Myofascial Release vs IASTM — What Do Comparative Studies Show?

TL;DR

• Both MFR and IASTM can improve pain/function in certain groups; comparative results vary by protocol and outcome.
• Choose based on goals, comfort, available expertise, and how easily you can integrate movement afterward.

Similarities and differences

• Both target sensations, tone, and movement tolerance rather than “breaking scar tissue.”
• IASTM uses tool edges/radii for leverage and consistent stroke angles; MFR uses hands for nuanced pressure and shear.

Evidence snapshot

• Some trials show small advantages for IASTM in ROM or selected pain scales; others find comparable outcomes.
• Certainty is limited by small samples and dosing variability.

Dosing principles

• Start light; 30–90s/region; slow strokes; reassess.
• Immediately follow with mobility/strength in the new range.

Choosing for your goals

• Need precise leverage on large muscle groups? IASTM long bar.
• Prefer tactile feedback and subtle shear? MFR hands‑on.
• Many clinics blend both within a session.

FAQs

Is one always better?

No. The “best” choice depends on your response and the session goal.

Can I alternate?

Yes—e.g., MFR on sensitive regions, IASTM on larger muscle bellies, then movement.

References

• Comparative trial: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10988271/
• CMNP comparison: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10239038/