Monthly Archives: August 2012

How should we ice, then?

Posted on by
19

Kelly Starrett’s MobilityWOD put out the message that icing is no longer recommended. After a lot of discussion and digestion, I posted a response about whether or not we should still ice. It looked at several issues from the MWOD post, including the cited research. The conclusion was that the research and practice were conflicting, and therefore it’s too inconclusive to definitively throw icing out the window. Furthermore, there were just too many unanswered questions about the effect of ice on things like lymphatics permeability and prostaglandins. The MWOD post also didn’t distinguish between different types of injuries, which is incredibly important.

To clarify, none of this is an attack on Kelly himself. Remember that he’s arguably done more for prehab and rehab in the last few years than anyone else. The fact that he’s so well respected is why I’m researching and discussing the “do not ice” claim in depth. It’s okay to disagree with someone; at the same time it’s still possible to learn from them, support them, or respect them.

Ultimately, the issue of icing comes down to the differentiation between injury types. For a brief literature review, look at yesterday’s post. We’ll try to generally talk about some injury types today and basic approaches to rehabbing them on your own at home.  Take note that injuries are individualistic; each one is specific to a specific individual. Good PTs will have a specific protocol made for your specific injury, circumstances, and activity or performance goals. When in doubt, go to a PT. If you can’t, then always always always do the least invasive rehab and then wait until the next day to see if it’s the same, worse, or better. You’re doing all of this at your own risk.

Contrast Baths vs Acute Icing

First we need to clarify between two different types of icing. “Contrast work”, which can include ice baths, is not the same as icing a specific spot on your body. Trainees anecdotally report positive results with contrast baths or showers to improve general or systemic recovery. However, they are used by some PTs to treat acute soft tissue injuries or general inflammation in a body part. “Soft tissue” would include muscle, tendon, or ligament issues — usually in terms of sprains, pulls, or partial tears (the most common associated with training). “General inflammation” isn’t referring to total body systemic inflammation, but instead refers to something like soreness in the traps and shoulders or forearms from a lot of volume (e.g. lots of overhead work or farmer’s walks respectively).

One of my PT friends has found that ten minutes of cold immersion alternated with a heating pad works best. He uses five cycles of starting and stopping with ice. He found that by ending with heat left the lymphatic channels open and encouraged swelling, but he admits this may be contradictory to what we are learning now (referencing yesterday’s post and how ice seems to increase the permeability of the lymphatics). Remember that this is used for a specific acute injury or a specific body part.

This particular PT has had clinical and personal anecdotal evidence of this protocol working with acute soft tissue injuries. It has helped with lingering injuries that have lasted up to two months and removed the pain after one week of daily treatment. Interesting to say the least.

I think that this approach could be generally applied for systemic recovery, which can also be caused by high volume, frequency, and/or intensity training. In this method, the heat would be applied to the entire body as opposed to just an afflicted area. Think in terms of hot and cold showers, ice baths and hot tubs, or ice baths and hot showers. Use caution when dealing with extremes in temperatures and I suggest you ask a PT or doctor before trying it.

The (admittedly) conventional wisdom behind why contrast stuff can work is that the alternating temperatures contract and relax the body and lymphatic channels, which helps push the waste up through the lymphatics. Take note that this also occurs in movement — we’ll talk about it regarding active recovery below. The contracting/releasing of the lymphatics idea is one line of reasoning as to why this helps both general systemic inflammation and acute soft tissue injuries.

Acute, Single Location Icing

Contrast work requires some preparation and a lot of time. For a non-professional athlete who has other responsibilities in life, they’ll need to get the most benefit with techniques that most efficiently use their time. Icing a specific spot will be a little easier, albeit potentially not as effective as what is written above.

Immersion is always better than a bag of ice, and a bag of ice is always better than a commercial ice pack.

 

Immersion can include a bucket of ice water for ankles or wrists, but it gets a little tricky for elbows, knees, shoulders, or the back. I suggest a standard blue ice bag that you can get at any pharmacy or grocery store. I like these because they don’t produce condensation and therefore don’t drip down your body or clothing. I suggest also getting some heavy ace bandage wraps — they can hold the ice on the awkward spots and they can be used for compression rehab.

The research showed that some superficial tissue damage can occur with prolonged icing as well as the potential “increase of edema” issue. Therefore, the recommendation said not to exceed 30 minutes and probably not 20. We’ll just use 15. Apply the ice on an area that encompasses the painful area and wrap it to ensure solid contact. Set a timer for 15 minutes. The heavy ace bandages can be useful for busy people since they can go about their business despite icing their knee.

Under What Circumstances Should You Ice

One supportive argument for icing is that when it’s applied soon after the onset of injury that it helps prevent secondary hypoxic cell damage. Edema is a result of more blood flow to the area along with the waste products. Specifically an “increase in the permeability of the vessel wall (with a) subsequent increase of the extracellular protein concentration” (Meeusen, 1986 — the article from yesterday). There are varying levels of capillary permeability and cellular response, and it’s dependent on the injury. Icing decreases the temperature of the tissues and reduces blood flow in the area. If icing occurs soon after the onset of injury, then it can help slow the blood flow to an area that is in the process of “increasing the permeability of the vessel wall” and dumping extracellular proteins — the thing that causes edema. This is how icing can prevent secondary hypoxic cell damage.

