A reflection on bioenergetic analysis, kinesiology and TFT , and how they relate.
In this article I would like to put forth a clinical reflection on a few therapeutic modalities I’m currently studying in my free time. I have noticed a noticeable relationship between the kinds of energies I experience during pranayama and yoga, and the ones I feel during a session of TRE (Trauma releasing exercsies – an offshoot of bioenergetic analysis), and during my practice of EFT and applied kinesiology.
There seems to be a very apparent connection between them, a deep one which seems to indicate a common similarity behind them.
Well let me give you a quick introduction to some of the lesser known therapies so you can follow it.
Bioenergetic analysis is a psychodynamic (Meaning it works with the unconscious, think psychoanalysis) psychotherapy that says that chronic tensions and disturbances in muscles reflect our neuroticism.
Applied Kinesiology is a complementary therapy which also works with the body and sees posture and our physiology as a reflection of our health. It also associates muscles with meridians, and says that emotional problems are very common caused by a disruption of it, which in turn causes chronic problems in the muscles.
EFT and TFT in turn is a therapy based in applied kinesiology which uses stimulation of acupressure points to relieve emotions symptoms.
What all of those therapies have in common in that they work with the body to produce a change in the mind, and additionally it seems that all of them seem to also be influencing our muscles in some way. Could it be possible the hypothesis of bodily memories is true, and what EFT and all those other therapies do is to basically release traumas stored in our body?
There definitively seems to be a link between the two. Although bioenergetic analysis never talked about meridians it made me experience a distinct feeling of energy while I was doing their exercises, energy which really correlates with the experiences I had during my practice of yoga and Qigong (which I no longer practice as I couldn’t find a good teacher near me, and I decided that learning from a video was dangerous)
Other than in principles there seems to be a similarity in which those practitioners operate
Additionally there seems to be an immense correlation with the diagnostic measure used by practitioners of Bioenergetic Analysis and Kinesiology, all of them seem to use the body as a doorway to the unconscious through which they diagnose the patients psychological problems and character.
(An example of how applied kinesiologists do it can be read here: http://www.muscletestingdoctor.com/muscles-and-acupuncture-meridians/ )
But at the same time I’ve seen numerous differences in those therapies. Bioenergetic analysis seems to be working at a deeper level, on a different part of our energy system which seems to be unavailable to meridian therapies and kinesiology. Could combining those therapies lead to total energetic health? I will have to dwell deeper to find an answer. Or could they all influence our energy system?
A possible explanation
From what I have seen the interventions shown in applied kinesiology are mostly designed to treat specific symptoms, and are mostly seen as a method of direct treatment. (Do x to heal Y), while at the same time bioenergetic exercises and TRE are designed to remove CHRONIC tensions, by that I mean that they are designed… well… as a form of routine exercise which gives an effect over time (think – yoga). And the effect is a greater sensitivity and a greater feeling of aliveness and happiness and relaxation.
At this point in time I can only speculate about the specific energetic connection between those two therapies. All I can say that it’s there, and that those techniques seem to complement each other very well.
(American Psychological Assoc.)
Moncayo, R., & Moncayo, H. (2009). Evaluation of Applied Kinesiology meridian techniques by means of surface electromyography (sEMG): demonstration of the regulatory influence of antique acupuncture points.Chinese Medicine, 41-9. doi:10.1186/1749-8546-4-9