Reflexology: What The Science Says

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

How Does Reflexology Work, Really?

In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your opinion of reflexology, and got the above-depicted, below-described set of responses:

  • About 63% said “It works by specific nerves connecting the feet and hands to various specific organs, triggering healing remotely”
  • About 26% said “It works by realigning the body’s energies (e.g. qi, ki, prana, etc), removing blockages and improving health“
  • About 11% said “It works by placebo, at best, and has no evidence for any efficacy beyond that”

So, what does the science say?

It works by realigning the body’s energies (e.g. qi, ki, prana, etc), removing blockages and improving health: True or False?

False, or since we can’t prove a negative: there is no reliable scientific evidence for this.

Further, there is no reliable scientific evidence for the existence of qi, ki, prana, soma, mana, or whatever we want to call it.

To save doubling up, we did discuss this in some more detail, exploring the notion of qi as bioelectrical energy, including a look at some unreliable clinical evidence for it (a study that used shoddy methodology, but it’s important to understand what they did wrong, to watch out for such), when we looked at [the legitimately very healthful practice of] qigong, a couple of weeks ago:

Qigong: A Breath Of Fresh Air?

As for reflexology specifically: in terms of blockages of qi causing disease (and thus being a putative therapeutic mechanism of action for attenuating disease), it’s an interesting hypothesis but in terms of scientific merit, it was pre-emptively supplanted by germ theory and other similarly observable-and-measurable phenomena.

We say “pre-emptively”, because despite orientalist marketing, unless we want to count some ancient pictures of people getting a foot massage and say it is reflexology, there is no record of reflexology being a thing before 1913 (and that was in the US, by a laryngologist working with a spiritualist to produce a book that they published in 1917).

It works by specific nerves connecting the feet and hands to various specific organs, triggering healing remotely: True or False?

False, or since we can’t prove a negative: there is no reliable scientific evidence for this.

A very large independent review of available scientific literature found the current medical consensus on reflexology is that:

  • Reflexology is effective for: anxiety (but short lasting), edema, mild insomnia, quality of sleep, and relieving pain (short term: 2–3 hours)
  • Reflexology is not effective for: inflammatory bowel disease, fertility treatment, neuropathy and polyneuropathy, acute low back pain, sub acute low back pain, chronic low back pain, radicular pain syndromes (including sciatica), post-operative low back pain, spinal stenosis, spinal fractures, sacroiliitis, spondylolisthesis, complex regional pain syndrome, trigger points / myofascial pain, chronic persistent pain, chronic low back pain, depression, work related injuries of the hip and pelvis

Source: Reflexology – a scientific literary review compilation

(the above is a fascinating read, by the way, and its 50 pages go into a lot more detail than we have room to here)

Now, those items that they found it effective for, looks suspiciously like a short list of things that placebo is often good for, and/or any relaxing activity.

Another review was not so generous:

❝The best evidence available to date does not demonstrate convincingly that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition❞

~ Dr. Edzard Ernst (MD, PhD, FMedSci)

Source: Is reflexology an effective intervention? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

In short, from the available scientific literature, we can surmise:

  • Some researchers have found it to have some usefulness against chiefly psychosomatic conditions
  • Other researchers have found the evidence for even that much to be uncompelling

It works by placebo, at best, and has no evidence for any efficacy beyond that: True or False?

Mostly True; of course reflexology runs into similar problems as acupuncture when it comes to testing against placebo:

How Does One Test Acupuncture Against Placebo Anyway?

…but not quite as bad, since it is easier to give a random foot massage while pretending it is a clinical treatment, than to fake putting needles into key locations.

However, as the paper we cited just above (in answer to the previous True/False question) shows, reflexology does not appear to meaningfully outperform placebo—which points to the possibility that it does work by placebo, and is just a placebo treatment on the high end of placebo (because the placebo effect is real, does work, isn’t “nothing”, and some placebos work better than others).

For more on the fascinating science and useful (applicable in daily life!) practicalities of how placebo does work, check out:

How To Leverage Placebo Effect For Yourself

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Gluten: What’s The Truth?
  • WHO Overturns Dogma on Airborne Disease Spread. The CDC Might Not Act on It.
    WHO’s landmark report redefines airborne spread of diseases, impacting future health guidelines, amid evidence refuting outdated droplet transmission theories.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Is chocolate milk a good recovery drink after a workout? A dietitian reviews the evidence

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Whether you enjoy chocolate milk regularly, as a weekend treat, or as an occasional dose of childhood nostalgia, it probably wouldn’t be the first option you think of for post-workout recovery.

