What is the difference between Structural Medicine and other forms of structural integration, such as Rolfing?

There are as many answers to this question as there are structural integration instructors, schools, and practitioners (they are all still discussing and arguing what the difference is!). So be aware that this is our interpretation of the difference.

In general, Structural Medicine is an off-branch of mainstream structural integration, in that it is "pathology-based", not "series-based". Although the basic principles of structural integration apply, as do the lineage of knowledge and techniques, the pathology-based approach is a significant difference in approach to a client's needs, assessment, and clinical practice.

By "pathology-based", we mean that we take a look at what is going on for a client when they come to us for treatment, the injury, or clinical condition that brought them to our door. We evaluate them from a holistic perspective, but we start from the pathology, use objective measurements to see what is going on with respect to myofascial restrictions, and develop individual, customized treatment plans based on the evaluation. In addition, we are trained and study to understand the common medical terminology that describes and identifies common pathologies that are influenced and impacted by myofascia and fascial structures. We use digital photographs, myofascial length tests, computer graphic aids, educational tools, and movement re-education to address the needs of the client.

In addition, the baseline minimal certification training program is 2, 000 hours. At our clinic, we are also trained in other modalities and advanced training in visceral, neural, and vascular manipulation, which are critical components to structural integration and the integrated soft tissue therapy program.

In contrast, more mainstream structural integration programs are "series-based", such as Rolfing, Hellerwork, Soma, and KMI Kinesis. They often refer to it as "the recipe". The series concept is a direct descendent of the training and implementation methods of Ida Rolf, a biochemist and master structural integrator who pioneered structural integration since the sixties. Most of the schools in structural integration were founded by students who studied under Ida Rolf and later took their versions of structural integration to a new level of their own, branding their schools and work. The standard minimum training program for mainstream structural integration schools is around 650 hours.

A "series-based" approach evaluates a client using methods of "seeing" what patterns are present by looking at the client's structure and then applying the basic formula or "recipe" of structural integration strategies and techniques in each session, from one to twelve sessions in a "series". At the end of the series, the client is considered "integrated". Post-series work is available to work on maintenance or entrenched compensation patterns. But the difference is that they tend to adhere to a more rigid sequence of treatment procedures and strategies. In fact some schools split off from others based on disagreements on what the series is and is not.

In addition, each structural integration school has its own "flavor" of treatment or focus. Some focus more on movement and energy, such as the Soma Institute, others more on fascial trains, such as KMI, and others dedicated to the "purity" of the Ida Rolf lineage, such as Rolfing, a registered trademark.

Advanced practitioners from all schools of structural integration commonly have advanced training in other modalities and may focus their practice in special ways. So if you are looking for practitioners in other areas of the world, it is important that you interview them about their philosophy of treatment, check out their training, and get a sample of their work. It can vary considerably.

In addition, there is wide variability in the quality of practitioners from any school of structural integration. See What makes a good structural integration practitioner to get information on how to evaluate a practitioner from our perspective.