A doctor wrote to me with this request: “Could you do an article comparing high and low velocity adjustment techniques, Please?” Richard.
(For those of you who don’t know, this is a fancy way of saying whether a lot or a little force is used in the adjustment. An example of a high force/velocity technique is “diversified” (cracking), while an example of a low force/velocity technique is Koren Specific Technique (KST).)
That is a valid question and a void in our profession. I don’t think the profession has done any inter-technique studies. How do you compare one technique to another? How do we know if one technique is better than another?
That is very important because schools teach a “core” technique curriculum. And there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which techniques are approved and which rejected. No one is testing new techniques, new discoveries – it’s just a “what the hell, this seems to work” attitude pervading the schools.
I know this because I entered the world of teaching chiropractors how to adjust when I started teaching KST (Koren Specific Technique).
Getting KST approved for different states and schools is an exercise in insanity. Approval process? There is no process.
One school said that they would only approve KST if it were different than other techniques.
Another school said that they would only approve KST if it was similar to other techniques.
What’s a teacher to do? There are similarities and there are differences – you just try to answer their forms in such a way so that the jaded bureaucrats don’t raise an eyebrow.
KST is low force and doctors who used to do “diversified” (cracking) tell me that KST is far superior and that for every one patient who enjoys “a good crack”, tenty patient are staying out of your office because of it. However, I don’t know of any studies that were set up to test one technique against the other. If there were I’m sure KST would win hands down.