Of course, that edema is the body’s response to the injury. So we should let it be, right? If the goal is to expedite healing, then no. Look at the “Ancestral Argument” section from yesterday. If we wanted the inflammation process to occur unheeded, then we wouldn’t conduct massage, compression, elevation, or e-stim to the area either. These rehab protocols, combined with icing, return athletes to activity faster, and that’s shown in clinical research (and we’ve probably all seen it in anecdotal situations too).

Take very careful note that the situation I’m talking about here is an acute injury, specifically an acute soft tissue injury. This includes muscles, tendons (attaching muscles to bones), and ligaments (attaching bones to bones). This does not include broken bones, joint dislocations, bursa issues, etc. Your n=1 experience of your orthopedic doctor telling you to only move, compress, and elevate your dislocated finger is not proof that icing is useless.

Aim to get ice on the injury as soon as possible and continue icing on and off for the first 24 hours, but no more than 48 hours. The more severe the injury, the closer to 48 hours you could ice. After this deadline, rely on other rehab protocols to heal and alleviate the injury. They will be discussed below.

Lastly, I want to point out that if you notice a significant increase in swelling and you deem it to result from ice exposure, then stop doing it. I have a friend who does a lot of ballistic lifting, smokes regularly, and takes a lot of NSAIDs. Icing ends up making his situation worse, but he is not a relevant piece of data due to his smoking and NSAID use.

A Note On NSAIDs

A major injury will necessitate some NSAIDs. Or deca.

My general philosophy for minor soft tissue injuries is to not use NSAIDs. Quality nutrition (paleo) with appropriate protein and smart supplementation (fish oil, vitamin D, ZMA, and magnesium to start — post on this soon) will help keep non-training systemic inflammation low and facilitate healing these minor issues. Stuff like ibuprofen can be problematic for the gut, yes, so let’s avoid them…unless there’s a more serious injury. In such a case, you’ll probably be prescribed something. To be perfectly clear: I’m not anti-NSAIDs, but save them for the major stuff and let your efficient body and rehab protocols deal with the minor stuff.

 

Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries

As a general rule, you will not ice chronic soft tissue injuries. As I’ve said a hundred times before, chronic soft tissue injuries are usually due to improper mechanics or conducting mechanics with improper mobility. Barring a past acute injury, there’s an underlying cause as to why this chronic issue exists. Identify and diagnose what that is and fix it — if you don’t then the issue won’t go away no matter what treatment you apply.

Icing can help chronic issues, but only when it is applied after aggressive rehabilitation. If you are self-massaging a tendon to break up scar tissue, you should follow up with movement to get blood flow, lactic acid, and proper structural stress to the tendon. After the movement-based rehab — which is absolutely necessary for recovery — you can ice. This helps people from an anedcotal perspective all of the time. The icing is okay and helpful because you’re essentially re-injuring the area via the “scar tissue breaking massage”. You created an injury, and the motto is that “icing helps acute soft tissue injuries”. That’s why it’s okay.

A specific example is what I did with Brent a few years ago. He primarily did the Olympic lifts, but expressed a mild desire to bench again so that high school football players wouldn’t embarrass him and make him look like a shit head. However, the bench ROM was incredibly painful on the anterior portion of his shoulders, specifically the proximal biceps tendon. When I palpated them, they were significantly raised and inflamed with built up scar tissue. I worked on them with my thumbs, and he squealed like in this video, and then I had him press and bench the bar for some high reps followed by icing. We did this protocol several times (separated by at least a day or two), and in a week or so he was able to bench pain free.

If aggressive massage and movement are not applied to a chronic issue, then I would not recommend ice unless the person wants to use it as an analgesic. Ice relieves pain because it “numbs” the area. In the Reinl video, they claimed that it severed the “muscle and nerve connection”, yet this would take significant cold exposure to do. It does decrease the temperature, but if done within the parameters of our “15 minutes rule”, it’s not an issue. Whether or not icing a chronic issue such as this is detrimental to the recovery process is not known, but, again, the person can ice if they want to relieve pain. My opinion, which is not based on anything in the research, is that icing for 15 minutes will not be detrimental to the recovery process, yet it’s not going to accomplish anything other than analgesia.

Remember that I said that most chronic soft tissue injuries are due to bad mechanics or faulty mobility, but they can be from simply doing too much without enough recovery:

However, the degradation of collagen is also increased after exercise, likely at a greater level than the increase in synthesis. Consequently, for the first 36 h after exercise, the collagen metabolic system is in a negative balance with degradation greater than synthesis (Fig. 1). This may explain that repeated exercise without sufficient rest can leave an athlete in a state of repeated collagen  breakdown, and the development of overuse injury (Magnusson et al., 2010).

 

— “Tendinopathy in Athletes.” Physical Therapy In Sport, 13, 2012: 3-10.

