As a longtime subscriber to Reader’s Digest, I love the jokes and enjoy the stories, but I don’t trust their forays into science. I was particularly disturbed by an “I tried it” feature on whole body cryotherapy (WBC) in the latest issue (December 2021/January 2022).

The writer starts by saying doctors have known the power of cold for years, as in icing an injury. But as I explained in a previous article, icing has fallen out of favor. It was never supported by good evidence and may actually delay recovery.

She has heard that WBC boosts metabolism and circulation, speeds up weight loss, eases depression and anxiety, alleviates arthritis and muscle aches, and much more. She acknowledges that these benefits have not been confirmed by scientific data but wants to try it for herself.

How can we know if a treatment is effective? A lot of people think we should try things for ourselves, and if we feel better afterward, that’s proof that it works. No, it isn’t! If you feel better afterward, there is no way to know whether the improvement was due to the treatment or would have happened anyway. Subjective impressions and testimonials are notoriously unreliable. The only way to find out if a treatment is effective is to do a controlled scientific study to see if there are more objective improvements in the treatment group than in the control group.

I can’t stress this enough: trying something for yourself is useless as a way to find out if a treatment is effective. 

The writer goes to a wellness spa where she spends three minutes in a tank of what she calls liquid nitrogen gas. What? A liquid can’t be also a gas. She describes the experience, saying she didn’t feel cold until the halfway point and then the second half was more tolerable than she expected.

Afterward, she reported that her energy level and mood were sky high, and the muscle aches she often gets in her legs were practically gone. These positive effects (which were subjective perceptions, not objectively measurable effects) lasted for twenty-four hours.

It would seem she knows nothing about placebo effects or about the foibles of human psychology. She must not be aware of the late Barry Beyerstein’s explanation of why bogus therapies often seem to work. And she obviously hasn’t read Steve Novella’s Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe and doesn’t follow the Science-Based Medicine blog or Skeptical Inquirer.

Skeptical Inquirer has covered WBC here and Science-Based Medicine has covered WBC in two articles here and here. They make it clear that the evidence for WBC is lacking. Some potential benefits are at least plausible; others are not. And there are reports of serious harmful effects, including frostbite and at least one death.

She does recommend consulting your doctor before trying it, and she mentions the cost of $50 to $100 per session and the need to go two or three times a week for best results. (How could she possibly know that will give the best results?)

Her conclusion really left me flabbergasted: “As for me, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence that it works, I’ll be back for more.”

Sheesh! I will restrain myself and try not to respond with insults or profanity. She’s not a bad person, just uninformed, misinformed, or poorly educated.

As I said elsewhere: “Science based medicine doesn’t discourage using comfort measures. It only discourages directing patients to use comfort measures under the false impression that they have been proven to speed healing.”

And here are some quotes from commenters on the SBM website:

“One might experience LBP [low back pain] and seek a variety of concomitant treatments. If symptoms improved, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that symptoms improved. Symptoms might have improved without any treatment or as a result of one of the treatments, or as a result of two or more of the treatments. It is a (largely) subjective condition and a subjective judgment of the state of symptomatic relief. What you cannot say is that, ‘I had LBP, I took tincture of newt, I got better.’”

“One can perceive a subjective benefit, but one needs to be careful judging the magnitude and even the reality of that benefit, much less ascribing causality. And in no way can one generalize it.”

“Humans have a hard won understanding of the many perceptual and logical flaws that impede our understanding of reality, but [the WBC advocate says] I think I should ignore that hard won understanding and go with my perceptions.”

Conclusion: A Foolish Decision

I don’t blame her. I pity her and blame her teachers for not giving her a better education in science and critical thinking. And shame on Reader’s Digest for publishing her “I tried it” testimonial! It will undoubtedly encourage some readers to try WBC for themselves. They will only fool themselves and waste time and money.