    Unless you’re on TikTok, perhaps. According to many people on the social media platform, chocolate milk is not only delicious, but it offers benefits comparable to sports drinks after a workout.

    So is there any evidence to support this? Let’s take a look.

    eldar nurkovic/Shutterstock

    Rehydrating after a workout is important

    Water accounts for somewhere between 50% and 60% of our body weight. Water has many important functions in the body, including helping to keep our body at the right temperature through sweating.

    We lose water naturally from our bodies when we sweat, as well as through our breathing and when we go to the toilet. So it’s important to stay hydrated to replenish the water we lose.

    When we don’t, we become dehydrated, which can put a strain on our bodies. Signs and symptoms of dehydration can range from thirst and dizziness to low blood pressure and confusion.

    Athletes, because of their higher levels of exertion, lose more water through sweating and from respiration (when their breathing rate gets faster). If they’re training or competing in hot or humid environments they will sweat even more.

    Dehydration impacts athletes’ performance and like for all of us, can affect their health.

    So finding ways to ensure athletes rehydrate quickly during and after they train or compete is important. Fortunately, sports scientists and dietitians have done research looking at the composition of different fluids to understand which ones rehydrate athletes most effectively.

    The beverage hydration index

    The best hydrating drinks are those the body retains the most of once they’ve been consumed. By doing studies where they give people different drinks in standardised conditions, scientists have been able to determine how various options stack up.

    To this end, they’ve developed something called the beverage hydration index, which measures to what degree different fluids hydrate a person compared to still water.

    According to this index beverages with similar fluid retention to still water include sparkling water, sports drinks, cola, diet cola, tea, coffee, and beer below 4% alcohol. That said, alcohol is probably best avoided when recovering from exercise.

    Beverages with superior fluid retention to still water include milk (both full-fat and skim), soy milk, orange juice and oral rehydration solutions.

    This body of research indicates that when it comes to rehydration after exercise, unflavoured milk (full fat, skim or soy) is better than sports drinks.

    But what about chocolate milk?

    A small study looked at the effects of chocolate milk compared to plain milk on rehydration and exercise performance in futsal players (futsal is similar to soccer but played on a court indoors). The researchers found no difference in rehydration between the two. There’s no other published research to my knowledge looking at how chocolate milk compares to regular milk for rehydration during or after exercise.

    But rehydration isn’t the only thing athletes look for in sports drinks. In the same study, drinking chocolate milk after play (referred to as the recovery period) increased the time it took for the futsal players to become exhausted in further exercise (a shuttle run test) four hours later.

    This was also shown in a review of several clinical trials. The analysis found that, compared to different placebos (such as water) or other drinks containing fat, protein and carbohydrates, chocolate milk lengthened the time to exhaustion during exercise.

    What’s in chocolate milk?

    Milk contains protein, carbohydrates and electrolytes, each of which can affect hydration, performance, or both.

    Protein is important for building muscle, which is beneficial for performance. The electrolytes in milk (including sodium and potassium) help to replace electrolytes lost through sweating, so can also be good for performance, and aid hydration.

    Compared to regular milk, chocolate milk contains added sugar. This provides extra carbohydrates, which are likewise beneficial for performance. Carbohydrates provide an immediate source of energy for athletes’ working muscles, where they’re stored as glycogen. This might contribute to the edge chocolate milk appears to have over plain milk in terms of athletic endurance.

    A birds-eye view of a glass of chocolate milk with a red straw.
    The added sugar in chocolate milk provides extra carbohydrates. Brent Hofacker/Shutterstock

    Coffee-flavoured milk has an additional advantage. It contains caffeine, which can improve athletic performance by reducing the perceived effort that goes into exercise.

    One study showed that a frappe-type drink prepared with filtered coffee, skim milk and sugar led to better muscle glycogen levels after exercise compared to plain milk with an equivalent amount of sugar added.

    So what’s the verdict?

    Evidence shows chocolate milk can rehydrate better than water or sports drinks after exercise. But there isn’t evidence to suggest it can rehydrate better than plain milk. Chocolate milk does appear to improve athletic endurance compared to plain milk though.

    Ultimately, the best drink for athletes to consume to rehydrate is the one they’re most likely to drink.