Hmm, too much volume and frequency with no rest. Sound familiar? This is almost every CrossFit injury ever. It’s also related to the actual acute injuries that occur from not having recovered structures. I wrote about this a long time ago, but hopefully people are starting to pay attention to the prevention and treatment of these things. The prevention is proper programming. The treatment consists of comprehensive recovery methods.

Rehabilitation Modalities for Acute Injuries

If you read yesterday’s post, then you know that the benefit of icing was always linked with at least one other method of rehab. At the very least, the raising of this “to ice, or not to ice” issue should teach or remind you that rehab must be multi-faceted to be efficient. We have addressed icing above, so let’s touch on the others.

Here’s a good spot for a random pic

Elevation

This is useful because it helps the lymphatics clear waste. The lymph system is similar to veins in that they have a one-way track to the center of the body. There are valves that prevent backward movement, and muscular contraction helps pump and pulsate contents through each type of vessel back to the trunk. Elevating a limb will a) help prevent blood or lymphatic waste pooling (which would increase edema) and b) allow gravity to assist the lymph system in pulling out the waste (in the same way that it helps drain the blood flow from the area).

Compression

It’s known that massage helps clear extracellular waste — the stuff of edema (it is known). Compression sort of does the same thing by preventing the increase of swelling and perhaps even helping to squeeze the bad fluid out. It facilitates the clearing of blood and waste from the area, especially when compounded with elevation. We’ll also see that compression with movement is very useful too.

Rest

In the Reinl/Kelly video, they poopooed rest because movement is necessary to recovery. And it is, but an initial period of rest is probably necessary. Let’s use the same “icing timeline” and say rest for 24 to 48 hours; the more severe the injury, the longer the rest. For example, you wouldn’t want to start moving a severely sprained ankle around a couple hours after the injury. Usually you’ll only rest for 24 hours.

Movement

This is the single most important thing for rehabilitation. Ever. I’ve written about this hundreds of times — soft tissue injuries need to heal by receiving stress through a full range of motion. If they heal or scar with no motion, then any new motion will irritate or re-injure the area. And obviously healing with a partial range of motion isn’t helpful for when you eventually hit that end ROM that it isn’t prepared for. I’ve successfully rehabbed hundreds and hundreds of people, and movement is always the reason.

Keep in mind that the movements need to be progressed. I’ll repeat one of my rehab rules:

When rehabbing, try the least invasive movement and then wait until the next day to see if it’s the same, worse, or better. 

The key is the “least invasive movement”. If you can’t put weight on your sprained ankle, then just move it through a range of motion. If you’ve already moved it through a full ROM, then add light resistance. If the light resistance doesn’t make it worse, than slightly increase the resistance or number of reps. In this Q&A post I give an example of an ankle rehab protocol. Is it comprehensive? Perfect? Perhaps not, but it’s a progressive plan. I might tweak those icing recommendations a little, but the basic tenets are there: ice initially, then progressively load it. I’d add compression and elevation to the protocol — these should be done as much as possible when not icing or moving the afflicted area.

The concept revolves around a progression. I get creative with how I’m going to work a structure. At first, it might need to be in isolation, but the structure is always integrated back to compound movements. And it’s steadily, but consistently progressed. This is so important because you guys are so friggin’ impatient with your progress or don’t attempt to make any at all. I’ve talked to so many people who have an injury and they decide not to squat for three months. I’m not suggesting you squat with weight, but a body weight squat is a starting point. If that’s too much, then figure out a way to put work on the area. It’s your hip flexor? Then lift your thigh up. Groin? Move your thigh in and out, get on the yes/no machines (adduction/abduction) — just do SOMETHING.

It’s impossible to be comprehensive because there are so many different types of soft tissue injuries. Just know that you can ice initially, but then you need to perform movement that applies an adaptive stress to the injured structure. The structure has been reduced in its ability, so you have to progress it back to its uninjured state. This is the same exact concept of making a muscle strong, but now you must limit the stress to what that particular structure can handle.

Throughout the rehab process, I deem it acceptable to ice after the movement rehab, and especially if it’s still tender during rehab. Movement or massage may sort of “re-injure” the area by applying a stress that it isn’t adapted to. After recovering, it should be able to handle that same stress again easier, and that’s why you will progress to doing more in the next rehab session. Nevertheless, if the rehab resembles a re-injury (determined case-by-case), then icing after the movement rehab is probably not going to be detrimental. If edema occurs as a result of icing, then don’t do it anymore; it usually won’t swell with minor soft tissue stuff.

Whether or not you need to ice, compression and elevation will help. But, to hammer this point home, consistently moving the injury and progressing the adaptive stress over time is necessary to returning to normal function.

Movement With Compression

Wrapping your segments or joints with heavy ace bandages and then performing rehab movements will help them recover. The first reason is because it helps clear the cellular waste through the lymphatics through the effective methods of compression and muscular contraction. But the compression also applies a bit of tack and stretch to the muscles, which is similar to ART treatment where pressure is put on a tendon or muscle belly while the muscle lengthens and shortens through a full ROM. If you have used the “voodoo bands” — a term I absolutely hate — then you’ve experienced this before. I’ll be doing a post on this topic soon, but just note that light to medium wrapped segments or joints with rehab movement will add a bit of resistance compared to simply doing the movement without the compression. I’ve successfully used this on ankles, wrists, knees, and elbows.

