OMT vs. Chiropractic Manipulations- What's the true difference?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

RhesusPuffs

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2018
Messages
42
Reaction score
54
What is the difference between OMT manipulations and chiropractic manipulations? From my understanding, both use techniques like myofascial release, HVLA, etc. Why are so many chiropractors (those who exclusively treat MSK issues) dismissed as quacks when OMT has so many of the same principles? Am I missing something here?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What is the difference between OMT manipulations and chiropractic manipulations? From my understanding, both use techniques like myofascial release, HVLA, etc. Why are so many chiropractors (those who exclusively treat MSK issues) dismissed as quacks when OMT has so many of the same principles? Am I missing something here?
...One pays more than the other. Seriously, the DO's I know in practice do not use it. They tell me that OMT manipulations are too time consuming.
 
Chiros go more hard core and go past the "restrictive barrier" in many of their techniques.

We are more holistic in our approach and go slightly to the.. "feather's edge" of the tissue.
...
...
...

Ok I couldn't hold my laughter in anymore. It's the same **** pretty much.
 
Everyone on this thread is spot on. Former licensed chiro and just finished M2. Heres my opinion-there is no difference between the clinical efficacy of OMT vs Chiro. They accomplish the same thing. They both are fantastic for uncomplicated mechanical LBP and cervicalgia. Other than that they have no use in traditional medicine. Chiros often, and I mean very often, never stay in their lane-they think they know everything and don't realize what they don't know. Chiro training doesn't even come close to medical school despite what my friends who are chiros think. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this until I got to med school. Chiro has its place in the conditions I mentioned above but other than that they are out of their lane. I will end with this however-chiro school anatomy is WAY harder than med school anatomy lol yup I said it.
 
Everyone on this thread is spot on. Former licensed chiro and just finished M2. Heres my opinion-there is no difference between the clinical efficacy of OMT vs Chiro. They accomplish the same thing. They both are fantastic for uncomplicated mechanical LBP and cervicalgia. Other than that they have no use in traditional medicine. Chiros often, and I mean very often, never stay in their lane-they think they know everything and don't realize what they don't know. Chiro training doesn't even come close to medical school despite what my friends who are chiros think. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this until I got to med school. Chiro has its place in the conditions I mentioned above but other than that they are out of their lane. I will end with this however-chiro school anatomy is WAY harder than med school anatomy lol yup I said it.

So you are a DO student right? Does having the Chiro experience help at all?
 
So you are a DO student right? Does having the Chiro experience help at all?
Yes Im a DO student. It helped in the fact I didnt have to study for OMM at all which allowed more time for the other subjects. It also helped immensely in neuro and gross anatomy. Other than that it didnt help me at all in micro, pharm, path (other than MSK), physio. These subjects were insanely more in depth in med school and rightfully so they should be. Pretty funny story but I didnt show up to any labs first year and they failed me solely based on attendance-had to meet with the dean and pleade my case and they finally passed me but moral of story is dont be a jackass like me and go to mandatory class for gosh sakes (i was an idiot). I walked into the deans office and she goes “ok do you want to tell me why/how you missed 25 labs?”
 
Last edited:
Ugh

Felt like it literally took up my entire 2 years...especially at the beginning when i was running around dropping a plumb line on everyone.
The whole idea of OMT/chiro is a different language. My first exposure to it all first year in chiro school I was lost lol. marginally or not it may help you I think for clinical oriented anatomy and MSK type questions for boards if you havent taken Step or COMLEX yet. I think OMM to a degree helps you think about anatomy in a different way. I however think its useless BS and i cant wait to never see again after i finish my training lmao
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Wait till you guys find out what physical therapists do

I was quite surprised to find out that PTs do many of the same manipulations that are done in OMT.

They literally just call them different things.

I remember talking to one as an M1:
Me: So do you guys do things like HVLA?
Them: What?
Me: Back-poppy-thingy?
Them: Oh yeah! We call that [x]!
 
Everyone on this thread is spot on. Former licensed chiro and just finished M2. Heres my opinion-there is no difference between the clinical efficacy of OMT vs Chiro. They accomplish the same thing. They both are fantastic for uncomplicated mechanical LBP and cervicalgia. Other than that they have no use in traditional medicine. Chiros often, and I mean very often, never stay in their lane-they think they know everything and don't realize what they don't know. Chiro training doesn't even come close to medical school despite what my friends who are chiros think. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this until I got to med school. Chiro has its place in the conditions I mentioned above but other than that they are out of their lane. I will end with this however-chiro school anatomy is WAY harder than med school anatomy lol yup I said it.
I'd be really interested to hear your take on the rigor of the pre-clinical curriculum in chiro school compared to med school. Like, we've all seen those graphics chiros put out comparing credit hours and such. On paper, it looks the same. Is it? Do they really teach science the first two years and then go full quack with herbology during clerkships?

