Fitness

[boog]

Wim is the shit, but I don't have time for a lot of his stuff. The kids will run in in the middle of an ice bath and ruin the meditative serenity I'm meant to adopt.

However, he suggested kratom for people with fibromyalgia, and while I took it, I felt the best I had in years. It also helped with my appetite.

I have a bad knee too, Delirium, and a fucked up rotator cuff. I still try to go as heavy as I can, but on movements that don't include, or directly include, my right shoulder and my left knee.

I haven't lost anymore weight in pounds yet, but my body comp is looking great. I wouldn't mind being this weight if all of the remaining fluff went away.

[Synthesis]

The Wim Hof stuff is mostly a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense, but I suppose it isn't abjectly dangerous as long as you don't shallow-water-blackout in a tub of ice water.  The cold resistance is physiologically bogus.  The mood/psychological changes...probably attributable solely to acute effects of hyperventilation and placebo/power of suggestion.

Apparently though, that isn't a popular opinion on The Internets.

[Delirium]

If it works for him, it works.

[Synthesis]

If it works for him, it works.

Wim Hof breathing, meditation, indoor rock climbing and cold showers for 2 months.

Stress gone.  Anxiety gone.  Self discipline improved.  2 inches off my waist.  Life seems better in all facets.

W/r/t the conversation about caloric restriction - intermittent fasting may be more effective.  Calorie restriction without significant decrease of added sugar from the diet ensures that the body considers glucose as the primary source of energy and prevents fat stores from being more easily converted.  Glucose dependence also leads to the desire to eat more sugar or carb filled foods. There is more information about this on the Internet, but it's also been my first hand experience in trying different diets while I was trying to find a way to beat stress & anxiety.

Meditation:  evidence of effectiveness supported by actual science.

Exercise:  evidence of effectiveness supported by actual science.

Intermittent fasting:  evidence of effectiveness supported by actual science.

There's no reason to believe that some malarkey peddled by some weirdo in the Netherlands had anything to do with it, when he's admitted to using 3 other interventions that are KNOWN to improve mood and reduce stress.

[Melkor]

Wait, I'm confused, regarding the cold showers/ice baths, you (Synth) are saying that they are in the realm of pseudoscience. You're talking in the context of stress relief, and not reducing inflammation, right? If cold water therapy doesnt decrease inflammation (initially), then my mind is blown.

A side note... Cold showers make me irritable and mean.

[Sephiroto]

I was meditating and climbing before I started Wim Hof.  I also don't buy into the pseudoscience.

When I started the breathing exercises and cold showers every day, then my anxiety improved.  It's now gone.  I will admit, that I actually felt worse for the first few days.  It was important enough for me to stick with it and I'm glad I did.

Like yoga and meditation, it's something you have to experience for yourself before you know if it benefits you.  For me it works, for now.  I don't believe in chakras and all that, but I definitely feel things during some meditations that I'd expect out of illegal drugs.  When I learned that I could warm up my body by stretching, sit, close my eyes and feel euphoria and peace...my mind was blown.

Synth may the way he does because he spent a lot of time, and possibly money, on med-school.  And, well, because pseudoscience is generally foolish.  To believe that science fully understands how the body & mind work is also foolish.

[Synthesis]

I don't believe science fully understands how the mind or body works.

I do believe that personal anecdotes are pretty much the weakest form of evidence.

I'm not going to get into the details about why I -do- think it's totally malarkey, because debunking bullshit in science (as with politics) is a Sisyphean task.

Believe what you want to believe, if it makes you feel better.  Like I said, it's probably harmless at worst.

[Synthesis]

Wait, I'm confused, regarding the cold showers/ice baths, you (Synth) are saying that they are in the realm of pseudoscience. You're talking in the context of stress relief, and not reducing inflammation, right? If cold water therapy doesnt decrease inflammation (initially), then my mind is blown.

A side note... Cold showers make me irritable and mean.

"Inflammation" is one of those words that has been co-opted by pseudoscience to justify all sorts of bogus claims.

Sometimes, inflammation is good.  Sometimes it's bad.  The important question is not "what does cold water do for inflammation?"  The question is "what does cold water do to treat this particular condition?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18212134

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26888646

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27294485

Anyway, it looks like the jury is still out on whether CWI has any particular effect, but as with the breathing shenanigans, the downside is "generally harmless," unless you go off the deep-end and give yourself frostbite or something.

Also, since I can't help but beat a dead horse:

This is the study used by Innerfire/Wim Hof to justify the purported immunomodulatory effects of the breathing method.

The physiological breakdown is simple:  the breathing method increases adrenergic drive (measured here by plasma epinephrine concentration), epinephrine up-regulates IL-10, IL-10 down-regulates TNF-alpha and other pro-inflammatory cytokines.  Okay, that sounds legit at first.

