That's a cheap shot. ;) I edit most all of them actually. You said yourself that they get too complicated and that you may not have read all of them. Then you said my highlighting makes it even more difficult to read so that by your own admission you may have missed some of what the articles said! So I edit them to just show the points since you don't like highlighting. If you want me to post the full abstracts I can. What's a guy to do?? What evidence did the article give BTW that shows icing is effective? None actually..
I guess you so proudly jumped all over that article because it's the closest thing you've presented that shows icing has any benefits.
But even this article only says "Cryotherapy and thermotherapy are useful adjuncts" but gives no evidence. What does that show? How does any of the article present evidence that icing is effective? Please point that out. (it's ok to highlight BTW
!!) The point of that article says that there are serious inherent dangers to using ice that I did highlight in bold. That should take care of the evidence for "long-term" detrimental problems with icing. It states that "Complications of cryotherapy include nerve damage, frostbite, Raynaud's phenomenon, cold-induced urticaria, and slowed wound healing." Why risk that if icing is ineffective anyway??
I see your point in trying to discredit me because I left out an invalid and useless (to our discussion) sentence. I'm afraid that your eagerness to re-post the entire article in an attempt to shame me only re-exposes the points that further validate my position. Discredit the writer and you discredit his point. I frankly see it as a desperate attempt to salvage your position. Especially when the overiding theme of the article is that ice may do considerable irreversible damage. I wouldn't be to proud of using that article to defend icing because it doesn't do that. That being the case then I can only assume that your intention was to discredit myself personally. (I'm not pissed BTW, I considered it fair play actually.)
The overiding message is that you haven't been able to show any evidence that ice is efficacious other than in serious over-swelling injuries so that the swelling itself doesn't cause further injury. I agree with that. For that matter none of this is a matter of agree or not agree, all anyone has to do is see what happens in the studies.
I don't like however, that the theme of our debate has become discrediting me. (I'm not mad though, on the contrary I think it adds spice to the debate so bring it on!
)
I do take it though as a last ditch desperate attempt to salvage your position. That change in how you defend your view is actually an admission of you having lost the debate. There's no evidence of any beneficial effects of ice (secondary injury aside) so why not try and discredit the writer??
Re-focus off the issue and on to the opponent! Very good BTW!!
As far as proof what would you consider proof? I've presented many articles showing the detrimental effects even if some are short-term (which I don't believe is the case BTW). I've seen nothing conclusive that shows icing is beneficial (other than the secondary injury thing.)
I may not be able to present tons and tons of evidence but I have posted a substantial amount. I've not seen nor have other professional (not saying that I am one) researchers who have tried as well to find anything concrete that says emphatically that "yes" icing works and it works by such and such.. Even if I haven't "proved " it to your satisfaction with the overwhelming evidence that you apparently require my friend, I've at least shown many studies that at least show "initially" evidence that icing is detrimental.
My question is, "why cling so tenaciously to it???"
Bottom line:
1. There's been no evidence or studies presented showing cause and effect studies of icing being helpful, other than in secondary injury position which doesn't apply to our discussion as that is only in injuries bad enough to cause overwhelming swelling that is rare. This applies to my reserach as well as research done by professionals to find anything they could.
2. I've presented plenty of evidence that icing is detrimental to healing (by your own admission, you agreed that IT IS detrimental but that I haven't shown that it has LONG-TERM detrimental consequences). Why use it BTW if icing shows ANY detrimental effects??
3. I've presented evidence that icing actually CAN be long-term and seriously dangerous (remember "Complications of cryotherapy include nerve damage, frostbite, Raynaud's phenomenon?? Those are long term consequences).
4. This debate has consistently refocused off the topic to other peripheral topics such as my personal credibility, my purported discourtesies, my lack of "knowing a newbies place", my lack of disrespect to well-established members, the frustration I supposedly cause by not interpreting things the way my opponent does, my writing style, the good-natured jabs that I use to keep things light interpreted as insults, my lack of use of "smilies" so that I don't offend, my use of highlights and underlining that make it difficult to read what I post, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
I'm still not mad BTW. It's actually beginning to become a lot of fun now!!!
We're debating like men...
Iron