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
 
I'd be really interested to hear your take on the rigor of the pre-clinical curriculum in chiro school compared to med school. Like, we've all seen those graphics chiros put out comparing credit hours and such. On paper, it looks the same. Is it? Do they really teach science the first two years and then go full quack with herbology during clerkships?

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile

I'm interested as well. Just going off of the testimonials of the few people who've turned from the dark side so to speak, they either don't teach the legit stuff at all or teach it a very, very low level to the point of being a joke. Any sort of graphic about credit hours/practice hours regardless of the source, is just complete nonsense. I think chiros might've invented that marketing ploy.
 
I'd be really interested to hear your take on the rigor of the pre-clinical curriculum in chiro school compared to med school. Like, we've all seen those graphics chiros put out comparing credit hours and such. On paper, it looks the same. Is it? Do they really teach science the first two years and then go full quack with herbology during clerkships?

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
Those credit hour things they advertise lmfao fattest lie Ive ever seen. Thing is none of them who made those actually went to both chiro and med school (its mostly chiros with ego issues who want to feel like theyre real doctors lol). Med school is WAY harder. However, I will say that chiros learn more real science than youd think-first two years in chiro school was anatomy physio micro path pharm biochem yet the depth of knowledge was very superficial compared to med school with a large exception to anatomy. Anatomy was way harder in chiro school than med school as I mentioned in a previous post. In addition the skeletal radiology learned in chiro school is actually pretty impressive. We got a LOT of bone path and rads (like 3 full years worth of in depth bone path and rads). MSK/rads and anatomy is taught extremely well in chiro school and I would say any good chiro student could go head to head with most med students in the MSK dx category. Overall the rigor and volume of knowledge learned in med school far surpasses chiro. Those credit hour things crack me up lmao and it does frustrate me when chiros call themselves “chiropractic physicians” as their knowledge base is not even close to what a physician needs to know
 
Last edited:
I'm interested as well. Just going off of the testimonials of the few people who've turned from the dark side so to speak, they either don't teach the legit stuff at all or teach it a very, very low level to the point of being a joke. Any sort of graphic about credit hours/practice hours regardless of the source, is just complete nonsense. I think chiros might've invented that marketing ploy.
I mean, we all know this is bull:
gallup-degree-requirements-comparison.jpeg


(Complements of Palmer College of Chiropractic)
 
When it comes to the manipulation techniques there's a ton of overlap with DC, OMM, and PT. The reason a lot of chiros are looked at as quacks is not because of their manual medicine, its because they make all these weird assessments and attributions of conditions that can be addressed by manual medicine (think the true OMM believers that tell you to treat an eye condition by touching the knee or something - I don't even remember anymore). In addition, many of them ride the anti-pharma and anti-modern medicine train, while prescribing people thousands of dollars of supplements a month that amount to very expensive urine.

The chiros that use manipulation for physical complaints and don't say you have to return every 2 wks for the rest of your life for "adjustments" are fine, but in my experience most are pushing the supplements they sell to cure autism, much like the NDs I've interacted with.
 
Last edited:
At least mid levels are honest with their lack of hours. They just think they are super geniuses and learn 100x faster than we do.

Seems like everyone in the world is equal to physicians. 20 years from now we will have pharm techsand resp therapists saying the same thing
 
Same thing.

I had a chiro to DO student in my teaching section. The annoying part was having him/her relearn the technique a different way in order to maximize points on the practical.
 
I will say, having scribed for a Chiropractor full time for almost 6 months and pretty much seeing everything they do, while there may be a lot of overlap in the actual training, Chiros actual set of "tools" they'll use in practice is much more limited than a DO. I believe this has to do more with insurance limitations affecting their practice than their actual capabilities. They rely heavily on HVLA (Bone cracky pop technique) and really focus this as their base, because this is what they're going to bill for. Furthermore, they'll do this down the whole back no matter what, often without truly assessing a patient. This will allow them to bill for 3 regions (Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar) rather than just focusing on the problem area. Plus, since their whole market scheme relies heavily on people actually coming back, HVLA is a very quick way to get people in and out the door to see as many patients as possible. It would not be uncommon for in a single day we had 80 patients. Crack crack crack, next. Sometimes they would put a patient on a table and have the table stretch them out, or will have an assistant give them heating pads before the crack crack crack, but it was always just a crack crack crack. When you do HVLA down the whole back, inevitably something will move...

This guy did do a lot of TMJ as well though. That was my first exposure to anyone outside of a dentist playing around in someone's mouth with their gloves on.