Cryokinetics

This is the concept of icing to reduce pain, and then taking joints through a full range of motion actively or passively. I do not suggest any of you try this without the aid of a PT, because your Tommy Tough Guy attitude will probably just lead to you making your injury worse. However, if you’re going to be a Reasonable Rick, then you could do something like this: ice the knee, then passively take the knee through a full ROM. Just remember that since the ice is an analgesic, it’s going to block any pain you would normally experience. That pain is your body’s signal of saying, “Hey, don’t do this because it could or is causing injury.” We often push beyond this in our standard “movement based rehab”, but not receiving this message of pain could mean you do too much. The most stressful thing I would have you do after icing is a body weight squat in your living room.

Sequence of Events

Injury occurs. Ice it. Compress it. Elevate it. After day one, start figuring out how you can apply progressive stress via movement. After rehab, it is okay to ice. Otherwise, try to compress and elevate the injury as much as possible. Rinse and repeat, but ween off of the icing (since it will eventually not do much other than numb the pain after the early stages). For chronic issues, review the earlier sections of this post.

Conclusion

This all started with a conventional wisdom-breaking statement that said, “Do not ice.” After reading, discussing, and digesting all of the information, yesterday we concluded that the “do not ice” statement is premature and unspecific. It will depend on the type of injury and how icing is employed. This post looks at the benefit of icing and how to place it in a proper rehabilitation program. Whether or not you decide to ice is ultimately up to you. It can be helpful in some cases, irrelevant in others, and in a few cases (mostly within the context of non-injury pathology) it can be harmful. Most of all, I hope that this brings an awareness of comprehensive rehab. Kelly argues that a person should know how to work on your body and I agree. Icing is an effective rehab tool if you use it properly. It’s a tool that trainees, lifters, and athletes have access to even if we can’t get to a PT, yet it’s just one piece of rehab. Knowing how important compression, elevation, and — most of all — progressive and consistent movement are in treating an injury will make you a more knowledgeable trainee and help you perform better.

Should you use ice?

Posted on by
68

There was a big clamor in the rabble rabble about this post by Kelly Starret’s MobilityWOD.com. If you’re new, Kelly is a physical therapist who has a goal of helping amateur and professional athletes learn how to work on their bodies to help keep them performing and injury free. The post above was a video with Dr. Gary Reinl (Edit: not a doctor) and it stated a message that said, “Stop icing. It is bad for you.”

I immediately began researching and discussing this ‘controversial’ topic with various physiologists and physical therapists. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to address the issue, and the best I can think of is a regurgitation of all of the thoughts that we’ve had. Let’s take it step by step.

The Reasoning for Not Icing (from Dr. Starrett and Reinl)

When an injury occurs, the body has a response in order to heal it. Inflammation is the complex response from vascular tissues to repair damage. The body aims to remain in homeostasis, so when something different occurs (i.e. too much sun, a training stress, or a sprained ankle) it attempts to rectify the problem to return to an uninjured state. This is an amazing process; go to a museum and look at bones from humans who broke their leg, never had it casted, and continued to live on it. You’ll see how the bone grew back together to allow some sort of function, even if it was impaired. Life will find a way.

Reinl and Kelly talk about how inflammation is necessary and give examples of Reinl questioning athletic trainers as to why they would want to block inflammation. It’s the body’s natural defense against injury, so why block it? They also talk about how the lymph system remove cellular waste from the inflammatory process. However, just like veins, the lymphatics require movement in order to function and actually clear that waste. They talked about Reinl’s machine, which is apparently just an e-stim machine with electrodes that, when placed, will contract muscle. This helps clear the waste through the lymphatics via muscle contraction and can be used when the area is too painful to move on (i.e. the patient cannot walk or flex the knee, so the electrodes to the contracting).

Finally, they get to the icing issue. They say that icing increases the permeability of the lymphatics which creates a back log of “congestion” and edema (swelling) into the injured area. They also say that icing blocks the muscle/nerve connection, and Reinl asks a good question: “How could shutting off the connection between the muscles and the nerve (which effects the fully muscle-dependent lymphatic system) help the evacuation of deoxygenated blood and waste?”

It all seems very compelling. But there are many questions.

The Ancestral Argument

Part of what they talk about is that the body has evolved to deal with injury. The argument is that the body’s natural function is to go through the inflammatory process. Why interfere with this process? The body knows what to do, so let it.

I understand the argument, and agree with it to an extent, but it doesn’t hold up in all cases. I’m all for paleo eating (it’s what I do and what I recommend), but to exactly emulate paleolithic lifestyles doesn’t make sense. Aside from the fact that one day you wake up and you’re squatting to take a shit, it ignores the fact that the demands are different. Let’s ignore sedentary people, because we are all active — we actually lift. Was it common in our paleolithic ancestors to squat 500 pounds? Or to put 350+ lbs overhead? No. We know that their lifestyle included intermittent periods of low activity with high activity. Nevertheless, they were not subjected to forces and stressors that we are. At the very least, we can agree that the lifestyles are very different.

