Talk:Wim Hof/Archive 1

Archive 1

In popular culture

I don't know what the rules are for adding this kind of content, but Omniheat has been featuring Mr. Hof extensively in their latest ads (at least on my Hulu in the United States). I think it would deserve some sort of "In Popular Culture" note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.80.173 (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Generally this highly interesting subject (my POV) deserves a well-referenced article but currently there is much promotional material here, with "references" pointing to a WH website, and almost all primary sources. Following Wikipedia's excellent rules will, as it (almost) always does, result in a much improved article. What I am saying is the subject looks amateurish because the article does not follow WP's rules. Please fix.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Im new to the editorial process and tried to flag the article for neutrality but I accidentally seem to have changed the appearance of the first section. I apologize, can anyone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainhardcore (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mountainhardcore I fixed it for you. Zebrasandrobots (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer I added a link to the autonomic nervous system and the radboudumc research article in the introduction. Hope this help users new to the topic and gear more of the attention towards the scientific literature on the subject.--Rougieux (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this witch doctor revision from 15:26, 31 December 2015 vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird Jaguar IV (talk • contribs)

What does "which aids in the sensation of intense energy" mean?

This is in the introduction but it's not really clear what this means. The statement is also unsourced. 2601:184:4202:A46:7930:DD58:CAA6:D359 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems meaningless, so have deleted. There is a bigger issue in that the introductory section should summarize the whole article and not have anything not supported elsewhere. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove 'Fact or Faked' ?

I don't see how comparing one mans surface temperature to another mans core temperature proves anything at all. I vote to remove this section, or update if the source does have any comparable figures. 203.16.182.28 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Link to SyFy channel is broken as well. Agree that this section is irrelevant (bad comparison) as well as weakly documented by a questionable source to begin with. Suggest deletion unless something more substantive can be documented for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.246.238 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, how is it a bad comparison? Second of all, it's notable either way. Really poor reasoning. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bad comparison because it's comparing two different things for the two people: Wim's core (internal) temperature to another person's surface temperature. It would have been a good comparison if the other person's core temperature had been compared to Wim's, or if Wim's surface temperature had been compared to the other person's. It is quite possible that the other person's core temperature had also not significantly decreased in the 20 minutes he was immersed (especially given that his surface temperature decreased a relatively small 4 degrees).Ulrichwi (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wim Hof section from article on Tummo

What follows is the former Wim Hof section of the Tummo article. There are some cites and info that could be integrated into this article if anyone (perhaps Wim) is interested, but basically Wim Hof isn't relevant to the Tibetan Buddhist project Tummo article beyond a very brief mention as Tummo is quite old and has been well practiced by many people. Enjoy...

In January, 2008, Wim Hof from the Netherlands set a world record for exposure to ice. Wim Hof is a self-described Tummo master who set a world record by spending one hour 44 minutes and 22 seconds in a tub of ice wearing minimal clothing. He hopes to beat his own record, and is training to do so.

Hof broke the ice endurance record in 2010 by standing fully immersed in ice for 1 hour and 44 minutes in Tokyo, Japan

Maria Hopman is one of the many scientists who have examined Wim in recent years. Not only in the Netherlands but also abroad, Wim caught the attention of scientists around the world with his exceptional performance. They examined him in different ways:

• Blood tests during meditation and breathing exercises in the UMC St Radboud Nijmegen led by Prof. Netea and Prof. Stick
• Cold physiological research TNO led by Prof. Daanen
• Cold physiological research in Oulu (Finland) led by Prof. Oksa
• Blood tests during meditation and breathing exercises in New York led by Dr. Kevin Tracey
• Ten records exposing to extreme cold led by different doctors and physiologists.

Unless he's a Tibetan monk, then he's not really doing tummo; he's just learned how to endure the cold through breathing exercises. Kortoso (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Book advertisement?

Is this wikipedia or a book advertisement? The last few paragraphs sound more like an ad for a book than something that belongs in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.3.170 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is nothing but a big publicity. Need improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.170.84 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a fucking ad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.49.118 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Bookspam removed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The article seems satursted with bias. It sounds like it was written by a friend or fan with consistent familirs reference to the subject by his first name. Others have already mentioned the seeming bias in the references. There does not seem to be any counter point or reference to possible controversy in the writing. This reads like a puff piece and does not meey Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainhardcore (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the following sentence in the lede necessary for the article:

"Wim Hof has set out to spread the potential health benefits of his breathing techniques, working closely with scientists around the world to prove that his techniques work."

