Answers (3)
0
Ryan,
I have not but have been researching last couple of days on this. From my research on the subject it is mostly used in private companies/facilities, rehab and physical therapy and sports complexes. Here are a couple of links, this is great question though, am looking forward to reading your article.
http://www.uscryotherapy.com/technology/recovery/
http://www.tree.com/health/pain-treatment-cryotherapy.aspx
I have not but have been researching last couple of days on this. From my research on the subject it is mostly used in private companies/facilities, rehab and physical therapy and sports complexes. Here are a couple of links, this is great question though, am looking forward to reading your article.
http://www.uscryotherapy.com/technology/recovery/
http://www.tree.com/health/pain-treatment-cryotherapy.aspx
0
Here's my philosophy on cryotherapy. I have done a bit of research into this, and since I haven't found any suitable explanation to my questions, I'm sticking with my theory...
I think cryotherapy is unneccesary. Swelling is the body's natural reaction to an injury. I have never heard anybody explain to me why swelling is bad. Yes it hurts, but swelling also means all the healing cells are in the affected area. Repair technically begins the second after an injury takes place, why would you want to reduce the circulation to the injury. I think swelling is the body's natural "cast".
Academic research focuses on comparing different modalities, crushed ice/immersion, massage, ultrasound, etc... But nobody compares the modalities to a "no treatment" control group (as far as I know). My theory is that while cryotherapy decreases recovery time, the recovery is not 100%.
An example I have seen personally, is adductor injuries in hockey. Player pulls his groin, ices it immediately. Returns to action, and almost always re-injures it within a month... because the initial recovery was rushed, and not done correctly.
I am a competitive trail runner, I've had a few minor injuries in the last few years, none of which I have ever treated with ice.
That's my two cents...
I think cryotherapy is unneccesary. Swelling is the body's natural reaction to an injury. I have never heard anybody explain to me why swelling is bad. Yes it hurts, but swelling also means all the healing cells are in the affected area. Repair technically begins the second after an injury takes place, why would you want to reduce the circulation to the injury. I think swelling is the body's natural "cast".
Academic research focuses on comparing different modalities, crushed ice/immersion, massage, ultrasound, etc... But nobody compares the modalities to a "no treatment" control group (as far as I know). My theory is that while cryotherapy decreases recovery time, the recovery is not 100%.
An example I have seen personally, is adductor injuries in hockey. Player pulls his groin, ices it immediately. Returns to action, and almost always re-injures it within a month... because the initial recovery was rushed, and not done correctly.
I am a competitive trail runner, I've had a few minor injuries in the last few years, none of which I have ever treated with ice.
That's my two cents...
0
No
As stated above there is a reason our bodies get inflamed
I'm totally for icing but I think being sensible is key
As stated above there is a reason our bodies get inflamed
I'm totally for icing but I think being sensible is key