This means that the treatment of complications or injuries will be different. There are problems in the medical community (e.g. an over-emphasis on prescribing drugs), yet it is still an advanced and wondrous field that keeps people alive and heals them faster than if we were relying on our bodies to do it alone. I don’t think it’s crazy that something like icing would be off limits just because it wasn’t a method used by our paleolithic homies. To clarify, that is not Reinl’s or Kelly’s argument, but the ancestral argument was brought up several times. My only point is that the argument isn’t good enough, because it doesn’t prove anything. There are more efficient ways to everything, including heal, and just because a method wasn’t available to our ancestors doesn’t mean it should be off the shelf.

This post may seem dry, so I give you this

The Big Issues

I can tell you right now that this issues is inconclusive. I read the cited research (I’ll talk about it below) and everything. The most important aspect of this is that they did not address what kind of injuries this concept applied to. Does it apply to acute or chronic issues? Does it apply to muscle bellies or tendons? What about ligaments? Bone breaks? None of this was addressed, yet it’s entirely relevant.

Also, the e-stim machine is more or less promoted. This really bothered some people. They looked at it as a self promotion type situation. Some even make the claim that Kelly is just distinguishing himself from the norm to solidify his following. I don’t think these things are true, but money has done worse things in the world. I think the major point when discussing the e-stim machine is that normal people are not going to be able to use it. They won’t have access to it, and if they did, they won’t have the knowledge to place the electrodes or how to use it within the context of recovery. Sure, there will be some rich (and crazy) CrossFitters that have already purchased it, but they still won’t use it as effectively as a PT. There’s a reason they go to three years of school. And even if the average trainee knew where to put the electrodes, that doesn’t give them the anatomical and physiological context of how to optimally use it through their healing process. The point? The trainee or lifter who won’t have constant access to a PT still needs to use the methods of recovery at his disposal. The e-stim machine will not be one of those things. This is one reason why I think declaring “no icing” as pre-emptive given the context of what people can use at their home.

Speaking of “no icing”, there isn’t anything definitive in the research. It’s definitely an analgesic, but there’s inconclusive evidence for what it does with swelling and inflammation. One of my first questions was, “How quickly does ice increase the permeability of the lymphatics?” and it’s not in any research (to my current knowledge). Since the consensus is inconclusive, it seems premature to exclude this method of rehabilitation — especially within the context of the trainee that is rehabbing from home. 

Note that ice is not something to use by itself. If we look at the conventional wisdom of RICE, it still has compression and elevation (the rest part is temporary, maybe 24 hours). Ice shouldn’t be used as a solitary method of rehabilitation. It’s should always used within the context of soft tissue work, muscular contraction (e.g. movement), compression, and elevation. Kelly, or any other PT, may have the luxury of eliminating icing because they have other rehabilitation methods (e.g. e-stim) at their disposal. But we all aren’t professional athletes and don’t have regular access to physical therapists. And even if we did, most physical therapists are pasty, flabby, internally rotated non-lifting goobers — they help 70 year old grandmas return to walking instead of helping a powerlifter, weightlifter, or CrossFitter return to competition. Highlight this concept in your mind, because I’ll return to it later.

My opinion right now is that icing should be black listed if and only if it is detrimental to the patient in all scenarios. That is not the case.

I’m not against Starrett and Reinl because I’m an icing fan boy. I’m only skeptical of the definitive advice in light of the consensus of information. I’ve preached to you for almost three years to be skeptical of authority, and so I’m just doing the part to synthesize the information for your availability. If anything, the message should be, “Do not ice under these circumstances.”

The Cited Research 

The first study cited in the MWOD post was ‘The use of Cryotherapy in Sports Injuries,’ Sports Medicine, Vol. 3. pp. 398-414, 1986. I have a copy of that portion and have read it several times. The section on “The Effect of Local Cold Application on Inflammation and Oedema” is pretty inconclusive. It says that some researchers “have shown that cold can inhibit as well as enhance inflammation” (Schmidt et al. 1979). Then, another portion says that the results from observing ice treatment on the inflammatory response in experimentally induced ligament injuries in pigs “indicate a diminution of histological evidence of inflammation” — an over-complicated way to say “results showed cellular decrease of inflammation” (Farry et al. 1980).

Then in that same study, “swelling was greater in the ice treated limbs”. They even had swelling in the non-injured limbs that were iced. The icing protocol wasn’t elaborated on, but there was another study where they looked at 1 hour cold submersion in rabbits with a “crush injury to the forelimb” (the crush fetish people are loving this). There was increased oedema/swelling in 4, 6, to 24 post-exposure and none in the non-injured control forelimb (McMaster & Liddle, 1980). But hey — notice that these studies were done on animals. I’m not saying animal studies aren’t relevant, but they don’t definitively prove anything either. And who ices for an hour anyway?