At least in training, and I can't say for an actual DO in practice because tbh I haven't seen one in real life outside of the OMM Lab, we tend to be a bit more focused on the area of dysfunction, and I believe we can even bill for soft-tissue techniques. Furthermore, if a DO does in fact incorporate OMT into their practice, they simply wouldn't have time to do OMT on every single patient on top of juggling their actual medical needs, so this is also probably why if they do incorporate it, it is going to be much more directed. You have pneumonia? Do Rib technique, prescribe Antibiotic, and schedule a follow-up for next week to see if it cleared or to see if they need to go for a Chest X-ray. The chiro would tell you to come back Monday, Wednesday, Friday for the next 8 weeks and do the same manipulations each time.

They also don't use the same EMR as Physicians. Their EMR is a mess - They use "ChiroTouch" which has absolutely no way of actually tracking anything and you have to do it all by hand - Which may seem like not a problem but remember that you can have a patient in a Chiro office for only 6 months and have already seen them upwards of 50 times just because of how much they insist you come back. I would have to manually go through each and every note and look for nothing more than subjective statements "Patient feels better" "It got worse again" "It's better again" "Oh no its soo bad today", there was so much subjectivity to all of it.


TLDR: The training is the same, the actual culture/practice is different based on reasons stated above
 
4th year DO, dad is chiro. They are the same thing.

Haha same does your dad get super defensive about defending the validity of manipulation like mine does? I told him OMT was quackery and that didn't go over too well. 😆
 
Last edited:
Haha same does your dad get super defensive about defending the validity of manipulation like mine does? I told him OMT was quackery and that didn't go over too well. 😆
Yeah he's very disappointed that I didn't learn or retain anything about OMM
 
The level of butthurt on this thread is unreal. We get it! - you didn't get into MD school.
 
Ehh, while not always a useful tool, I imagine OMM can work for some people sometimes (with respect to pain). As a physician the goal is to alleviate suffering, and that my friends is a subjective assessment, magical placebo or not.

All y'all self-hating pre-DO's/DO students read the book "The DO's Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz" I think you can find a newfound appreciation for your profession, without needing to feel like a failure for not getting into an MD school.
 
Ehh, while not always a useful tool, I imagine OMM can work for some people sometimes (with respect to pain). As a physician the goal is to alleviate suffering, and that my friends is a subjective assessment, magical placebo or not.

All y'all self-hating pre-DO's/DO students read the book "The DO's Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz" I think you can find a newfound appreciation for your profession, without needing to feel like a failure for not getting into an MD school.
Your profession is being a physician. No need for the Indoctrinated osteopathic nonsense. Separate but equal is what is holding good DOs back.
 
Ehh, while not always a useful tool, I imagine OMM can work for some people sometimes (with respect to pain). As a physician the goal is to alleviate suffering, and that my friends is a subjective assessment, magical placebo or not.

All y'all self-hating pre-DO's/DO students read the book "The DO's Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz" I think you can find a newfound appreciation for your profession, without needing to feel like a failure for not getting into an MD school.

All I got from reading that book was a burning desire to repeat the "California Experiment".


I'm not a self hating DO by any means, but lets not pretend the profession is something that it's not. We're physicians with a confusing degree title based on differences in medicine from almost 150 years ago, and in addition are forced to learn OMT, which at best is a distraction from the rest of your preclinical courses, and at worst taught as some sort of strange mystical answer to 99% of medical problems despite having extremely flimsy evidence behind it. This combination basically guarantees that DO students will grow to hate OMM by the time they graduate, regardless of their feelings when they enter med school.

Life would be simpler for both DOs and their patients if the AOA finally gave up the ghost and the degrees merged.
 
Ehh, while not always a useful tool, I imagine OMM can work for some people sometimes (with respect to pain). As a physician the goal is to alleviate suffering, and that my friends is a subjective assessment, magical placebo or not.

All y'all self-hating pre-DO's/DO students read the book "The DO's Osteopathic Medicine in America" by Norman Gevitz" I think you can find a newfound appreciation for your profession, without needing to feel like a failure for not getting into an MD school.
yes I do hate OMM and I plan on never using it ever again in my life this doesn't make people that hate OMM self-hating DOs. I am proud to be a future physician which is what a DO is. I never understood how whenever people say they hate OMM everyone automatically thinks they are self hating DOs. You can hate OMM and love being a DO physician. OMM is a small meaningless aspect of becoming a DO
 
I get the chills just going on chiro websites. Especially when they start with chiropractic physician.
 
The level of butthurt on this thread is unreal. We get it! - you didn't get into MD school.
I'm grateful that my DO school gave me the opportunity to achieve my dream of becoming a physician. But my dream was always to be a physician, not specifically a DO.

I'm also grateful to my ACGME-accredited residency program where I've been able to learn from physicians who rely on medical literature from actual medical journals (not the OMM studies in the JAOA) in treating patients.

I'm not a self-hating DO, but I am a self-respecting physician who happens to have a DO degree.

Sent from my SM-G930V using SDN mobile
 
Top