Wim Hof: More Marketing Than Method
- Admin
- Aug 29, 2022
- 12 min read
Updated: Oct 28, 2023
Dutch celebrity Wim Hof has surfaced on TV with his new show ‘Freeze the Fear’ in which some celebrities take on challenges to test their mental and physical fortitude. It seems low-key on the health claims, and fleshed out with celebrity banter, while inadvertently promoting pseudoscience (slow clap, BBC).
I want to lift the lid on Wim Hof though, and specifically the ‘Wim Hof Method’, and see what it’s about since it has gained increased popularity as the result of a reality TV show (and not a scientific breakthrough).
The Science
There are sometimes morsels of real science which inspire pseudoscience. I want to start by identifying what is true about the method; what has been established scientifically. This should make it easier to tease apart the nuggets of truth from the waves of subsequent nonsense.
Wim Hof’s ability is unique, in that he is able to influence his sympathetic nervous/inflammatory response – and raise his body temperature ‘at will’. This is confirmed. However, he frames this as ‘boosting the immune system’, which has several misleading connotations, as I’ll get to. He also attributes this ability, along with his tolerance for icy temperatures, to his 3-layered ‘method’ which he sells through workshops, but this is not scientifically proven.
European Skeptics Podcast fairly breaks down Hof’s cold therapy in relation to the study with his twin, and the breathing technique claims, time stamp 9.00 – 16.10
This study (cited on his own website) which looked at Wim Hof and his identical twin who doesn’t live the same lifestyle of cold exposure, found no difference in the heat they were able to generate. This rules out that frequent exposure to extreme cold is a factor for his method. They suggest the extra heat generation could be down to the vigorous muscle contractions caused by the breathing technique.
It also says in the conclusion that there was no difference in brown fat activity between him or his untrained brother – suggesting that there’s just a naturally higher amount of brown fat in these individuals, not building it up through regular exposure to cold or breathing techniques. A later study following this also didn’t find a significant activation of brown adipose tissue in Hof - so his higher amount of brown fat might play even less of a role than previous research suggested.
The studies he cites on his website are covered in this article, in which the short-hand conclusions are explained, but to break it down:
All studies were very small (poor quality).
Several were case studies (low quality/low predictive power).
All of them, at best, imply that more research is needed to draw any conclusions.
All of them suggest that if there is any clinical use for his method, it might be a starting point for auto-immune disease research – but not necessarily effective itself or for anything else.
Science for virtually all his claims is lacking. They are hype and uninformed speculation, not evidence based.
As quoted in the above article, Pepijn van Erp said it best:
“Science has shown that hyperventilation reduces the body’s inflammatory response; but that isn’t always desirable. And when it is desirable, that doesn’t necessarily mean there are any practical clinical applications. Inflammation is a normal protective response that promotes healing, and it only becomes a problem when an overactive immune response causes autoimmune diseases.”
This the extent of research that the scientific consensus currently shows, and the current scientific stance on it.
The Marketing
If you go to Wim Hof’s website, you are met with a high-budget design and marketing shtick from the top to the bottom of the page. Here are just a few excerpts, and why they are red flags:
“Put in the simplest of terms, the Wim Hof Method® is a way to keep your body and mind in its optimal natural state.”
There are some unexplained assumptions here about what is ‘optimal’ and ‘natural’. These arbitrary definitions are not explained any further and are not meaningful or measurable. It’s also nonsense - our base-line health is already our ‘natural state’ – in other words homeostasis.
Homeostasis definition:
“In biology, homeostasis is the state of steady internal, physical, and chemical conditions maintained by living systems. This is the condition of optimal functioning for the organism and includes many variables, such as body temperature and fluid balance, being kept within certain pre-set limits (homeostatic range).”
“For most of our evolutionary history, a merciless natural environment automatically did this for us: sub-zero temperatures, howling winds and hungry wolves kept our muscles and veins supple, and our minds sharp and clear.”
