Abstract This article presents a structured comparison between Tuina — a traditional Chinese therapeutic bodywork system — and Western massage modalities such as Swedish, deep tissue, and sports massage. While both approaches aim to relieve tension and promote well-being, they differ significantly in theoretical foundation, treatment focus, and practical application. Tuina is rooted in the meridian and qi system of classical Chinese medicine. It works through rhythmic manipulation along energetic pathways to regulate circulation, relieve stagnation, and support the body’s natural self-repair mechanisms. In contrast, Western massage is grounded in anatomy and physiology, targeting specific muscles, fascia, and connective tissues to improve blood flow, reduce adhesions, and modulate the nervous system. The article outlines key differences in diagnostic approach, pressure style, treatment goals, and the role of self-practice. Tuina traditionally includes palpatory assessment along meridians and emphasizes whole-body regulation rather than isolated muscle work. Western massage often focuses on localized tension and may involve stronger, technique-specific pressure depending on modality. From a HanFlow perspective, Tuina holds a unique advantage in its adaptability to daily self-care. Basic self-Tuina techniques can be safely practiced at home, making it a sustainable method for maintaining structural and energetic balance. Western massage remains valuable for deep muscular knots, injury rehabilitation under professional guidance, and specialized athletic recovery. Rather than positioning one system above the other, this article clarifies when each approach may be most appropriate. Tuina is especially suitable for daily maintenance, gentle regulation, and integration with movement practices such as Tai Chi. Western massage may be preferable for targeted muscular intervention. Together, they represent complementary pathways for modern stress and tension management. 摘要 本文对推拿与西方按摩(如瑞典式、深层组织、运动按摩)进行了结构化比较。两者虽同样旨在缓解紧张、促进健康,但在理论基础、治疗取向与实践方式上存在显著差异。 推拿植根于中医经络与气机系统,通过沿能量通道的节律性手法调节循环、缓解阻滞并支持身体自我修复。西方按摩则基于解剖学与生理学,针对特定肌肉与筋膜进行机械性调节,以改善血流、缓解粘连并影响神经系统。 文章比较了两者在诊断方式、力度风格、治疗目标与自我练习方面的差异。推拿强调经络触诊与整体调节;西方按摩多聚焦局部肌群,并可能使用更强烈的技术。 从HanFlow视角看,推拿的独特优势在于其可转化为日常自我照护。基础自我推拿可安全居家练习,有助于长期维持结构与能量平衡。西方按摩则更适用于深层结节、专业康复与运动恢复。 文章并非强调优劣,而是明确不同情
ZHENJIANG ZHI (Tue,) studied this question.