Technology continues to help enhance the health of athletes

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mj
    April 21, 2010 11:40 a.m.

    This all sounds great, but the sad part is that Dr. Buhler doesn't take insurance of any kind, and there are many of us who can't afford to go to him without using our insurance.

  • iannoga
    April 19, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    I have always been an active, athletic person who while younger, competed at a very high level. A back injury in 2004 forced me to quit playing the sports that I love and left me in almost constant pain and discomfort. My family moved to Utah in January of 2005 and shortly thereafter, my neighbor asked me to play softball on his city team. I indicated that I didn't play anymore because of a back injury. He said "have you been to see Doctor Buhler"? Needless to say, I have become very well aquainted with Dr Buhler, Have been playing softball again since the spring of 2005 and am currently preparing for the 2010 Wasatch Back Ragnar relay.

    Thank you Dr. Buhler for allowing me to compete "pain free" again.

  • Believe
    April 16, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    In the early 80's IBM said the PC would never be a viable product. In the mid 90's people said the Internet would never have a useful business purpose. People that believe that medical procedures can't be improved fit into the same mold. New and better training, better care of the body, and the use of sports psychology are the things every sports program that wants to improve will need to implement. If it works for Olympians, why won't this work for others? If BYU or other schools want an edge --- if the fans want their programs to move forward -- they need to change and improve. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If we want athletes to continue to be hurt and not available --- keep doing the same things. How much did it cost the Jazz to have Boozer out the last game of the season? Finally, what is the down side? Great article and great insight.

  • SportsFan
    April 16, 2010 12:59 a.m.

    re: Hoosier Coug

    Thanks for the refresher on the scientific method; just remember though, main stream medicine doesn't have all of the answers and very specialized types of treatments like Dr. Buhlers' could have remarkable results even without having been proven through thousands of hours a clinical research.

    It doesn't hurt to keep an open mind.

  • Blitz
    April 15, 2010 11:20 p.m.

    Dr. Buhlers sensitive care targets the entire person not just his or her physical ailment. Thus, structural imbalances and muscle and joint problems can be corrected before they turn into an injury.

  • Hoosier Coug
    April 15, 2010 3:59 p.m.

    Re: SportsFan

    There is very few instances of medicine working 100% of the time. What the scientific method applies, however, is a method to show that a medication or treatment result is statistically significant. (I will not go into everything that is needed for this, but it has to do with your population size and the consistency of your results.)

    Remember, a placebo affect is very prominent. The 1800's were littered with snake-oil salesmen that promised all kinds of treatments that we would laugh at today, but according to anecdotal claims of the time, they worked.

    Hey, my mother-in-law swore that my wife would miscarry if she ever raised her arms above her head while pregnant because of what she had heard.

    When it comes to medicine and treatments, anecdotal information without actual proof is nothing.

  • SportsFan
    April 15, 2010 10:06 a.m.

    How scientifically verifiable are many of the standard medical treatments? Are such treatments 100% effective?

    It seems that those who discount anecdotal evidence are content to live with the status quo because they're afraid of trying something not supported by the biased main stream.

  • Hoosier Coug
    April 15, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    I'm all for looking into alternative forms of medicine, as long as the scientific method is used instead of anecdotal evidence to determine how affective they are.

    Until I see verifiable evidence of this, however, I do consider it to be hocus pocus.