Hey Eric, I'm very very sorry about that last short smart-ass post of mine. I posted it before I finished it so it's out of context. I got busy (I'm at work) and couldn't finish my post till now. I didn't know it was even there till I refreshed the thread. They're trying to block internet access here at work and I have to get around that constantly so please don't be mad with me ok??
Here's what the post should read:
What's in us that we can't let this thing go?! Actually it's what I like about you Eric!
(I know that was borderline "gay" to say so that's why I said "like" instead of "love"!!)
I understand where you're coming from. However, let's be fair about the info you have posted. We've been debating this for a couple weeks and this is the first referenced info you've posted.
With all due respect and in all honesty Eric, I don't see where your article shows any prove of how and why ice therapy works. In fact according to this quote from it, they're actually saying that if we keep studying we may be able to determine
if cryotherapy is efficacious. They're directly saying that they don't know if it's effective or not..
"If we directly examine secondary mechanisms for cell death in future research, we may be able to specifically determine the efficacy of treatments, such as cryotherapy, on these secondary mechanisms."
The self described Objective of the study had nothing to do with showing that icing works anyway.
The point according to the article is to revisit and incorporate theories and show the need for more research into the secondary injury model.--
Objectives: To revisit the secondary injury model, to incorporate several current pathophysiologic theories into the model, and to show the need for more direct research examining the model.
Nothing frankly about icing other than to show that icing is used extensively. To quote the article.--
"Of these modalities, none is more commonly used for this purpose than cryotherapy."
That we already know.
The following quote from the article states that two previously thought reasons why they thought ice worked have been discredited. It basically concludes by saying that the current reason the researchers in this article think ice is effective is because it reduces secondary injury-further injury to the area caused by the swelling--which is usually NOT the case in most injuries.
though the acute and rehabilitative rationales for using cryotherapy differ and have changed throughout the years,6 the clinical efficacy of this modality has not. One of the most widely accepted theories regarding the rehabilitative use of cryotherapy, that it produced therapeutic cold-induced vasodilation,9 was discredited 20 years ago.6,10 A few years earlier, the rationale that short-term cryotherapy was effective because it limited edema formation through vasoconstriction began to be replaced by the currently accepted theory involving retarding secondary injury.6,11 This secondary injury model was a significant improvement over previous models because it strongly incorporated an understanding of immunology and cell pathology into acute injury management.
In summary we all agree that if swelling is bad enough to be a threat itself then yes, by all means, use it to reduce the damaging swelling. That, of course is the secondary injury thing that we want to avoid. But most swelling doesn't get that bad.
I've posted numerous studies showing zero effectiveness including a study that studied every imaginable database trying to find a good reason for icing. None of these showed ANY effectiveness and a few showed where icing actually hinders healing.
On the other hand I've not seen anything showing a direct relation between icing and better healing. I challenge anyone if I've missed it to show a study plain and simple that directly shows a cause and effect that icing helps (other than limiting further damage by the swelling itself.)
Iron