Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum - View Single Post - Is Popular Opinion Wrong About Treating Injuries?

Iron · 03-14-2007, 02:58 PM

Eric3237-

Thanks for the reply Eric. Sorry it took so long. Please take everything I say in the way it's meant. I apologize up front if I come across harsh. I respect your knowledge and value what you say. Also, you're always a gentleman when you say it and I hope I come across the same way..

It's frustrating to post an actual study showing and proving that when X was done then we saw X happen and have someone say they disagree. Disagree with what? It's not a matter of opinions, they're worthless. If I hit a wall with my car and watch it happen and report to you that I observed the wall fall down what would you say. That it's a theory or that you disagree? See it's not about disagreeing. We saw it happen, we know what caused it. Would you after seeing a study like my car example be willing to then stand in front of it and let me hit you knowing what you saw happen? Would you let me hit you because you "disagree" with my study??

New discoveries will always put them in the minority til everyone catches on. Wasn't Galileo put to death because he sai he saw that the sun and not the earth was at the middle of the solar system? It wasn't just his opinion, it was what he actually observed. And since no wanted to admit they had been wrong all the years they decided to kill him.

I always get one of two responses to studies I post like this. One is acceptance of the observed fact, the other is an apologetic tenacious clinging to the old ways in spite of it. Interpretations may differ as to why such and such happened but never the facts. What happened, happened. I believe it's human nature to fight anything people see as different. It's disturbing to think you've done something wrong or believed something wrongly all your life. This all applies to myself as well.

When you post stuff like, "most widely excepted method" and "base their recommendations on the widest body of evidence" and "I went by the most widely accepted practices" it doesn't exactly put you on the cutting edge of medical discoveries.

We both know that medical practices tend to hang on long after they've been proven to be inadequate practices. It's dangerous to go with the status quo just because that's what "most everyone does." If we did that we'd still be using bleeding techniques to cure cancer. Being the "most widely excepted method" doesn't mean it's the best way of doing anything or even mean that it's correct. Please throw that out. Let's look at real evidence and see what works in practice. Then we can interpret it together but let's never say we disagree with what we witnessed.

This quote of yours says it all--

"Always go by what your doctor says. But since a doctor will likely tell you to use rice (except maybe for compression) who are we to listen to. Researchers? Doctors? Our own instinct?"

Go by what the studies actually have observed happening. Doctors work long days and can't possibly keep up with the latest developments in everything medical. Where do you think they get their knowledge or where any medical knowledge comes from? Research and observations. That's what epidemiology is. Watching and seeing what happens.

If, like my studies show that without ice an injury heals in X time and without ice it heals in X less time, you tell me what should you go with? The one that actually works best in practice of course. If not, then why not?? Because it's the "most widely excepted method" and it's the "most widely accepted practice"?? Tell me why what I know to have happened didn't happen? Come on, don't stick with something for that reason. Heck, let's go back to bleeding and stop using anti-biotics for the same reason. They used to be the "most widely accepted practice" too.

QUOTE: "The studies are theorizing that this initial decrease in blood flow and it's associated slow down in cell metabolism would point to slower healing in the long run."

How is the following theorizing?--

Anti-inflammatories can delay healing and delay it significantly, even in muscles with their tremendous blood supply. In one study on muscle strains, Piroxicam (an NSAID) essentially wiped out the entire inflammatory proliferative phase of healing (days 0-4). At day two there were essentially no macrophages (cells that clean up the area) in the area and by day four after the muscle strain, there was very little muscle regeneration compared to the normal healing process.
by: Greene, J. Cost-conscious prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for adults with arthritis. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1992; 152:2002.

It says "The inflammatory response was wiped out." That's not a theory, that's what actually was observed to happen. It's not a matter of my opinion or your opinion. Neither of them matter. It's right in front of us. it happened. So you tell me which way to go???

QUOTE: Most of the writers and texts, including my own doctor, are aware of some of the speculation regarding this but they base their recommendations on the widest body of evidence.

Why is that wise? and again it's not speculation. It's fact that these things happened in the studies. If you don't believe what has actually been observed to happen in real practice, then tell me, why do you believe the other way and cling to it so tenaciously?? Where is the proof that the other way is correct? And please don't tell me it's "the most widely used practice." At least for me that's not good enough.

Can't you imagine this same debate taking place in the 1930's when they first developed penicillin:
Well I know antibiotics seem to work and it certainly cured that guy but that's not the way we've always done it. So I'll stick to the old way????

QUOTE: Experience with RICE seems to disagree with those researchers theories about it and recovery times are reduced, not lengthened.

Where is this supported by science? My study said:
Another study confirmed the above by showing that at day 28 after injury the muscle regenerative process was still delayed. The muscles of the group treated with Flurbiprofen (NSAID) were significantly weaker. The muscle fibers were shown under the microscope to have incomplete healing because of the medication.
by Almekinders, L. An in vitro investigation into the effects of repetitive motion and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication on human tendon fibroblasts. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2003; 23:119-123.

Again that's not an opinion but an actuall observation of what actually happened. "experience" as you use it here is purely anectodal and not very reliable. It's just people's opinions once again, and once again, not to be relied upon.

QUOTE: And even with sprains, swelling slows down healing.

Where's the science on this as well? My studies showed that just the opposite happened. How much proof is needed??

In summary if we want to know the truth and be on the cutting edge of what the newest science says (and isn't that what this board is all about?)we have to stop clinging to old ways simply because it's always been done like that. We'd never progress with that attitude.

Iron