Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#21

Post by lrasinen »

nickburns wrote: post #4

one wonders how it ever even seemed like common sense to disrupt the body's evolved immune response to acute, traumatic soft-tissue injury, never mind good conventional medical advice. ice to preserve a detached structure? sure. quelling the inflammation of organs or the brain? yeah, those types of inflammation can turn into a cascading collection of responses, often (but not always) having distinct non-traumatic roo…

That's because the body's initial response is often way out of proportion. I get the flu and my body decides to turn up the heat. There's pollen in the air and my nose goes into lockdown for weeks.

I've dislocated my kneecap a few times and the near-immediate swelling was much worse than the actual injury. Recovery took a few weeks anyway so easing my discomfort for a couple of hours made no difference.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#23

Post by Cthulhu_ »

mb7733 wrote: post #15
tpoacher wrote: post #6

This is a weird article / statement. RICE, afaik (former doctor here), was never about prolonged use for healing. The intent is to mitigate the harms of the initial excessive inflammation/swelling response (which threatens to compromise tissue at the peak of the injury event), by dampening this response via cooling / constriction of blood vessels. But, absolutely, after this has settled a bit, you're supposed to appl…

As a patient, in the past I've absolutely been directed to ice injuries for weeks. (Not so much in the last ~10 years, as the world caught up to the fact that this was a bad idea.) Sources like the Red Cross or WebMD article on RICE[0] _still_ recommend it for at least 48 hours after a minor injury, even though this has been debunked. So I think it's good that the Wikipedia article emphasizes that the protocol is out…

Last time I had anything like that (tooth removal) they said two hours tops, after that it won't make much of a difference for the swelling anymore.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#24

Post by slibhb »

tpoacher wrote: post #6

This is a weird article / statement. RICE, afaik (former doctor here), was never about prolonged use for healing. The intent is to mitigate the harms of the initial excessive inflammation/swelling response (which threatens to compromise tissue at the peak of the injury event), by dampening this response via cooling / constriction of blood vessels. But, absolutely, after this has settled a bit, you're supposed to appl…

RICE is widely recommended to athletes to heal injuries by doctors, PTs, etc.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#25

Post by mb7733 »

radlad wrote: post #18
alistairSH wrote: post #2

It's amazing how much medical knowledge we have to unlearn (and sometimes relearn) as time passes. Some of it from experts; much of it folk wisdom. And how much of that knowledge was based on overzealous extrapolation (as appears to be the case here). Heat vs Ice for injuries Fats vs Sugars vs Proteins (and everything else diet-related) Leeches went out of favor, but now see limited use again (for very specific thing…

What exactly do we need to unlearn about Fats vs Sugars vs Proteins?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18296750:

> This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss. Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media. Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#27

Post by iamacyborg »

slibhb wrote: post #24
tpoacher wrote: post #6

This is a weird article / statement. RICE, afaik (former doctor here), was never about prolonged use for healing. The intent is to mitigate the harms of the initial excessive inflammation/swelling response (which threatens to compromise tissue at the peak of the injury event), by dampening this response via cooling / constriction of blood vessels. But, absolutely, after this has settled a bit, you're supposed to appl…

RICE is widely recommended to athletes to heal injuries by doctors, PTs, etc.

Ice is also widely recommended to aid recovery for athletes, despite it having a negative effect on post-exercise adaptation. People widely recommend incorrect stuff to athletes all the time.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#29

Post by harimau777 »

radlad wrote: post #18
alistairSH wrote: post #2

It's amazing how much medical knowledge we have to unlearn (and sometimes relearn) as time passes. Some of it from experts; much of it folk wisdom. And how much of that knowledge was based on overzealous extrapolation (as appears to be the case here). Heat vs Ice for injuries Fats vs Sugars vs Proteins (and everything else diet-related) Leeches went out of favor, but now see limited use again (for very specific thing…

What exactly do we need to unlearn about Fats vs Sugars vs Proteins?

When I was growing up there was a big emphasis on eating lots of grains which basically equates to lots of carbs. It was also widely believed that fats were bad and contributed to weight gain.

Both of those ideas may not necessarily have been 100% abandoned but are at the very least now viewed with a lot more nuance.

Re: Ice to treat soft-tissue injuries contraindicated by creator of protocol

#30

Post by nickburns »

lrasinen wrote: post #21
nickburns wrote: post #4

one wonders how it ever even seemed like common sense to disrupt the body's evolved immune response to acute, traumatic soft-tissue injury, never mind good conventional medical advice. ice to preserve a detached structure? sure. quelling the inflammation of organs or the brain? yeah, those types of inflammation can turn into a cascading collection of responses, often (but not always) having distinct non-traumatic roo…

That's because the body's initial response is often way out of proportion. I get the flu and my body decides to turn up the heat. There's pollen in the air and my nose goes into lockdown for weeks. I've dislocated my kneecap a few times and the near-immediate swelling was much worse than the actual injury. Recovery took a few weeks anyway so easing my discomfort for a couple of hours made no difference.

my comment is limited to "acute, traumatic soft-tissue injury", the scope of which excludes viral infection, allergic reaction, and strict joint injury.
Post reply on HN