This is framed as though the environment serves us to ‘optimal health’ (homeostasis) when in fact, the environment is trying to kill us. More accurately, it’s indifferent. We have always been evolutionarily adapting to it – not the other way round. Just because we don’t need to run away from wildlife or endure howling winds and sub-zero temperatures with our bare flesh any more, doesn’t mean we are not ‘optimal’. We’re currently optimised for our modern environments.
In the same point above, he also assumes that there is an optimal ‘end point’ of evolution. This is fundamentally wrong, there is no ‘intent’, or pre-determined goal which evolution is heading towards.
What about hot year-round climates: would he suggest that historically those people were never as ‘sharp minded’ or adept as people living in cold climates? The study with his twin, cited earlier, is an obvious refutation to this. Additionally, going back evolutionarily we all descend from hotter tropical climates.
Humans flourish now more than ever, because of the fact we overcame our ‘merciless natural environment’. He seems to suggest it was better when there was a higher chance of dying from predators, starvation or freezing. You can achieve ‘optimal’ fitness without these dangers.
Veins being ‘supple’ doesn’t make sense. Cold doesn’t make muscles supple. In fact, muscles perform better at strength tasks in hot temperatures, and run less risk of injury.
As for our minds being sharp and clear – personally mine functions a lot better when well-fed, well rested (not waking up due to sub-zero temperatures, stressing over wolves and noisy howling winds), and, well, alive. See point 4.
It’s no miracle that our highly developed minds have brought about the technological age in comparatively small time scales compared to evolution, only since we collaboratively dragged ourselves out of the primitive era, with more plentiful and nutritious food to feed our hungry brains, and safety and warmth such that families can thrive.
“Fast forward to today, and phones are exhausting our brains, while the rest of our body wastes away as we sit in toasty rooms strapped to stiffening chairs.”
My first point here is that in an evolutionary context, fast forwarding a few hundred years is a drop in an ocean. We have barely changed physically in that time. Evolution takes tens of thousands of years; therefore, we have not lost much (if any) capacity to survive outdoors. We just don’t need to take those risks.
That said, he makes a couple of valid points here – technology burnout is rife in modern society and exhaustion from constant phone-scrolling is real. Being immobile for 8 hours a day in desk jobs is also a well-documented health risk – but temperature (‘toasty’) has nothing to do with this. You’d experience the same effects if it was cold, plus spend even more energy trying to stay warm – and risk other illnesses. Of course, we should get regular exercise, but we all knew that.
“As a result, those natural defenses are no longer on high alert. We fall ill more easily. We stress out, lose sleep, and wake up without focus or energy.”
I’d be more charitable if there was a shred of evidence to support this. What ‘defences’, and what is ‘high alert’? The language used is powerfully persuasive, but very fuzzy.
What data is being referred to, from our long evolutionary history, which would indicate that we got less ill at any point in our history? Based on all historical, geological, and scientific modern day accounts I’ve heard, it is the exact opposite story – and from all causes; disease, nutrition, survival from weather, wild animals, etc.
If ‘defences’ means immune system, this is wrong – our immune systems are always primed for – and do encounter - new pathogens. This is largely aided by inflammatory responses (something he is advocating for the reduction of).
Falling ill more easily? No data given – and there are mountains of data to suggest it is the opposite. ‘More easily’ is not the same as ‘more frequently’ – as populations grow, it is more likely that a pathogen can spread, however the way individuals’ bodies respond to it is the same over time – no change in how ‘easily’ you get ill, just more likely you will encounter the pathogen. Of course, modern sanitation and advances in medical science lessen that risk significantly. More importantly, they greatly reduce the chance of serious illness in those that do become ill – so you could in fact argue it’s less easy to become ill.
Stress out – as if a day to day struggle for survival wasn’t stressful? It goes without saying that this is different for everyone, too. Mindfulness and exercise can help with stress – but not his method specifically, and none of this necessarily solves the root of a problem.
Lose sleep – depends on the person but arguably most of us get more, being safer, more secure and more sheltered from weather. Again, general mental and physical care can aid sleep.
