Thoughts on this anti-icing article?

[Domjo54]

There are parts that I can kind of understand where Kstar is coming from, but a lot of it seems sort of...simplistic.

http://www.mobilitywod.com/2012/08/p...ooo-wrong.html

Just because the body naturally doesn't ice itself, we shouldn't help the process along...what?

Was hoping for your critical opinion here.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I have said many times that ice is overrated. I haven't found it to be useful for anything except a muscle belly tear, on which it works beautifully. I don't think it works for joints/connective tissue/back injuries and inflammation, but my conclusion is based on my own experiences with it. I can't watch Kelly's videos, but if somebody wants to make a transcript, I'll read it. Looks like it might be a lot of typing this time.

[tertius]

There has been some research done about brief exposures (sub two minutes) to very low temperatures speeding healing.
This is obviously different than icing something for fifteen or twenty minutes.
No time to look it up now, though. Sully is probably at least passingly familiar with it.

[PressesPeople]

Domjo, did you watch the whole video? The video explains in MUCH more depth why they're saying this.

Fancy things like macrophages and IGF-1.

In most simple terms Rip, the guy that Kelly is interviewing in the video is implying that ice is harmful to the healing process not only because it's decreasing circulation to the injured site, but mainly because it is numbing the connection between the nerves and muscles, which is counterproductive since the only way to flush out waste and bring in the helpful shit, like macrophages and insulin like growth factor (which is attached to the back of the macrophages) is through the process of muscle contraction.

Instead of ice, he promotes muscle contraction and compression as the means to heal a site.

He's also implying that NSAIDs are harmful for many of the same reasons ice is.

[Mark Rippetoe]

He's probably right. That's why we rehab things the way we do here.

[PressesPeople]

There has been some research done about brief exposures (sub two minutes) to very low temperatures speeding healing.
This is obviously different than icing something for fifteen or twenty minutes.
No time to look it up now, though. Sully is probably at least passingly familiar with it.

I believe these are a whole-body exposure though. What is being discussed in this video/article is local icing, not generalized. Generalized cooling is more of a CNS relaxant in my opinion, anyways. This helps me with recovery; I love hot/cold showers after a grueling workout, such as volume day. But it's not expediting the healing process, it's just making me feel more refreshed.

[weightliftingfan1]

Generalized cooling is more of a CNS relaxant in my opinion, anyways.

?

[PressesPeople]

?

Yeah, I stated that poorly. What I meant to say was this: I've heard a lot of people giving various reasons as to why they think generalized cooling works for recovery. I think most of these reasons are bullshit, and that it actually comes down to re-sensitizing the nerve connections throughout the body, thus leading to a more refreshed feeling and an ability to do hard work sooner and recruit more fibers in doing so. The reason 15-20 minute ice baths don't work as well as acute exposures to very low temperatures (in my opinion, once again) is that you're actually cooling your core temperature down, a lot, rather than re-sensitizing the nerve connections (the "CNS").

"CNS relaxant" was just my lazy, layman's way of saying that.

Rebuke?

[tertius]

I believe these are a whole-body exposure though. What is being discussed in this video/article is local icing, not generalized. Generalized cooling is more of a CNS relaxant in my opinion, anyways. This helps me with recovery; I love hot/cold showers after a grueling workout, such as volume day. But it's not expediting the healing process, it's just making me feel more refreshed.

That's correct, it was whole body exposure.
However, I'm not sure that the mechanisms involved are well enough understood to state whether or not localized cooling would or would not have the same effect.

And lets be clear: I don't think there's conclusive data one way or the other. Experiment, and see what seems to work better for you, and your injuries.
Rip says ice is useful for tears, but not other stuff. Personally the only thing I ever ice is my skull. Do what seems to work best for you.

[quagmire]

Domjo, did you watch the whole video? The video explains in MUCH more depth why they're saying this.

Fancy things like macrophages and IGF-1.

In most simple terms Rip, the guy that Kelly is interviewing in the video is implying that ice is harmful to the healing process not only because it's decreasing circulation to the injured site, but mainly because it is numbing the connection between the nerves and muscles, which is counterproductive since the only way to flush out waste and bring in the helpful shit, like macrophages and insulin like growth factor (which is attached to the back of the macrophages) is through the process of muscle contraction.

Instead of ice, he promotes muscle contraction and compression as the means to heal a site.

He's also implying that NSAIDs are harmful for many of the same reasons ice is.

Actually not quite. AFAI could tell:
1. Ice leads to less waste out, in part due to permeability increases (plus what you said).
2. NSAIDs actually *prevent* macrophages and concomitant healing growth factors from being directed to the injury and thus delay recovery. NSAIDs are thus worse than ice.


I wonder if ice is bad, would heat be good?

For muscle belly tears, would the same objection not apply?


I have had this "why the hell would icing and reducing circulation be good" question for a while.