1.  The fact that voluntarily-induced respiratory alkalosis produces a larger epinephrine response might be a novel finding, so that's interesting.  However, if you look at the charts in the study, the absolute increase is modest, although there does seem to be a marked increase in onset-of-maximal-epinephrine response.  Furthermore, 3 hours into doing the breathing method, epinephrine response is more or less tracking with the control group, and after cessation, there's no significant difference.  So if the breathing does anything, it only does it while you're intentionally hyperventilating.  I suppose that could have some clinical implications, but I have serious doubts about the practicality of sitting there hyperventilating for hours at a time on a regular basis.

2.  We already knew that epinephrine down-regulates IL-10, especially in the context of bacterial endotoxin, as far back as 1996.

So essentially, this is on the level of a science trick:  you have something that works in a known way, and you initiate the sequence of events in a novel/unexpected manner that has questionable practical applications.  I'd like to see the study repeated with a different treatment group that is exposed to a known epinephrine-inducer (like, say...exercise) for 30 minutes prior to endotoxin administration.  I'd also like to see the study repeated measuring IL-10 reduction for those 2 treatment groups compared to another treatment group that receives some commonplace NSAID like ibuprofen, acetaminophen, or naproxen, because previous studies have shown that COX-2 products can induce/enhance IL-10 production.

[Melkor]

That was a lot of writing to address a question I didn't ask.
I didn't ask if inflammation was good or bad. I didn't ask "What does cold water do for inflammation?" I didn't even ask what cold water did for a particular condition.

I asked, when referring to cold water therapy as pseudoscience, if you were speaking in context of stress relief or treating inflammation. The answer could have been 2 words.

[Synthesis]

That was a lot of writing to address a question I didn't ask.
I didn't ask if inflammation was good or bad. I didn't ask "What does cold water do for inflammation?" I didn't even ask what cold water did for a particular condition.

I asked, when referring to cold water therapy as pseudoscience, if you were speaking in context of stress relief or treating inflammation. The answer could have been 2 words.

You stated that your mind would be blown if CWI -didn't- decrease inflammation, which is a roundabout way (with built-in plausible deniability) of saying that it's something you believe.  I provided references that indirectly cast some doubt on that belief, in the context of what this thread is about (fitness...hence the evidence primarily from sports medicine).

I also attempted to explain why you probably aren't going to find much good evidence addressing "inflammation" directly, because asking about "x's effects on inflammation" is a poorly-phrased question in physiologic terms.

CWI's effects on "stress" would be treatment of "a particular condition," provided you provided a more accurate definition of "stress" (e.g. anxiety, depressed mood).

[Melkor]

When referring to cold water therapy as pseudoscience, were you speaking in the context of stress relief or treating local inflammation?

[Synthesis]

When referring to cold water therapy as pseudoscience, were you speaking in the context of stress relief or treating local inflammation?

Neither.  I was originally referring to it in the context that Wim Hof promotes it, which is pseudoscience.  I then transitioned to contexts where cold therapy may be supported by actual science (stress, inflammation) because you introduced those contexts.

I can't really get deep into what exactly he thinks it does, because the specifics are behind the paywall, but as with all pseudoscience, there are a few nuggets of fact that serve as anchors for the pseudoscience tangents.  E.g. "Cold therapy can reduce local inflammation" (probably a fact) leads to "cold therapy can reduce systemic inflammation" (possibly?--inconclusive data) which leads to "cold therapy can fortify your immune system and balance your hormones"  (how did we get here from there, again?).

It seemed like you were mainly interested in the anti-inflammatory angle, so I primarily addressed that, because I thought there might be something useful to learn from a quick peek at the research.

[Melkor]

Interesting info, for sure, but no, my only interest was to what you were referring as pseudoscience. I dont know who Wim Hof is; I was mainly concerned with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by not specifying what you were referring to as pseudoscience.

[Synthesis]

Interesting info, for sure, but no, my only interest was to what you were referring as pseudoscience. I dont know who Wim Hof is; I was mainly concerned with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by not specifying what you were referring to as pseudoscience.

All pseudoscience has a baby in the bathwater.  That's what makes it pseudoscience, and not just complete bullcrap.  Thus, calling something "pseudoscience" by definition doesn't negate the veracity of the anchoring claims...it's an admission that there are -some- facts there, but that the ultimate claims don't follow from those facts in a scientifically sound manner.

[Melkor]

This is why I feel it is important to state specifically what is legitimate and what is not. Reasonable?

[Synthesis]

This is why I feel it is important to state specifically what is legitimate and what is not. Reasonable?

What is reasonable depends on how much time, mental energy, and access to data you have at the moment.  I don't think it's reasonable to let a pseudoscientific claim stand unchallenged simply because you don't presently have the resources available to do a good skeptical takedown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

[Melkor]

I dont think you didn't specify because of time constraints, mental energy, or access to data.

[Synthesis]

I dont think you didn't specify because of time constraints, mental energy, or access to data.

[Melkor]

dont think you can .gif your way outta this!

Kidding.