As a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) who practices manual medicine, I am constantly asked, "What is the difference between OMT (osteopathic manipulative treatment) and chiropractic?" and "What is the difference between D.O.'s and chiropractors (D.C.'s)?"

The question has risen yet, again, after a recent forum post which discusses how analysis of OMT is being shown to affect the health of the body at the cellular level: http://thedo.osteopathic.org/2015/08/omt-significantly-affects-cellular-processes-researchers-find/

For those unfamiliar with D.O.'s or OMT or who know of us but still don't grasp the significant differences between D.O.'s and D.C.'s, I will make a stab at providing a very simplified answer to these two universal questions.

There is a simple answer as to how Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.'s) differ from chiropractors (D.C.'s) and then there is a more complex answer regarding how OMT differs from chiropractic treatment.

D.O. vs M.D. vs D.C.:

I use this simple equation, provided by a reader of my book, Osteopathy and the Zombie Apocalypse - a Career Guide, which explains with humorous examples, the differences between D.O.'s, M.D.'s, & D.C.'s:

M.D. + Super-chiropractor + Holistic Philosophy = D.O.

In other words, D.O.'s are the only other fully-licensed physicians and surgeons in the U.S. besides M.D.s. There is nothing an M.D. can do that a D.O. cannot. The reverse, however, is not true: D.O.'s have training in 2 areas M.D.’s do not: hands-on diagnosis and treatment (OMT) and an overarching holistic philosophy.

Chiropractors, on the other hand, are limited to ONLY hands-on treatment (in most states), though they have a more holistic philosophy than most M.D.’s are provided with when it comes to health maintenance.

The ‘Super-chiropractor’ reference my reader made is actually a false comparison, but most people can at least use the limitations of chiropractic as a reference point to better understand osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) which is also known as osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM), a term I prefer.

Chiropractic philosophy is centered on the idea that all health arises from the nerves. As a result, chiropractic treatment focuses on treatment of the spine, the area of the body from which most nerves (not including the cranial nerves, of course) arise.

Osteopaths, however, have traditionally been taught that health arises from keeping arterial blood flow healthy – allowing the body to cleanse itself of waste products, infectious agents, damaged tissue, etc. and allowing better flow of the innate pharmacology – the chemical communicators, antibodies, white cells, oxygen/red cells, etc. to all areas of the body. As a result, OMM is used to treat every single area of the body directly as well as indirectly – from the top of the head to the bottoms of the feet and from finger-tip to finger-tip.

I submit that as our understanding of the body has grown over the past century, D.O.’s have come to realize that ‘flow’ of EVERY KIND – arterial blood, venous blood, lymphatic fluid, and flow of fluids within nerves (axoplasmic flow) are all of vital importance. Moreover, we have learned that the ‘fascia’ – the connective tissue which surrounds every other tissue – from bones to muscles, nerves, and vessels - penetrates and surrounds every organ, and binds every part of the body to every other part – is a vital component in maintaining either health or dysfunction. For that reason, the science and art of OMM has risen to address treatment of all tissues - including fascia and its vital functions – in restoring and maintaining health.

As I said, this latter answer is complex and cannot be adequately elaborated on in this forum. Whole books have been written about it and the evidence continues to mount, continually expanding our understanding of the interactions of all parts of the body, all organs, chemical communicators, and cells with every other.

Suffice it to say that OMT/OMM is a far more comprehensive and holistic approach, in my view, to restoring and maintaining health and function of the entire body than chiropractic. I have dealt with many D.C.’s and with the results of their work and find it often useful, but simplistic. Answers to health are rarely maintained by affecting a single type of tissue.