What's in a name: Myofascial Release or Myofascial Induction?

Recent reviews of current research into the use of Myofascial Release (MFR) (Leahy and Mock, 1992; Manheim, 2008) - also described in many studies as Myofascial Induction Therapy (MIT) (Pilat, 2014; Pilat, 2017; Fern!andez-P!erez et al., 2008) e strongly suggest that this gentle soft tissue manipulation approach is clinically effective e whether self-applied, or provided as part of a therapeutic interventions. Since the two approaches (see below) are virtually identical, the question arises as to which name is more appropriate? As Pilat (2014) has explained, in relation to his preferred term, Myofascial Induction, this has implications beyond a local tissue response (i.e. ‘release’): “The term ‘induction’ relates to the correction of movement facilitation, and not a passive stretching of the fascial system. This is primarily an educational process, in the search for restored optimal homeostatic levels, recovering range of motion, appropriate tension, strength, and coordination. The !nal aim of the therapeutic process is not establishment of stable hierarchies, but facilitation of optimal and continuous adaptation to environmental demands, with maximum ef!ciency.” Pilat (2014) explains the subtle difference between induction, and release, as follows: “Clinicians familiar with myofascial release (MFR) note the many similarities between it and MIT. With different nuances, they are based on the same concept of clinical reasoning and complement each other. MIT is characterized as manual tissue remodeling, always avoiding arbitrary stimulus application (altered force intensity and direction), focusing on the intrinsic natural tissue response.”