    While many TikTok trends are not based on evidence, it seems chocolate milk could actually be a good option for recovery from exercise. And it will be cheaper than specialised sports nutrition products. You can buy different brands from the supermarket or make your own at home with a drinking chocolate powder.

    This doesn’t mean everyone should look to chocolate milk when they’re feeling thirsty. Chocolate milk does have more calories than plain milk and many other drinks because of the added sugar. For most of us, chocolate milk may be best enjoyed as an occasional treat.

    Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • The Diabetes Code – by Dr. Jason Fung

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Cure this serious disease with diet!” is often a bold-claim that overreaches scientific rigor, but in this case, it’s well-established as scientifically valid.

    Caveat up-front: the only known circumstance in which this won’t work is if you have comorbidities that prevent you from following the advice.

    You may be wondering: is this just the Mediterranean diet again? The answer is that the Mediterreanean diet (or similar) is part of it. But there’s a lot more to this book than that.

    Dr. Fung explains to us a lot of the physiology of type 2 diabetes; how insulin resistance occurs, how it becomes a vicious cycle that we get locked into, and how to escape it.

    • We learn about the role of fructose, and why fruit is very healthful whereas high-fructose corn syrup and similars are very much not.
    • We learn about the role of the liver in glycogen metabolism, and how to un-fatty a fatty liver. Good news: the liver has famously strong self-regenerative abilities, if we give it a break to allow it to do so!
    • We learn why portion control doesn’t work, and why intermittent fasting does (here be science).

    Dr. Fung’s very readable explanations are free from needless jargon while not dumbing down. The writing style is clear and direct: “this happens this way”, “do this, not that”, etc.

    Bottom line: if you have type 2 diabetes and would like to not have that (or if you are pre-diabetic and would like to avoid diabetes) this is a book for you. If you are in great metabolic health and would like to stay that way as you get older, then this is a book for you too.

    Click here to check out The Diabetes Code, and get/keep your metabolic health in order!

    Share This Post

  • Cardiac Failure Explained – by Dr. Warrick Bishop

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The cover of this book makes it look like it’ll be a flashy semi-celebrity doctor keen to sell his personalized protocol, along with eleventy-three other books, but actually, what’s inside this one is very different:

    We (hopefully) all know the basics of heart health, but this book takes it a lot further. Starting with the basics, then the things that it’s easy to feel like you should know but actually most people don’t, then into much more depth.

    The format is much more like a university textbook than most pop-science books, and everything about the way it’s written is geared for maximum learning. The one thing it does keep in common with pop-science books as a genre is heavy use of anecdotes to illustrate points—but he’s just as likely to use tables, diagrams, callout boxes, emboldening of key points, recap sections, and so forth. And for the most part, this book is very information-dense.

    Dr. Bishop also doesn’t just stick to what’s average, and talks a lot about aberrations from the norm, what they mean and what they do and yes, what to do about them.

    On the one hand, it’s more information dense than the average reader can reasonably expect to need… On the other hand, isn’t it great to finish reading a book feeling like you just did a semester at medical school? No longer will you be baffled by what is going on in your (or perhaps a loved one’s) cardiac health.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to know cardiac health inside out, this book is an excellent place to start.

    Click here to check out Cardiac Failure Explained, and get to the heart of things!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Gluten: What’s The Truth?
  • Addiction Myths That Are Hard To Quit

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best?

    In Tuesday’s newsletter we asked you what, in your opinion, is the best way to cure an addiction. We got the above-depicted, below-described, interesting distribution of responses:

    • About 29% said: “Addiction cannot be cured; once an addict, always an addict”
    • About 26% said “Cold turkey (stop 100% and don’t look back)”
    • About 17% said “Gradually reduce usage over an extended period of time”
    • About 11% said “A healthier, but somewhat like-for-like, substitution”
    • About 9% said “Therapy (whether mainstream, like CBT, or alternative, like hypnosis)”
    • About 6% said “Peer support programs and/or community efforts (e.g. church etc)”
    • About 3% said “Another method (mention it in the comment field)” and then did not mention it in the comment field

    So what does the science say?

    Addiction cannot be cured; once an addict, always an addict: True or False?

    False, which some of the people who voted for it seemed to know, as some went on to add in the comment field what they thought was the best way to overcome the addiction.

    The widespread belief that “once an addict, always an addict” is a “popular truism” in the same sense as “once a cheater, always a cheater”. It’s an observation of behavioral probability phrased as a strong generalization, but it’s not actually any kind of special unbreakable law of the universe.

