Hydrotherapy has been around for centuries. It involves the use of water and the manipulation of its temperature in order to exert a desired effect. Many of you have already used variations of hydrotherapy to effect the quantity of circulation to various parts of the body, for instance using an ice pack on a sprained ankle or a heat pack to relax a tight muscle.
Naturopathic hydrotherapy goes a bit beyond these basic treatments, implementing the belief that water can also effect the quality of blood in circulation. This is achieved by enhancing blood flow through the organs of elimination and detoxification (skin, liver, kidneys, bowels). There is also a belief that by tonifying the digestive organs, hydrotherapy enhances the nutrition received by the blood which further improves its quality. The best way to achieve this is through alternating hot and cold temperature applications, or “contrast” treatments.
So why does contrast therapy work so well in achieving the aforementioned benefits? It relates mainly to the manipulation of both your metabolism and circulation. When metabolism increases, it should ideally have a corresponding increase in circulation to provide the nutrition required and carry off resultant waste products. The chart below explains the effect of temperature, applied for different periods of time, on both circulation and metabolism.
Application | Time | Temperature | Effect on Metabolism | Effect on Circulation |
long hot | greater than 5 minutes | 98-104°F, or
36-40°C |
Stimulates | Depresses |
short hot | less than 5 minutes | 98-104°F, or
36-40°C |
Stimulates | Stimulates |
long cold | greater than 1 minute | 51-65°F, or
10-18°C |
Depresses | Depresses |
short cold | less than 1 minute | 51-65°F, or
10-18°C |
Stimulates | Stimulates |
Both short hot and short cold applications provide the ideal scenario to increase both metabolism and circulation. So how can you reap some of the benefits of these hydrotherapy principles in your everyday life? Sub out your regular hot shower with a contrast shower! Here are the steps…
1) Start your shower with the hot water running and immerse yourself for 2 minutes.
2) After the 2 minutes are up, turn the water temperature to as cold as your body can tolerate for 30 seconds.
3) Turn the water back to hot for another 2 minutes, followed by another 30 seconds of cold.
4) Repeat this cycle for a total of 3-5 times and be sure to finish with 30 seconds of cold water.
Note: the time can vary, as long as a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of hot water to cold water is maintained (max length of both would be 4 minutes hot, 1 minute cold).
Through improving metabolism and circulation, this type of shower can have positive effects on the function of the immune system and nervous system, speed athletic recovery, and leave you with an overall refreshed feeling. Caution should be applied to those with decreased peripheral sensation (i.e. diabetics), immune dysfunction, or circulatory issues, and you should stop the treatment if any symptoms arise (i.e. dizziness, extreme cold/heat, etc.). Use temperatures your body can tolerate and you will slowly be able to build up a tolerance to slightly hotter/colder temperatures.
This is by no means a cure-all for everything that ails you, but it can be a simple and easy adjunctive therapy applied into your everyday routine. For other hydrotherapy treatments tailored specifically to your condition/treatment goals that are done in clinic, book an appointment with your local Naturopath.
Happy showering!
References
1) Boyle, W and Saine, A. Lectures in Naturopathic Hydrotherapy. Eclectic Medical Publications. 1995.
2) Juliff LE, Halson SL, Bonetti DL, Versey NG, Driller MW, Peiffer JJ. Influence of contrast shower and water immersion on recovery in elite netballers. J Strength Cond Res. 2014; 28(8):2353-8.
3) Hamlin MJ. The effect of contrast temperature water therapy on repeated sprint performance. J Sci Med Sport. 2007; 10(6):398-402.
4) Bieuzen F, Bleakley CM, Costello JT. Contrast water therapy and exercise induced muscle damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013; 8(4):e62356