One study (note that it is only one) showed that the moment ice is on the skin the “permeability of the superficial lymph vessels increases” (Muuesen et al. 1986). The increase is the greatest at 8 minutes and persists after application, but “by 25 minutes post-treatment the permeability of the lymph vessels will have returned to pretreatment levels.” Keep in mind that this study was only looking at cold applications. Many clinical studies — in which cold treatment is actually used with compression and elevation — do not show volume increases after cold treatment.

The totality of the “icing causes swelling” argument is summed up in three studies. One was a guy noticing swelling his hand (n=1) and the other were on animals (pigs and rabbits). Also, the rabbit injury was a “crushing”, or a breaking of the bones” type of injury. This is completely different than an acute muscle, tendon, or ligament injury and obviously unrelated to chronic injuries.

Furthermore, there was a clinical study (Basur et al. 1976) that showed much faster healing (9.7 days of mean disability) in patients who received cold treatment within the first 48 hours followed by crepe bandaging (compression) while the other group only had the compression (14.8 days of mean disability). A different study (Hocutt et al. 1982) showed that cryotherapy (icing/cold therapy) started within 36 hours of injury allowed patients to return to full activity after sprained ankles on an average of 15 days sooner than late cryotherapy or early heat therapy.

Finally, the conclusion of the paper that Dr. Starrett cited to show you that you shouldn’t ice concluded with:

Clinical studies on the effect of cryotherapy on acute sport injuries, and on the rehabilitation of the injured athlete, seem to agree that cryotherapy does improve recovery from injuries. However, it should be noted that these studies generally combine different first aid recommendations (cold, compression, elevation).

 

It goes on to point out that further research is necessary. Questions include whether it’s “necessary to cool the injured area to temperatures near freezing point or is it better to use a more moderate cooling method?” Essentially it means that there are unanswered questions. However, this study — again, the one that Dr. Starrett used to tell you not to ice — doesn’t reach a conclusion to not ice because of edema. And remember, the cited research concerning edema was done with animals.

Also, the 2008 study (“Is Ice Right? Does Cryotherapy Improve Outcome for Acute Soft Tissue Injury?” JEM, 2008; Feb. 25; 65–68) is a lit review…of only ten studies. The abstract itself says there were six relevant trials in humans, but four of them were thrown out because of bad research. Two of the human studies had good enough research, and one of them was in support of cooling while the other lacked statistical significance. Then, of the animal studies, four of them showed reductions in edema from cooling! Of the two systematic reviews, one was inconclusive and then the other suggested that ice may hasten return to participation. Where in that literature review is it providing enough evidence to stop icing? The result is undoubtedly inconclusive, but of the studies that actually have decent methodology, they all say that icing helps. Are these two studies supposed to convince me that icing is ineffective or detrimental? The sure as hell don’t.

Am I saying that Kelly Starrett is a horrible human being and we should never listen to him again and throw poop on him when we see him? No. But I’m just pointing out two things: 1) The research he cited doesn’t conclude what he says it does, and if anything provides actual support for icing, and 2) The research on this stuff in general is inconclusive. I can probably find any quote to prove a point from a peer reviewed study to show you that you should ice. I can do the same to say that you shouldn’t ice. I’ll say it again: the research isn’t conclusive. Furthermore, the physiological reasoning for why things occur isn’t known either.

Physiology Questions

The video talked about how ice severs the muscle/nerve connection, stops prostaglandins, and increases the permeability of the lymphatics. These were some questions I thought of as I watched the video and digested it (I’ve left a lot out):

1. How fast does ice increase permeability in the lymhatics to cause the back flow of waste back into the injured area (and increase swelling)?

2. How fast does ice block prostaglandins?

3. If number 1 and 2 are actually the case, what effect does this have on the recovery process?

4. How much does icing inhibit inflammatory processes?

I don’t have an opinion of a PT or physiologist on this next point, but there are two ways to look at stressors on the body: the immediate effect and then the adaptation. For example, when we train and apply a full body stress, there is an immediate structural and hormonal response. Then, a couple of days later, there is an adaptation that looks different than the initial injury stress we applied through training. We can potentially see the short-term effect of something like icing and its effect on the lymphatics and prostaglandins (the latter’s response to icing is not known to physical therapist friends), but do these stressors accomplish some kind of favorable adaptation? Unfavorable? Either way we don’t know.

Here are some responses that I received.

Justin: this is all news to me about the permeability of lymphatics leading to increased swelling.

 

That comes from a friend who just received his doctorate. Sure, it may be that something that is “progressive” isn’t necessarily a part of the curriculum, but reading, analyzing  and understanding research is a part of any doctoral program so you would think it would have come up before. In the limited research I’ve seen, the main “ice increases swelling” is seen in animals or in treatments of ice by itself.

I think a better question would be does ice block prostgladins as opposed to reducing them, how much does it reduce them, and most importantly, does this result in decreased healing?

Again, this is information that is not known. Remember that the physiological mechanisms behind most of what is observed are fuzzy. This is one example.

Benefits (of icing) other than numbing and decreased nerve conduction velocity (they go hand-in-hand) would be a localized decrease in cellular metabolic rate which relates back to preventing the initial inflammation from increasing and reducing secondary hypoxic cell damage.  This is why this can be bad when someone is past the acute stages of an injury.