    And, certainly the notion that one cannot be cured keeps membership in many 12-step programs and similar going—because if you’re never cured, then you need to stick around.

    However…

    What is the definition of addiction?

    Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences.

    Prevention efforts and treatment approaches for addiction are generally as successful as those for other chronic diseases.❞

    ~ American Society of Addiction Medicine

    Or if we want peer-reviewed source science, rather than appeal to mere authority as above, then:

    ❝What is drug addiction?

    Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use despite adverse consequences. It is considered a brain disorder, because it involves functional changes to brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control. Those changes may last a long time after a person has stopped taking drugs.

    Addiction is a lot like other diseases, such as heart disease. Both disrupt the normal, healthy functioning of an organ in the body, both have serious harmful effects, and both are, in many cases, preventable and treatable.❞

    ~ Nora D. Volkow (Director, National Institute of Drug Abuse)

    Read more: Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction

    In short: part of the definition of addiction is the continued use; if the effects of the substance are no longer active in your physiology, and you are no longer using, then you are not addicted.

    Just because you would probably become addicted again if you used again does not make you addicted when neither the substance nor its after-effects are remaining in your body. Otherwise, we could define all people as addicted to all things based on “well if they use in the future they will probably become addicted”.

    This means: the effects of addiction can and often will last for long after cessation of use, but ultimately, addiction can be treated and cured.

    (yes, you should still abstain from the thing to which you were formerly addicted though, or you indeed most probably will become addicted again)

    Cold turkey is best: True or False?

    True if and only if certain conditions are met, and then only for certain addictions. For all other situations… False.

    To decide whether cold turkey is a safe approach (before even considering “effective”), the first thing to check is how dangerous the withdrawal symptoms are. In some cases (e.g. alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and others), the withdrawal symptoms can kill.

    That doesn’t mean they will kill, so knowing (or being!) someone who quit this way does not refute this science by counterexample. The mortality rates that we saw while researching varied from 8% to 37%, so most people did not die, but do you really want (yourself or a loved one) to play those odds unnecessarily?

    See also: Detoxification and Substance Abuse Treatment

    Even in those cases where it is considered completely safe for most people to quit cold turkey, such as smoking, it is only effective when the quitter has appropriate reliable medical support, e.g.

    And yes, that 22% was for the “abrupt cessation” group; the “gradual cessation” group had a success rate of 15.5%. On which note…

    Gradual reduction is the best approach: True or False?

    False based on the above data, in the case of addictions where abrupt cessation is safe. True in other cases where abrupt cessation is not safe.

    Because if you quit abruptly and then die from the withdrawal symptoms, then well, technically you did stay off the substance for the rest of your life, but we can’t really claim that as a success!

    A healthier, but somewhat like-for-like substitution is best: True or False?

    True where such is possible!

    This is why, for example, medical institutions recommend the use of buprenorphine (e.g. Naloxone) in the case of opioid addiction. It’s a partial opioid receptor agonist, meaning it does some of the job of opioids, while being less dangerous:

    SAMSHA.gov | Buprenorphine

    It’s also why vaping—despite itself being a health hazard—is recommended as a method of quitting smoking:

    Vaping: A Lot Of Hot Air?

    Similarly, “zero alcohol drinks that seem like alcohol” are a popular way to stop drinking alcohol, alongside other methods:

    How To Reduce Or Quit Alcohol

    This is also why it’s recommended that if you have multiple addictions, to quit one thing at a time, unless for example multiple doctors are telling you otherwise for some specific-to-your-situation reason.

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Monosodium Glutamate: Sinless Flavor-Enhancer Or Terrible Health Risk?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What’s The Deal With MSG?

    There are a lot of popular beliefs about MSG. Is there a grain of truth, or should we take them with a grain of salt? We’ll leap straight into myth-busting:

    MSG is high in salt

    True (technically) False (practically)

    • MSG is a salt (a monosodium salt of L-glutamic acid), but to call it “full of salt” in practical terms is like calling coffee “full of fruit”. (Coffee beans are botanically fruit)
    • It does contain sodium, though which is what the S stands for!
    • We talked previously about how MSG’s sodium content is much lower than that of (table) salt. Specifically, it’s about one third of that of sodium chloride (e.g. table salt).

    MSG triggers gluten sensitivity

    False!