Wake up without focus or energy – arbitrary, variable, and no available evidence that it was any different (however far back he is referring to). ‘Focus’ and ‘energy’ are not quantifiable and would vary based on subjectivity – no objective measure.
‘Focus’ is not defined but assuming ‘concentration’, again - various differences among people, and a generally healthy lifestyle may improve it – but there is no set human baseline.
It's not a promising start. Several typical signs of pseudo-babble, self-help marketing schemes and vague but bold claims.
The Method: The Three Pillars
The three pillars, in short, is a rebranded version of common knowledge, combined with some weak, generally vague, and unsupported claims thrown in there. The pillars are breathing (hyperventilating, no benefits), cold therapy (little to no practical use) and commitment (meditation, mindfulness – some potential mental benefits).
Breathing
He refers to ‘heightened oxygen levels’ - essentially hyperventilating. Framed as having ‘tremendous potential’, he ignores the fact that our bodies purposefully regulate the amount of oxygen we take in (homeostasis), because it’s not in our best interest to disrupt the balance unless under certain short-term stresses – something we don’t want.
While some breathing techniques may help people to mentally focus on unwinding and relaxation, this one is potentially dangerous. Benefits of mindfulness techniques are plausible (reduced stress levels), but ‘more energy’ is not justified. People can perceive reduced stress as having ‘more energy’ – but he gives no measure or definition of ‘energy’. Also, ‘an augmented immune response’ is temporary, and not a good thing in most cases. It certainly doesn’t ‘swiftly deal with pathogens’ – in fact it may have the opposite effect if inflammatory responses are dulled at the wrong times.
Cold Therapy
Commitment
Hallmarks of Pseudoscience
The below is an infographic made by Melanie Trecek-King, creator of Thinking Is Power. It’s a non-exhaustive checklist of some common pseudoscience traits to watch for. How many can you see from this look into the Wim Hof Method?
I spotted at least 9 that are quite obvious (numbers 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10). In this section I’ll directly compare the science with some of the claims to illustrate the void between them, and number them according to the above characteristics.
The Claim | The Reality |
|---|---|
Boosts/fortifies immune system | Commonly claimed by pseudoscience of all types – there is no such thing as boosting your immune system. He really means ‘influencing’ one part of it, and this is not really desirable. It’s also very temporary, and homeostasis resumes quickly after hyperventilation. (3,4,7,8,10) |
Improved sleep quality | Vague, undefined claim without evidence. No defined parameters so can’t be proved or disproved. (1,5,7,10) |
Fat loss/increasing metabolism | Limited pre-clinical data, stronger in mice. Small, insignificant evidence in some humans (prolonged cold exposure only, not just a couple of hours daily). No evidence suggesting that regular/long term exposure to cold permanently increases metabolism. Also, the study with his twin rules out that his method is the thing responsible for higher sustained core body temperature, plus there was no difference in brown fat activity between him or his untrained brother (3,7,10) |
‘Natural defence system’ ‘dormant inside our DNA’ | Our body’s defences are all in place. You cannot re-activate dormant/unused DNA. (4,5) |
‘Natural defence system’, ‘natural environment’, ‘optimal natural state’ | Lots of Appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacies. Being ‘natural’ does not tell us anything about its usefulness or whether it’s a better or worse thing. (9) |
‘95 percent of all diseases, amongst which are numerous types of cancers, can be cured.’ | An over-optimistic outlook manifesting in bold and dangerous claims can be harmful to some people who would forgo the treatment they need, in favour of the false hope that Wim Hof might offer. Speculative nonsense is dangerous as it propagates down to others, along with a skewed sense of legitimacy. (5,7,9,10) |
‘Mind-body connection’, ‘Healing intention’, ‘spirit’ | Vague, unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable concepts. It’s easy for people to sell this kind of language as it can’t be ‘disproven’. But with these notions being unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable, they are for all intents and purposes non-existent. It’s ok to have personal spiritual beliefs. It’s unethical to sell health related advice based on something non-existent. (1,2,4,5,6,7) |
All the above considered, here are some further warning signs:
Persuasive Motivational/Self-help Language (1,8,9)
Wim uses a lot of marketable phrases such as ‘take back control’, ‘reap the benefits’, ‘personal guidance’, ‘powerful method’, ‘achieve extraordinary things’. When you see a lot of this kind of language, it’s a sign that somebody is trying to sell something, not to inform you in good faith. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they know they are selling you magic beans, but it does often take the place of robust evidence where there is none. If you can’t convince them with evidence, persuade them with language.
