LOL, I give! I spoke at length on that subject. IT DOES NOT PROVE THE LONGTERM OUTCOME.
The very things that it states as the effects of ice on cellular metabolism are the VERY reasons that ice is advocated. They have stated their theory that the long term effect would be delayed healing. Most people see it differently. I've mentioned this particular study you brought up several times and I keep referring to it because it is the only technical info you've given to support a REASON behind ice being bad. Again those reasons are opinion not proof. Everything in that article I posted about second injury have to do with the effects of ice on metabolism and it is seen as a positive thing by many researchers and doctors.
There simply is not other way to interpret that. It simply isn't proof that ice doesn't work. They are stating the obvious when they bring up it's effects on metabolism. As I said before that is not in debate. Stating a short term effect and proving the long term outcome IS NOT THE SAME THING.
I agree wholeheartedly that a person can say that ice slowing metabolism may slow down healing. They can also say, as you've read above, that by preventing secondary injury and protecting the tissue from VARIOUS kinds of damage, that it improves longterm healing. NEITHER has been proven. But there is more theory as to why it would help than that studies simple and statement of "it would slow down healing longterm".
Quote:
|
Thus, to whatever degree and whatever length of time, icing clearly has a detrimental effect on healing. No way around it..
|
There is no way you can say that is clear. Not if you consider both sides of the issue. Man, I've posted tons of reasons why it could have a positive effect and every one of them has to do with metabolic processes. Nothing has been proven. I understand you choose to interpret the data in a different way, I just don't see why I have to keep answering to the same info.