Hi,I`m new to all this so I hope that I am doing this right. Apologies if I`m not.
I read the above article with interest as I work with people who have often sustained biomechanical tissue injuries, and the reduction of inflammation is an important part of the treatment.
The perceived sensation of pain is, I believe, a direct result of this inflammation and this is due to the release of chemicals as a result of tissue damage. These chemicals are "nerve irritants" and cause signals to be transmitted to the brain which in turn interprets it as pain.
I believe that the inflammatory process is the body`s natural response to tissue damage and is a necessary part of he healing process. Without it , the "cascade" of biochemical events which ultimately give rise to tissue repair and remodeling, doesn`t occur.
SO, with reference to the article, my confusion is...
a) Do we really want to stop the inflammatory process at this point in time? as the study suggests, "immediately after tissue trauma"
b)If the magnetic field both increases and decreases blood vessel diameter, depending on its original state, then how do we determine which it is to do..... and indeed which we need to do.
c) Skalak suggests in the study that, "If an injury doesn`t swell- it will heal faster and the person will experience less pain and better mobility".
My response to this is that without inflammation, tissue healing cannot occur, so rather than considering inflammation as a negative process, our intervention should be aimed at assisting the body to resolve the acute inflammatory phase before it becomes chronic-- as chronic inflammation is destructive to tissues and is equated with disease.
I read the above article with interest as I work with people who have often sustained biomechanical tissue injuries, and the reduction of inflammation is an important part of the treatment.
The perceived sensation of pain is, I believe, a direct result of this inflammation and this is due to the release of chemicals as a result of tissue damage. These chemicals are "nerve irritants" and cause signals to be transmitted to the brain which in turn interprets it as pain.
I believe that the inflammatory process is the body`s natural response to tissue damage and is a necessary part of he healing process. Without it , the "cascade" of biochemical events which ultimately give rise to tissue repair and remodeling, doesn`t occur.
SO, with reference to the article, my confusion is...
a) Do we really want to stop the inflammatory process at this point in time? as the study suggests, "immediately after tissue trauma"
b)If the magnetic field both increases and decreases blood vessel diameter, depending on its original state, then how do we determine which it is to do..... and indeed which we need to do.
c) Skalak suggests in the study that, "If an injury doesn`t swell- it will heal faster and the person will experience less pain and better mobility".
My response to this is that without inflammation, tissue healing cannot occur, so rather than considering inflammation as a negative process, our intervention should be aimed at assisting the body to resolve the acute inflammatory phase before it becomes chronic-- as chronic inflammation is destructive to tissues and is equated with disease.
