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

Therefore by artificially causing them to open slightly less, you control the swelling, and stop it from pooling so much that it then blocks blood flow completely.

The extreme scenario of this is called compartment syndrome, where the blood flow is completely blocked, leading to necrosis of the affected area; this is an orthopedic emergency, where 'fasciectomy' needs to be performed; effectively slicing open the compartments to allow the expansion to occur without compromising blood flow.

Having said that, the RICE acronym is often extended to PRICE, to indicate that the typical treatment also involves a "Plaster of Paris". So in the presence of a plaster, the confinement is even more strict, so you would want to control the swelling response inside the tightly-fitting plaster anyway.

But, again, disclaimer, haven't practiced in years, and even then I was not specifically an orthopedic doctor. :)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.12074

Our sinuses have shrunk and or airways collapsed far too quickly for evolution to adapt, leaving us highly susceptible to allergies and inflammation. This makes the likelihood of catching a cold or flu much worse. It also makes the healing process longer.

I very much recommend you read Breath by James Nestor if you suffer from allergies. Or at the very least, let chafgpt summarize it for you.

Lots of junk science. Lots of marketing fluff. But, also lots of recommendations that were assumed correct but didn't stand up to deeper scrutiny.

Note, I'm not saying any of this is bad, or that scientists are stupid and wrong all the time. Just always amazed about how much our understanding of the human body has changed in the last ~50 years.

> 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.

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

I can only summarize it as an ingrained feeling of "Fat is what fat people have". It meant they avoided it like the plague while completely overdoing it on other bad stuff.