The origin

Where the idea came from

The idea came from a recurring pattern I kept noticing during clinical placements. Clients would receive myofascial release on the table, feel significantly better immediately afterwards, then return a week later reporting that the results had partially faded once they started moving again. The treatment had worked in a static body. The moment the body went back to being dynamic — walking, bending, loading — some of the restriction reasserted itself.

This made sense to me from an exercise science perspective. The principle of specificity of adaptation is foundational to training theory: the body adapts to the specific demands placed on it. If you want to change how fascia behaves under functional load, treating it only in a passive, unloaded state may not be the most efficient path.

Designing the research

The method I developed involved the patient standing and performing active functional movements — specifically, reaching movements toward numbered targets placed on the ground around them — while I simultaneously applied myofascial release to the affected tissue.

The movement component achieved two things simultaneously:

• Revealed restriction in real time. As the patient reached toward different targets, I could feel the fascial system under load — exactly where it caught, pulled, or resisted — rather than palpating static tissue and theorising where the restriction was.
• Recruited muscle during treatment. Research in biomechanics shows that activated muscle absorbs significantly more energy than passive muscle and tolerates greater mechanical input. Applying myofascial release to tissue under active load means the release occurs at the tension level present during actual function.
• Maintained nervous system engagement. Passive myofascial release naturally induces a calming, parasympathetic response — useful therapeutically, but meaning the nervous system is not in the same state as when the client moves through their day. DMFR keeps the nervous system engaged throughout treatment, which appears to support better transfer of the release into functional movement.

You can read more about the underlying science of fascia on the Understanding Fascia & Myofascial Release page.

The 2015 study

The formal research was submitted in September 2015 under the title: A Better Way to Ease the Pain for The Lower Back: Dynamic Myofascial Release. Six adults presenting with chronic lower back pain participated — a mix of men and women, across different ages and pain histories. The study was conducted at the Massage School of Queensland under clinical supervision.

The average pain reduction held above 70% at the three-week mark. Of the six participants, several reached zero pain immediately after treatment. One participant recorded a score of seven before treatment and zero immediately after — a complete elimination of reported pain from a single session.

What the evidence on myofascial release actually shows

Because I trained as an exercise scientist before training as a massage therapist, I want to be precise about what “evidence-based” means in this context.

The broader research on myofascial release — the passive, table-based version — has a reasonable evidence base for pain reduction and range of motion improvement, particularly for chronic lower back pain and neck pain. The mechanisms are now understood to be primarily neurological: sustained pressure on fascial tissue stimulates mechanoreceptors, which signal the central nervous system to reduce local muscle tone and allow tissue reorganisation. This is different from the older model of physically stretching or breaking down adhesions.

The evidence for dynamic or movement-integrated myofascial approaches is less developed — in part because it is a newer area of application, and in part because it is harder to standardise in a research setting. What the 2015 paper contributed was the first formal documentation of a specific combined approach: simultaneous active functional movement and myofascial release, applied to a standing patient, grounded in an explicit theoretical framework.

See the dedicated Dynamic Myofascial Release Research page for further detail on the methodology and theoretical framework.

What 11 years of practice has added

The 2015 research was conducted on six participants over a short clinical placement. What followed was a decade of daily practice across very different environments.

Between December 2019 and December 2025, I delivered 11,832 sessions as a sole practitioner in Alice Springs — the Northern Territory’s most remote major centre. Working in that environment, with clients who often had limited access to other health services, required me to refine DMFR significantly. Not every client can perform a standing reach pattern. Not every presentation suits the same movement sequence.

In that environment specifically, I observed how dehydration affects fascial tissue quality — something rarely discussed in the research literature but immediately evident in clinical practice in Central Australia’s climate. I adapted treatment protocols accordingly.

DMFR has since been extended beyond its original lower back application to address:

• Cervical and thoracic restriction — neck and upper back presentations
• Shoulder dysfunction and impingement patterns — including rotator cuff involvement
• Hip and lateral chain involvement — including IT band and glute complex
• Post-injury fascial reorganisation across multiple sites

Where this is heading

I moved to the Gold Coast because of its concentration of elite sport and performance infrastructure — and because Brisbane 2032 represents the kind of moment a career like mine has been building toward. My goal is to work with Olympic-level athletes and their support teams, contributing DMFR as a tool not only for pain management and injury rehabilitation, but for performance.

The integration of DMFR with objective performance assessment — using VALD ForceDecks force plate technology to measure force output, asymmetry, and movement quality — is where I believe the technique has the most underdeveloped potential. Addressing fascial restriction that limits power expression, movement efficiency, and recovery between training loads, under functional load, using DMFR, is a logical application of everything the technique was designed to do.

If you’re interested in what this looks like in a clinical setting, the Fascial Restriction Assessment and From Pain Relief to Peak Performance pages explain how this approach is structured for different stages of recovery and performance.

Accessing the research

The 2015 paper, A Better Way to Ease the Pain for The Lower Back: Dynamic Myofascial Release, was submitted to the Massage School of Queensland as part of the Diploma of Remedial Massage curriculum. It is not currently published in a peer-reviewed journal — that is an accurate statement of its limitations and of its status.

If you are a researcher, clinician, or practitioner interested in the methodology, theoretical framework, or raw data, you can contact me directly.

If you are a potential client trying to understand whether this approach might be relevant for your situation, the Myofascial Release page explains the technique and what a session involves in practical terms.