It’s common practice for ice to be used early in the injury process, and it’s to “reduce secondary hypoxic cell damage”. It’s not necessarily used on a specific location after this process because, as it says immediately above, it decreases the cellular metabolic rate. Notice that this focuses on an acute injury, and is not specific to a certain type of injury.

What’s the conclusion? 

Across the board from a variety of people, including myself, the opinion is that outright saying “do not ice” is premature. There is merit to the increased permeability of the lymphatics (as a result of icing), but in specific cases (e.g. in specific pathology or where edema already exists). There is also merit that Kelly’s clinical observance has been that people heal without ice (whether they heal better or not, I do not know). At the very least, icing can help reduce pain in recent acute injuries. At best it can reduce secondary hypoxic cell damage to result in a faster overall healing process (when combined with other treatment methods like appropriate movement, compression, and elevation). There are even studies that show it reduces edema, but the rest are inconclusive. At worst, it is creating more swelling and congestion and interfering with recovery processes, but the clinical research and practical experience generally do not show this.

Personally I have observed ice helping myself and people I have worked with recover from injury or training stress. Does that mean I am right and Kelly is wrong? No. Within the context of looking at the research and the practical experience of using it, it doesn’t make sense to draw a line in the sand and say, “Never ice again.” If it were something causing exceptional problems, then I would agree. But it doesn’t. Again, keep in mind that this is even more so the case because most of us need to be able to treat most injuries on our own because we won’t have access to physical therapists all of the time. I disagree with throwing out a potentially useful rehabilitation technique because of a philosophical distaste.

This shouldn’t turn into, “Justin says we can ice, so let’s ice,” — my friends who hold doctorates in physical therapy and anatomy and physiology agree. What we agree on is that the context determines the application of ice. Does this sound familiar? The world is full of individuals with individual sets of circumstances. There is no cookie cutter approach for strength and conditioning or injury rehabilitation. The rehab protocol is dependent on the person and their type of injury. Tomorrow we’ll discuss some methods of when icing would make sense…and when it won’t.

 

 

 

 

Peculiarities of Female Training

Posted on by
30

Dem glutes

Female strength training is different than a males. Is it because of gender roles or emotion? No, it’s because of the reality of physiology. You see, women have less than one tenth (1/10) of the testosterone as a male. Ehh, maybe it depends on what kind of male we’re talking about…at least guys that lift.

We understand this means women won’t get “bulky” or grow muscle like a gorilla, yet it changes how they react to training. Let’s not worry about what hormone does what — I’m not an endocrinologist and the hormone function of women is more complicated than quantum theory. Let’s just look at the resultant effects.

To Grow — Muslcesize!

Females develop muscular structure with higher repetition programs. This is an observation across many different types of training. Figure/fitness competitors typically approach training like “bodybuilding”, our quick summation of higher repetition training in both compound and isolation exercises and lifts. Many are quick to say, “Yeah, and they’re on steroids/PEDs,” but look at their training modality. It typically hits a lot of reps in a compound movement, then moves to more isolation work on the same muscles in the same session. It puts a lot of work and volume on that area.

Now look at something like CrossFit. It’s an amusing stereotype to say, “CrossFit turns the men into women and the women into men.” It’s a bit unfair, but it sort of holds true. Go to bigger, higher performing facilities and you’ll see beautifully muscled women (which makes them look shapely and womenly as opposed to bulky or extremely muscular) who might be working along side shredded guys who weigh only 20 or 30 pounds more than that girl. Again, this isn’t entirely fair since the higher performing male athletes are anywhere from 190 to 220 pounds, but this isn’t about the guys. The women develop good musculature in CrossFit because a) they’re performing effecitve compound movements and b) they are doing them with high repetitions.

If you want musculature to grow, or become shapely, then perform higher reps. This is easily done in a strength program by doing a some back off sets with higher repetitions after the initial work sets are done (or by adding in appropriately structured conditioning work).

Higher Percentages?

It’s noticeable that females can not only do more work than their male counterparts, but can lift more reps at a higher percentage of their max. These two concepts exist because of the hormonal differences which make a female’s neuromuscular efficiency lower than a male’s. This is a term that indicates how efficiently motor units function. A motor unit consists of a group of muscle fibers that are innervated by the same motor neuron. How many muscle fibers that a motor neuron is connected to is dependent on the type of muscle. For example, the gastrocnemius (hoof-looking portion of the calf) has around 2,000 muscle fibers while some optic muscles (in the eye) only have a few. The fewer the muscle fibers, the more precise and deft the movement (think of the delicate movements of the fingers compared to the knee).

When a motor neuron reaches its action potential, all of the fibers associated with it will innervate (this is the “all-or-none law”). However, given a movement, not all motor units will be activated. Neuromuscular efficiency depends on the number of motor units, the rate of activation, and how the innervation functions with other muscle groupings (including antagonistic muscles).

