4 ms·

Important to note that it did not find any reduction in illness days. Meaning, they examined both whether participants got sick and whether they took the day of

Important to note that it did not find any reduction in illness days. Meaning, they examined both whether participants got sick and whether they took the day off from work, and only found a reduction in the latter. “The contrast between the results of both primary outcome parameters is suggestive of the fact that the intensity rather than the duration of symptoms is modulated by the intervention.” My conjecture is this is consistent with a placebo effect. Placebos can make your symptoms feel less severe.

watwut 9y ago
It does not imply placebo through. I was recommended cold showers cause I was frequently ill. I seemed to catch everything that went around. For first months, sickness just felt less bad - but that was enough motivation for me to continue. The reduction in sick days started later on. A year later definitely, I had measurable down in sick days. I basically don't need them now. I think sick days started to get better five-seven months after I started, but a year after they were basically non-existent. I also handle cold much better. I need less warm cloth to feel good. Where I was shivering and needed something warm before, I wear t-shirt now and feel good.
- vidarh 9y ago
  While it is possible that it is more than a placebo, note that nothing you wrote is inconsistent with a placebo effect. If it works for you, great. Doesn't matter if it's a placebo effect or not in that case.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Not being sick after a year is a measurable change, that is unlikely to be placebo. The change is real, even if it would be caused by something else. But, my primary point was meant to be that the results of the study don't imply placebo, through many comments here throw it around a lot. (I am not sure what kind of effect they would want to see through.) They do imply that effects are bound to be very small.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      > Not being sick after a year is a measurable change, that is unlikely to be placebo. Is it? The entire point of a placebo is that it does lead to measurable change that can be very significant. > The change is real, even if it would be caused by something else. ... such as a placebo effect. Placebo can lead to real, significant change. To the extent that there has been serious discussion about harnessing the placebo effect (the primary issue being the ethics of lying to a patient). > But, my primary point was meant to be that the results of the study don't imply placebo, through many comments here throw it around a lot. (I am not sure what kind of effect they would want to see through.) The study doesn't imply placebo, but the issue is whether or not it rules it out. Part of the problem here is that designing a good placebo for cold showers is not straightforward. You could try to convince people of the positive health benefits of cold showers and try to convince a different group of the positive health benefits of a pill, but you'd still then not have blinded study, and you'd have a hard time demonstrating that any difference in effect isn't simply down to people finding the cold showers more convincing. Note that this is not saying you shouldn't do cold showers if it works for you. If it works for you, it doesn't matter if it's a placebo effect or not. The issue of whether or not it is a placebo is more about mechanism. In other words: Is it actually something about the showers? Or is it something about the way you were convinced to think the showers had an effect? It matters because it may affect how this treatment works for others, and how consistently it works, and because a placebo mediated effect can change over time as cultural expectations change (e.g. placebo effect of sugar pills have gone up as people have become accustomed to using pills to solve medical problems). But if the effect is there for you, that ought to be secondary to you. If it works without causing any harm, then awesome.
twobyfour 9y ago
And also, do you want people coming into work when they're only mildly sick, and then getting the rest of the office "only mildly" sick?

watwut 9y ago

It does not imply placebo through. I was recommended cold showers cause I was frequently ill. I seemed to catch everything that went around. For first months, sickness just felt less bad - but that was enough motivation for me to continue. The reduction in sick days started later on. A year later definitely, I had measurable down in sick days. I basically don't need them now. I think sick days started to get better five-seven months after I started, but a year after they were basically non-existent. I also handle cold much better. I need less warm cloth to feel good. Where I was shivering and needed something warm before, I wear t-shirt now and feel good.

vidarh 9y ago
While it is possible that it is more than a placebo, note that nothing you wrote is inconsistent with a placebo effect. If it works for you, great. Doesn't matter if it's a placebo effect or not in that case.
- watwut 9y ago
  Not being sick after a year is a measurable change, that is unlikely to be placebo. The change is real, even if it would be caused by something else. But, my primary point was meant to be that the results of the study don't imply placebo, through many comments here throw it around a lot. (I am not sure what kind of effect they would want to see through.) They do imply that effects are bound to be very small.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    > Not being sick after a year is a measurable change, that is unlikely to be placebo. Is it? The entire point of a placebo is that it does lead to measurable change that can be very significant. > The change is real, even if it would be caused by something else. ... such as a placebo effect. Placebo can lead to real, significant change. To the extent that there has been serious discussion about harnessing the placebo effect (the primary issue being the ethics of lying to a patient). > But, my primary point was meant to be that the results of the study don't imply placebo, through many comments here throw it around a lot. (I am not sure what kind of effect they would want to see through.) The study doesn't imply placebo, but the issue is whether or not it rules it out. Part of the problem here is that designing a good placebo for cold showers is not straightforward. You could try to convince people of the positive health benefits of cold showers and try to convince a different group of the positive health benefits of a pill, but you'd still then not have blinded study, and you'd have a hard time demonstrating that any difference in effect isn't simply down to people finding the cold showers more convincing. Note that this is not saying you shouldn't do cold showers if it works for you. If it works for you, it doesn't matter if it's a placebo effect or not. The issue of whether or not it is a placebo is more about mechanism. In other words: Is it actually something about the showers? Or is it something about the way you were convinced to think the showers had an effect? It matters because it may affect how this treatment works for others, and how consistently it works, and because a placebo mediated effect can change over time as cultural expectations change (e.g. placebo effect of sugar pills have gone up as people have become accustomed to using pills to solve medical problems). But if the effect is there for you, that ought to be secondary to you. If it works without causing any harm, then awesome.

twobyfour 9y ago

And also, do you want people coming into work when they're only mildly sick, and then getting the rest of the office "only mildly" sick?