ICE BATHS, no shrinkage though

Kneeling is bad for your knees.

i hate shrinkage wrote:

Would taking an ice bath kneeling down with the cold water coming up to just before the man parts still be benefical??

As a newcomer to ice bathing myself, allow me to introduce you to the only thing that lets me plunge myself into the deep, cold, aquatic rehab:

WIND BRIEFS!!!

are you trying to impress the guys in the locker room or something? Shrinkage is normal especially when taking an ice bath, who cares what size it is for the 15 minutes after an ice bath but before a shower???

no. why would you even need to ask? you're not getting your upper quads, hips, adductors, etc. go up to your waist.

You are what you are. Shrinkage isn't going to change that. Get some counsiling.

Despite the shrinkage, an ice bath will work wonders for the tubular muscle.

I go to the belly button. The gluts and lower back will thank you for it.

Is it all right to take ice bath on days off due to injuries? I am taking today off due to an injury and plus my legs were absolutely dead yesterday, should I take an ice bath?

Do it.. or do a contrast shower with alternating hot/cold/hot/cold/etc.

i agree; contrast baths can do wonders for dead legs.

How long of an alternating period of hot/cold do you guys suggest? 2.5 minutes hot, 2.5 minutes cold...4 sets?

i usually do longer than that. of course, it also depends on your time constraints. the research on the issue seems to be quite up in the air regarding what the best method/duration/tempterature/etc. are. two sets of 5 min hot/5 min cold is what i do but i've seen so many variations.

I go 3 minutes hot, 2 minutes cold, 4 sets. I've heard of other routines (3 hot/1 cold, equal hot/cold, etc.) but just use what works for you.

is there any damage done to the testicles by taking regular ice baths... ie sperm count/fertility?

chuck d wrote:

i agree; contrast baths can do wonders for dead legs.

If you have any real evidence for this, please post it.

What is the theory behind alternating temperature? It seems to me that you either benefit from heat or cold, depending on whether you're warming up or suppressing post-workout inflammation, respectively. Why both? And why wouldn't the presumed therapeutic benefit of the heat be immediately undone by application of cold, etc.?

Given that it takes a rather long time for topical heat/cold to penetrate deeply into leg muscles (certainly more than 5 minutes, but more probably over 10), I highly doubt that briskly alternating hot and cold would achieve the desired effect, anyway.

Without hard evidence, this looks VERY quackish.

this article, though perhaps not particularly well written, gives a decent summation of the studies and provides some cites to journal articles and such at the bottom. i've read most of these studies and the results aren't uniform but that isn't all that unexpected at such an early stage. there's better stuff out there but i don't have time to find them.

i personally feel better after having done them (better than just doing one or the other) when i have dead legs. i like to do what works for me and there seems to be at least some support out there that i'm not out of my mind.

and quackish? your theories and questions asked are a bit superficial. i'm a bit busy at work but i hope someone on here will set you straight. otherwise, i'll elaborate later.

http://www.runnersweb.com/running/rw_news_frameset.html?http://www.runnersweb.com/running/news/rw_news_20050623_PPO_Hydrotherapy.html

Let's see, you declare my post is "superficial," then leave it to others to explain why? Is this intended as comedy?

"Superficial" is precisely how 3 minutes of topical heat-cold therapy affects the body, according to the article you cited.

I wrote: "Given that it takes a rather long time for topical heat/cold to penetrate deeply into leg muscles (certainly more than 5 minutes, probably 10 or more), I highly doubt that briskly alternating hot and cold would achieve any effect."

Your article states: "One recent study found no significant difference in intramuscular temperature following hot (40.6°C) and cold (15.6°C) immersion (1). And a subsequent study reported the same findings (2)."

None of the other studies cited contradict the reports that intramuscular temperature is unaffected by hot/cold therapy.

Because the muscles are neither heated nor cooled by "contrast baths," it seems highly unlikely that they would accrue the benefits of either cold therapy ("dulling and reducing the sensation of pain, limiting the amount of swelling, reducing muscle spasm and clearing metabolites") or heat therapy ("increasing oxygen and antibody supply, while also reducing muscle spasm").

When a therapy's theory is debunked, its purported benefits properly fall under greater suspicion. Of course, the claims may still be valid, having an alternate physiological explanation. The problem here is that no alternate physiological explanation is apparent, and the results are very weak.

Of the few studies cited in this article which pertain specifically to hot-cold therapy, one is rather economically summarized as follows:

Since you claim to have read these articles, chuck d, what type of therapy did the control group receive in this experiment? Just cold? Or heat? Massage? Nothing? And did the paper actual purport that "mental freshness" was a result of the alternating temperatures?

Another claims "perceived soreness of eccentrically trained muscles returned to baseline levels following cold whirlpool and contrast methods, making them more effective than warm hydromassage and passive recovery."

The only other published study claims that "after completing treadmill runs to exhaustion, highly active subjects recorded lower lactate concentrations following a contrast protocol than with passive recovery(6). Additionally, the subjects reported an increased perception of recovery during the contrast protocol, even by comparison with an active recovery.

Lower lactate concentrations. And increased "perception" of recovery.

If you sincerely believe "contrast baths" work for you, chuck, then I wholeheartedly agree. Just because the quick temperature changes have no affect on your muscles, doesn't mean that they can't work in your head.

why don't you actually deign to read what you quoted instead of just quoting it?

i said that article was crappy; i'm quite busy right now and surely do not have the time to reply to such a lengthy post with what would be an even lengthier post. i pointed you more towards the studies cited than the article itself. if i have time later to rummage out the studies, i will do so. i'm sorry that i can't provide instant gratification for your wants. welcome to life. perhaps you could do some research on your own?

Charlatans... you need to soak your head in an ice bath, or get laid.