The hell does all of that mean? A greater neuromuscular efficiency means that the body is more efficient at applying force and executing movement. It’s the same reason why a new trainee might awkwardly execute a herky-jerky squat, but then after getting plenty of repetitions (i.e. practice), their technique will smooth into efficient mechanics.

In the case of a woman, it means that she is never truly applying as much force as her muscles can because her motor neurons can’t innervate everything properly to do so. When a girl hits 90% of her max for 5 or 6 reps (something that a guy might hit for a set of 3), it’s because what we are calling 90% is actually lower than what her true 90% is. Women can lift more reps with higher percentages than men because they aren’t as neuromuscularly efficient as men. 

A women’s training will need to be modified beyond the “novice stages” to account for this difference in efficiency. In the Texas Method, for example, a women can (and will need to) use a greater intensity on her Volume Day in order to get enough of a stress. If you’ve read my books, you know that the average intensity of the Volume Day shouldn’t exceed about 85% of the Intensity Day’s (i.e. if the Intensity day is 500×3, then the average of the Volume Day work sets shouldn’t be much higher than 425). But a female can handle 85% but eventually will need a greater percentage to get an adaptive stress. For example, if a female is squatting 225×3, her Volume Day sets could approach 90%, which is around 200x5x3.

Gorillas, who made the first 70’s Big face, get irritated when you interpret things wrong

 

Note: These percentages are not calculating total volume and they are relative to the weight that is done on the Intensity Day. They are just a gauge for controlling the programming. If you’re confused or want to know more, then purchase the books.

 

This same concept will apply in other programs, but as coaches we need to take note, especially in maximal lifting scenarios. If a girl looks good on a heavy set of 5, we may think in “male terms” and think she has a lot of weight left on the bar for a 1RM. Yet her 1RM is going to be closer to her 5RM and 3RM than a guy’s. This is important to know in preparing attempts for a meet, but also choosing third attempts based on difficulty. If a second attempt looks regular, that female may not be able to make as large of a jump as you (and she) think she can. You women have probably noticed this; you’ll do a rep at a heavy weight and it feels fine. Then you go up ten pounds and you get stapled. It all has to do with neuromuscular efficiency. Women will vary in how much this effects them, but as a general rule the efficiency is lower than in their male counterparts. Experience will be the ultimate deciding factor, but in the mean time, be a bit conservative.

Since a woman is typically using a lower percentage of her max, she can handle more work than a guy would. This is noticeable when a gal isn’t necessarily fatigued after sets, or doesn’t seem fatigued throughout the session (sometimes this is the case because she’s limited on what she can do with correct technique). It’s not a big deal for women to tack on additional assistance exercises or high intensity conditioning; she’ll be able to recover and the higher repetitions will probably augment her strength gains.

Take note of these various important points: 1) women grow with reps, 2) women can complete more reps with high percentages of 1RM, 3) a woman’s 1RM ceiling doesn’t extend much beyond her rep maxes, and 4) a woman can handle more work in the programming. I hate the fact that I have to say this, but you guys leave me no choice: this doesn’t apply to everyone in every situation. However, on average it will be the case and knowing about these issues can help program strength or aesthetic improvements.

 

Q&A – 38

Posted on by
87

PR Friday

Hello friends. Some of you may be new, and you’re welcome here. Post your weekly PR’s or training updates to the comments. If you have a training log, link to it.

This is relevant.

Weekly Challenge

Last week’s challenge was to do a set of continuous push-ups (no stop, no rest) until failure, rest 20 seconds, and then do another continuous set to failure. Record your reps in the comments.

Next Week’s Challenge: After each training session, do side plank holds (on the elbow) for 30 seconds, three sets on each side. If you have a wonky lower back issue, then note how you feel the next day.

Week In Review

On Monday we raised Ali McWeeny about $4,000, no big deal. But seriously, we had a review of her story and how she sets an example for not giving up, and then we helped donate a bit of money for her to get a prosthetic that will let her increase her activity significantly. Tuesday consisted of some clarification of some misused terms; I didn’t have to try hard to offend people. On Wednesday I provided a video to help folks find their psoas so they could give it a nice little stroke (yeah buddy). Thursday I did an AMA on /r/weightroom (on reddit).

You can find the “Ask Me Anything” here, and it will act as this week’s Q&A. I spent 5 hours answering questions, so it’s worth a read.

Other Stuff

Here is a quick 2 minute hip opener that all of you should find easily accessible prior to training. Make it a point to do it, especially if you’re one of these “I sit down for over four hours a day” people.

 

I’ve been thinking about bringing the weekly chat room back. Thoughts?

[poll id=”39″]

Don’t forget the fantasy football stuff. We have some spots open for the main league and need league managers for the regional leagues.

Reddit AMA

Posted on by
1

I’m doing an AMA (ask me anything) on the /r/weightroom sub-reddit. If you wanted a question answered for Friday’s Q&A, do it in the AMA.

Here’s the link. I’ll start replying to messages at 6:00 PM EST and will probably be there a few hours.

Side note: I am still going to do a post about the “MWOD/Kelly Starrett says to stop icing” thing, but it’s an involved post, so I’ll probably save it for next week.