    Or at least, because this kind of absolute negative is hard to prove in science, what we can say categorically is: it does not contain gluten. We understand that the similar name can cause that confusion. However:

    • Gluten is a protein, found in wheat (and thus wheat-based foods).
    • Glutamate is an amino acid, found in protein-rich foods.
    • If you’re thinking “but proteins are made from amino acids”, yes, they are, but the foundational amino acid of gluten is glutamine, not glutamate. Different bricks → different house!

    The body can’t process MSG correctly

    False!

    The body has glutamate receptors throughout the gut and nervous system.

    The body metabolizes glutamate from MSG just the same as from any other food that contains it naturally.

    Read: Update on food safety of monosodium l-glutamate (MSG) ← evidence-based safety review

    MSG causes “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome”

    False!

    Racism causes that. It finds its origins in what was originally intended as a satirical joke, that the papers picked up and ran with, giving it that name in the 1960s. As to why it grew and persisted, that has more to do with US politics (the US has been often at odds with China for a long time) and xenophobia (people distrust immigrants, such as those who opened restaurants), including nationalistic rhetoric associating immigrants with diseases.

    Read: Xenophobia in America in the Age of Coronavirus and Beyond ← academic paper that gives quite a compact yet comprehensive overview

    Research science, meanwhile, has not found any such correlation, in more than 40 years of looking.

    PS: we realize this item in the list is very US-centric. Apologies to our non-US subscribers. We know that this belief isn’t so much of a thing outside the US—though it certainly can crop up elsewhere sometimes, too.

    Are there any health risks associated with MSG, then?

    Well, as noted, it does contain sodium, albeit much less than table salt. So… do go easy on it, all the same.

    Aside from that, the LD50 (a way of measuring toxicity) of MSG is 15.8g/kg, so if for example you weigh 150lb (68 kg), don’t eat 2.2lb (a kilogram) of MSG.

    There have been some studies on rats (or in one case, fruit flies) that found high doses of MSG could cause heart problems and/or promote obesity. However:

    • this has not been observed to be the case in humans
    • those doses were really high, ranging from 1g/kg to 8g/kg. So that’d be the equivalent of our 150lb person eating it by the cupful
    • it was injected (as a solution) into the rats, not ingested by them
    • so don’t let someone inject you with a cup of MSG!

    Read: A review of the alleged health hazards of monosodium glutamate

    Bottom line on MSG and health:

    Enjoy in moderation, but enjoy if you wish! MSG is just the salt form of the amino acid glutamate, which is found naturally in many foods, including shrimp, seaweed, and tomatoes.

    Scientists have spent more than 40 years trying to find health risks for MSG, and will probably keep trying (which is as science should be), but for now… Everything has either come up negative, or has been the result of injecting laboratory animals with megadoses.

    If you’d like to try it in your cooking as a low-sodium way to bring out the flavor of your dishes, you can order it online. Cheapest in bulk, but try it and see if you like it first!

    (I’ll be real with you… I have 5 kg in the pantry myself and use about half a teaspoon a day, cooking for two)

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Vitamin Solution – by Dr. Romy Block & Dr. Arielle Levitan

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    A quick note: it would be remiss of us not to mention that the authors of this book are also the founders of a vitamin company, thus presenting a potential conflict of interest.

    That said… In this reviewer’s opinion, the book does seem balanced and objective, regardless.

    We talk a lot about supplements here at 10almonds, especially in our Monday Research Review editions. And yesterday, we featured a book by a doctor who hates supplements. Today, we feature a book by two doctors who have made them their business.

    The authors cover all the most common vitamins and minerals popularly enjoyed as supplements, and examine:

    • why people take them
    • factors affecting whether they help
    • problems that can arise
    • complicating factors

    The “complicating factors” include, for example, the way many vitamins and/or minerals interplay with each other, either by requiring the presence of another, or else competing for resources for absorption, or needing to be delicately balanced on pain of diverse woes.

    This is the greatest value of the book, perhaps; it’s where most people go wrong with supplementation, if they go wrong.

    While both authors are medical doctors, Dr. Romy Block is an endocrinologist specifically, and she clearly brought a lot of extra attention to relevant metabolic/thyroid issues, and how vitamins and minerals (such as thiamin and iron) can improve or sabotage such, depending on various factors that she explains. Informative, and so far as this reviewer could see, objective and well-balanced.

    Bottom line: supplementation is a vast and complex topic, but this book does a fine job of demystifying and simplifying it in a clear and objective fashion, without resorting to either scaremongering or hype.

    Click here to check out The Vitamin Solution, and upgrade your knowledge!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: