A recent systematic review of scientific studies on the Wim Hof method of cold water therapy has raised concerns about the quality of research supporting its claimed benefits. The review, published in the journal PLOS One, found that the quality of the studies was inadequate to fully support the effectiveness of the Wim Hof method without additional investigation.
Wim Hof, a Dutch extreme athlete and motivational speaker, is renowned for his ability to withstand extreme cold. He attributes his success to his training method, which involves practicing cold water therapy alongside a specific form of breathing. According to Hof, this training regimen can reduce stress, improve sleep, bolster the immune system, and increase energy, focus, and willpower.
However, the review highlighted that the existing research on the Wim Hof method is of low quality and must be interpreted with caution. While some studies suggested promising anti-inflammatory effects from a combination of cold water immersion and the Wim Hof method of breathing, the researchers emphasized the need for more high-quality research to verify these findings.
Cold water survival expert Mike Tipton, a professor of human and applied physiology at the University of Portsmouth, commented that the science is too weak and biased to draw definitive conclusions about the Wim Hof method’s achievements. Tipton, who was not involved in the study, cautioned against overestimating the method’s benefits based on the current evidence.
Wim Hof, also known as ‘The Iceman,’ has achieved numerous feats, including swimming under ice, running barefoot in the snow, and climbing Mount Everest without a shirt. He holds 18 Guinness World Records titles, often surpassing his own records.
Despite the claims on Hof’s website touting various health benefits of the Wim Hof method, such as improving sports performance, reducing recovery time after workouts, and providing relief from conditions like arthritis and autoimmune diseases, these benefits have not been validated in large, clinical trials.
The review specifically examined eight randomized clinical trials, considered the gold standard of research, but noted that the small sample sizes and predominantly male participants in each study limited the generalizability of the results to broader populations.
