Actually, ostheopathic medicine literally means an approach to medicine that prioritizes the musculoskeletal system as the cause of most ailments and also the locus where treatments should be applied to be effective. I think this is what it meant historically, but I have not fact-checked.

As such, it is not evidence-based, because it is not the fact that most ailments are due to musculoskeletal system problems. Some are and some aren't.

At the same time, DO (Doctors of Ostheopathic medicine) can do the same things that MDs do. My former OB-GYN was a DO, and she practiced exactly the same as MD OB-GYNs. For example, when I asked about preventative HRT (before menopause), she reached for a tool to calculate risks and benefits given my particular parameters. Together, she and I decided that HRT would be indicated for me, and I was started on the lowest dose estrogen patch. Collaboration between doctor and patient and transparent analysis of risks and benefits are hallmarks of modern medicine at its best and are evidence-based (we have ample evidence that when patients are involved in their care, outcomes are better).

Modern osteopaths depart from the narrowly musculoskeletal focus and try to distinguish their approach as treating the whole body instead of a collection of disjoint systems and symptoms. There is something to it, but at the same time it is a grand statement, meaning that as you start poking holes in it, you might discover that "treating the whole body" is poorly defined. But it is still entirely benign, as an aspirational statement. It does not involve snake oil or sugar pills.

When applied to medicine, the word "traditional" also lacks a clear definition. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was Mao's clever invention. It may purport to go back thousands of years (hence, traditional), but in reality it stemmed from a conscious decision to unify many different treatment modalities practiced in different places in a huge and diverse country in order to offer people something that was accessible and cheap, something that could give them the impression that they were cared for. In contrast, actual medicine was not affordable for such a huge country back then, with a huge population. These days, a whole lot of evidence-based research originates in China. It is not that in China all they have these days is TCM.

Is ECT traditional? In what sense? Modern ECT is rather mild compared to the electric shock treatments of the past, like those depicted in the "Beautiful Mind" movie. That is one reason we now use the term ECT and not "shock." T is therapy in the acronym ECT. When my mother received such treatments for her deep depression in the early 1980s, it was called "shock". We do not use this term anymore. So is ECT traditional or modern? And even shocks back then, were they traditional? In what way? they did not go back centuries, did they? Traditionally, meaning, for most of humanity's history, people did not know what electricity was, and ECT did not exist and could not have existed. But if the word traditional means what is currently the mainstream approach, then ECT is not traditional, either, because it is typically the last resort treatment, due to costs. So most people in the mainstream do not receive ECT (even though purely by effectiveness and safety profile, it would make sense to administer ECT more widely and earlier). This illustrates the trouble with the word "traditional" - what does it mean?

Exercise plans are part of modern evidence-based medicine. The adage goes that doctors should write "exercise" on their prescription pads so that patients will take them seriously. Another adage goes that no pill is as effective for longevity as exercise (including for cognitive health, and not just physical health). Is exercise traditional? No, in a sense that until very recently, few people exercised for the sake of exercising. Yes, in a sense that traditionally, people played sports and physical games, wrestled, raced, and danced. But in groups or competitively against one another, or team against team. Or they ran from danger. Or they swam to cross a river in the absence of bridges, airplanes and helicopters. But walking on a treadmill is a highly modern phenomenon. Our ancestors would think we were completely crazy if they rose from their graves and observed us on treadmills, ellipticals, or stationary bikes. So it is not possible to say whether exercise is or is not traditional. But it is evidence-based. Again, the trouble with the word traditional is that it does not have a good definition. Similarly to the term natural: it does not have a good definition and usually is used to mean good, even though cyanide is natural and so is arsenic, yet neither is good . Evidence-based has a definition. At the same time, evidence-based is not a gold standard, either: sometimes we do not need an evidence-based approach, as in the case of deciding whether parachutes improve safety outcomes when a person jumps from a plane. Basic knowledge of physics should suffice.

If anything, yoga is traditional because yoga actually goes back far. Yoga is also ostheopathic in the original sense of the term ostheopathic because yoga places such an emphasis on the musculoskeletal health. But it also places an emphasis on breathing and, in some of its variants, the mind.

Mindfulness and meditation help many people and are useless to many others, and there is a lot of hype surrounding their claims to being evidence-based. For example, there are claims that MRi studies show how much meditation helps, but in reality, the studies simply show that meditation can be detected as some activity in the brain, not necessarily beneficial (nor harmful), just some activity. It is a stretch to conclude from observing some sort of detectable activity on the MRI that meditation is hugely helpful. Some years ago I was in several IOPs which pushed meditation and mindfulness as the first line of defense and gold standard, which irritated me. To me, it seemed yet another way to do something cheap and at scale - depth psychology, analysis, psychodynamic therapy all require time and an individualized approach and years of training for the practitioner, whereas mindfulness can be practiced in groups with one group leader facilitating the process for many participants. And insurance pays for it. And it requires far less training for a mindfulness facilitator to learn the skills than for a depth psychologist.

In general, I would call yoga and massage self-care, which can be hugely beneficial. I think acupuncture acts in the same way - there have been studies when needles were pressed in the "wrong" points, or the needles themselves were "wrong" but looked "right", and yet the treatment outcomes were unchanged, demonstrating that the effect was placebo. There is also something about all the fuss involved in getting acupuncture treatment – it is pleasant to be the object of all that fuss. I had it once and it felt very pleasant. But given how short life is, I think it is better to spend time and money on activities that have, behind them, far more proof of effectiveness, such as swimming, strength training (especially for women as they age), or dancing (proven to help alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's). If I had extra time and extra money (say, another hour on the day to make my day last 25 hours), and lived closed to an acupuncturist I liked, I would definitely get acupuncture for the pleasure of it, but under a severe time constraint, I do not spend time and money on something that does not have a solid evidence base. There is also something to be said for getting multiple benefits from one activity. Say, if the goal is to relieve stress, yes, acupuncture achieves this goal, but so does swimming. However, swimming helps the lungs, circulation, and, of course, the musculoskeletal system (in that sense, swimming is on the osteopathic path), so you get more out of the time spent swimming than out of the time spent being poked with needles. At the same time, acupuncture does not involve extra time before and after treatment, and swimming outdoors does (you need to change, apply sunscreen, then take a shower, change again... a drag), so maybe acupuncture sometimes is a more economical way (time-wise) to obtain stress relief.

The general point I wanted to make is that all of those words and dichotomies used so frequently suffer from being either poorly defined or non-existent in reality, meaning that they exist as claims, but not in reality.