‘A Multitude of Benefits’ (1,3,5,6,7,10)
GOOP (Gwyneth Paltrow) and other Celebrity Endorsements (2,10)
‘Defying Science’ (3,7,8,9,10)
False Balance (3,7,8,10)
Anecdotes and Testimonials (2)
Having identified the various ways he markets his method, and having pointed out the various ways we can all be deceived psychologically, here are some quick refutations to some testimonials on his site. This is to illustrate that arguably his most persuasive form of ‘evidence’, as powerful as it can be, should not be viewed as reliable and does not support his claims. Skepticism is always warranted when assessing this form of information, and here I hope to show the reasons why.
1. Lots of questions for increasing push-ups;
He could already do 30 at the start, which indicates a decent baseline fitness already.
Was he already able to do more than 30 push-ups but didn’t push that far at the start?
Has he been practicing push-ups during the course; could it not just be that he was actually practicing push-ups for ten weeks? Push-ups are a very effective exercise for improving overall shape and strength.
Did he do 100 push-ups in one go or in 10 sets of 10, 2 sets of 50, for example?
Were they well executed push-ups with proper form or just small dips?
Can he always do 100 push-ups or only when he has increased his blood oxygen levels through induced hyperventilation?
2. Hyperventilating, mindfulness, and icy water is not going to improve your strength – in fact cold conditions are worse for strength. Practicing improving your strength will increase your strength.
3. An improved general mood is likely the result of routine exercise, a sense of proactiveness and achievement of goals, and mindfulness to help focus on controlling other negative thought patterns. Any other factors like just being outside more, relaxing more purposefully, etc., are other likely contributors but are not mentioned.
De-stressing, mindfulness, meditation etc. are not unique to the WHM. Breathing techniques and meditation might be helpful for mental health, but cold showers and hyperventilating are not. Taking some self-care time regularly away from work stresses/burnout is going to improve mental health, no matter how you choose to spend that time. Reading, exercising, walking, bird watching – anything that is free would work just as well if you enjoy it or find it relaxing.
Not catching a cold has no causal link to the WHM. I personally have gone longer than 8 months more than once without catching a cold (yes, I know, anecdotal. Exactly my point.). Cold exposure and hyperventilating does not improve your body’s ability to fight a pathogen – in fact it can increase the chances of infection, should it encounter a pathogen at that time. However, as alluded to once again in the above article, exercise, being outdoors, and a well-balanced diet is a solid argument for better health.
Knee pain – perhaps a regular dose of careful exercise has built it up again, or it’s just healed slowly over time on its own. Regular targeted cold exposure may aid a physical injury to reduce swelling, so this is a possible therapeutic effect/healing aid, but not a cure.
Again, conflating the mental and physical benefits of a daily walk in nature, with being particularly cold. The cold part really is not needed at all to explain this.
As for medicine helping a little, there’s no one size fits all medicine for antidepressants and anxiety pills. Some people have to work with their doctor for years, and figure out the right dosage, type, and frequency for them. It’s rarely right first time.
Also on the medicine…well, he’s on medicine. This is likely some of the reason for improvement. The rest: perhaps the will to focus on himself, relax, and exercise.
It also ignores the possibility that other things in his life may have been since addressed, in finding the root of his anxiety, or finding a way to address it. Again, you don’t need to pay premiums for a bogus ‘method’ to do this, from a man who is not qualified to assess or help your mental state (or indeed not qualified to assess anything medical at all).
