[biggazfromlincoln]

Hi all,
PNF can be used as a very effective strengthening tool, so don' just use it as an exercise to increase joint range or movement.
Regards
Gaz

[Alan D]

I agree with Gaz: both PNF and MET can be used for stretching as well as strengthening. But I'm surprisedby AvalonDove's terminology, which seems to contradict the way in which the relative terms are used in 'Facilitated Stretching' by McAtee & Charland (used as a textbook at the LSSM and also at Jing). I'm not sure where AvalonDove trained or what textbooks were used on that course?? Leon Chaitow, Mel Cash and Robert McAtee all use the terms 'PIR' (post-isometric relaxation) to describe the neurological inhibition of a muscle following its own contraction, and RI (reciprocal inhibition) to describe the situation where one stretches a target muscle by first contracting the opposing muscle.

Alan

[AvalonDove]

Hi Alan... Imay make matters worse now, but here goes... to answer your question, I thought that PNFs were a form of RI, and METs were a form of PIR... [&:] I stand corrected.
I wouldn't like to cast aspersions on my sports therapy book collection (which includes Cash, Ward, Peterson& Renstrom amongst others)or where I trained... as I fear I may be confused through no fault of theirs, and thus would be doing them a dis-service by being such a bad ambassador!

[Alan D]

I’m glad you have Mel Cash in your library! There are actually two Mel Cash books so I’ll refer to both as I’m not sure which you have.
The older of the two is ‘Sports Massage’ by Jari Ylinen and Mel Cash (first published 1988). MET is discussed rather briefly at pages 39-40 of the 1997 edition. The book describes PIR as ‘direct MET’ and RI as ‘indirect MET’.
There is more detail in Mel’s second book ‘Sport & Remedial Massage Therapy’ (1996). Mel discusses MET on pages 205-215 of the first edition. Page 210 describes PIR and RI for stretching. Pages 213-215 describe the use of MET for strengthening. Mel refers to PNF only briefly, on page 216, and describes it as ‘an advanced form of MET’.

Chaitow defines muscle energy techniques (MET) as ‘manipulative treatments in which a patient, on request, actively uses his or her muscles from a controlled position in a specific direction against a distinct counterforce’. On this definition, PIR, RI and PNF are all forms of MET.
I would politely suggest that your original contribution would have been less controversial if you had written :

“PIR - the muscle relaxes, therefore stretches more,after it's contracted for 8 seconds- you relax for a few seconds between each of the 3 contraction and stretch cycles
RI - the muscle relaxes after its opposing musclehas contracted for 8 seconds, with no relaxing in between the 3 contraction/stretch cycles. “

The words are the same but the abbreviations are different!

Regards

Alan