Big, big claim. Regenerates brain tissue. These kind of claims of ‘proof’ are actually no more than speculation and confirmation bias. No proof at all is mentioned here, and of course no way to know – but the plausibility is non-existent here. “I take this as proof” is basically saying ‘A’ happened. ‘B’ also happened. Therefore, ‘A’ caused ‘B’. It is correlation, but not causation. This anecdote is a more outrageous example, but:
No causal link is even mentioned. You can replace ‘and now the holes in my brain are gone’ with ‘and now I drive a silver Porsche’, and it holds the same level of validity, the same weight of reasoning (or lack thereof).
His neurosurgeon might have been impressed with the holes being gone. But that doesn't mean he thought it was because of the Wim Hof Method.
His neurosurgeon might have said he didn’t have to come back. But this is because the holes were gone, not because he was doing the WHM.
He does not understand the word proof.
By the same reasoning, you can say that literally any change in his physical self after this point is caused by the WHM, because that is the only reasoning provided.
Not to give credit to Wim Hof, but even he doesn’t mention regeneration of tissue anywhere.
You’ll notice in testimonials lots of use of language like ‘in the best shape I have ever been’, ‘It is like a miracle’, and ‘I take this as proof’, or ‘My neurosurgeon was so impressed’. These are opinions, and baseless claims – these are what make the testimonials so powerful. They speak in definite terms (‘proof’). They appeal to emotions and over-inflate the outcomes (‘miracle, so impressed’). They reinforce the marketing language and the hype generated. They play straight into Wim Hof’s claims.
The reality is that while most people are not intent on deceiving us, those who are know how to use the well-intended ones to their advantage. The human memory is flawed, inaccurate, and ignorant to many powerful biases and cognitive pitfalls in reasoning. Furthermore, lay-people do not have a grasp of statistics, the scientific method, or how to determine truth from fiction (when talking about complicated topics of expertise).
Remember, anecdotes and testimonials are not automatically ‘truth’ or ‘proof’ – and are considered the weakest form of evidence.
Summary
I want to be clear; I don’t get the impression that Wim Hof is a nefarious or intentionally deceptive person. I think he probably means well for the most part and is driven by an inspirational and traumatic past. That is all I will say about him personally – although I still reserve the possibility that he is more business savvy than he lets on.
What matters is the content, his claims, and the evidence assessed. He has his specific talents. He has been a part of several small, limited studies. The perceived benefits of the Wim Hof Method are not likely due to the method itself, but could be studied more out of interest, and the study authors say as much themselves - none of them suggesting any useful benefits to his method. It does not make your fitness or health more ‘optimal’ in any sense of the word.
Wim Hof uses technobabble, and misrepresents preliminary science, extrapolating far beyond what the data does show, to include many things that it does not. One of the scientists who studied him, Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt, commented:
“[Hof's] scientific vocabulary is galimatias [nonsense]. With conviction, he mixes (in a non-sensical way) scientific terms as irrefutable evidence."
The bottom line is that he is profiting from unproven claims, before all the necessary research is done, and exaggerating the research that has been done. He sells it using motivational language which is meaningless when in context. By definition, this is pseudoscience.
At very best, the method can be said to warrant more research into particular areas like autoimmune therapy (not cures). The method is effectively a repackaged version of the lifestyle factors we already know to improve general health (practicing relaxation techniques, getting outside, exercise, etc.). The things which distinguish the Wim Hof Method (hyperventilation, self-induced immune response attenuation, cold therapy) are unproven to help with anything, do not offer a multitude of benefits, and are dangerous at worst.
Most academics that I have seen comment on his method don’t deem it a particularly dangerous thing to try, and not particularly expensive. I’d agree that it’s one of the less harmful pseudosciences out there, but I still think it’s necessary to warn that ignoring it, and not calling it out with more scrutiny, effectively legitimises it in the public eye. By extension, it legitimises the same flawed methods and modes of reasoning seen in the more harmful and nefarious scams. It legitimises the overuse of marketing hype and reliance on poor quality evidence, anecdotes, and testimonials to sell unproven claims. When all is said and done, saving that extra tenner might be better for your stress levels.
Expand for Resources
Comentarios