Sounds like peacock puffery to my untrained eyes. Kortoso (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

world records?

The section on world records is a mess. It is basically taking Wim's word for the number of world records, and even that isn't accurate (as of February 2019, the wimhofmethod site only claims 21 records, not 26). But what are these records, when and where did he achieve them, and who are they registered with? At the Guinness site, they credit the longest swim under ice to Stig Åvall Severinsen in 2013, although apparently Hof previously held the record. The nod for longest duration full body contact with ice goes to Songhao Jin in 2014, although the video confirms that Hof did stay in ice water for 1 hour 53 minutes 2 seconds, breaking his own record, before it was surpassed by Jin. Guinness only credits Hof with fast half marathon barefoot on ice/snow (January 2007). Counting the records seems such a dubious enterprise that it is probably better to discuss them individually. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some more sources would be very useful there. If the only sources are from Hof himself, that should be made plain. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

" passed away from suicide"

Is there any reason why "killed herself" or "suicided" is not better English? The rest of this article is also crap based on a PR campaign, but I an't gonna win that one. Yeah, people can withstand cold more than you might expect, including 5 year olds. Greglocock (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I put in "death by suicide" Advocacy groups for those who have been affected by suicide prefer"death by suicide." Also recent psychological research on suicide points to it being usually not a deliberative act but an impulsive one. Also those who advocate for decriminalizing suicide don't like "commit" which implies an offense. And I agree with your assessment of the article. Cheers (on not a very cheery topic)DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: Your edits are welcome, but your assessment of the article is off. You're looking at a very different article than Greglocock was seeing in 2017. I put in a lot of effort to find the most reliable, independent sources I could. I don't think that there is anything promotional about the sections on scientific investigations and controversies. And the world records are now solidly sourced. If you can do better, go for it. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Investigations

I think this section needs some work. Specifically it doesn't properly contextualize non-controversial claims from controversial ones.

When exposed to cold, the human body can increase heat production by shivering, or non-shivering thermogenesis in which brown adipose tissue (BAT), also known as brown fat, converts chemical energy to heat. Mild cold exposure is known to increase BAT activity.[22] A group of scientists in the Netherlands wondered whether frequent exposure to extreme cold would have comparable effects.

I don't understand why this section starts of with a pedantic description of established facts about the human body. What does that have to do with WH's claims? I would rewrite this section to say, in rough form: scientists compared Wim to his brother and found

No significant differences were found between the two subjects, indicating that a lifestyle with frequent exposures to extreme cold does not seem to affect BAT activity and CIT.

Also, they caution about drawing ANY conclusions given that this was a purely anecdotal study and they (God knows why!)had Andre do the breathing too. Talk about a wasted opportunity. Anyway, to then reference g-Tummo and research of that topic, again without contextualizing it, is also confounding if not deceptive. It is SYNTH and OR. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added that "pedantic" description because I needed that information to understand the issues involved. Frankly, I'd rather you just rewrite it yourself than read all your rude comments. I'm going to stop following this page. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't meant to insult or discourage. If you feel like letting me know on my talk page what I said that was rude besides "pedantic" I'd like to know. I find such a wide range of tone on here. I'm still learning the norms. I really am interested in collaborating.DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I overreacted; I left a message on your talk page. Back to the content: in the science section, I am not restricting myself to Wim Hof's claims. The researchers had their own question, inspired by his resistance to cold - whether exposure to extreme cold would increase BAT activity. As for g-Tummo, I don't understand the problem that you have with the coverage. I just thought it would be worth pointing out that this practice precedes Hof and there has been research on the breathing technique without cold exposure. To me, that looks like context. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it and responded. Sorry for the WP:TE firebomb. As to the page, the general technique of pseudo medicine is to start with a bunch of uncontroversial, usually technically worded, things and then slip in the unfounded claim at the end. I felt like this section was (in good faith) following that pattern. I haven't seen any studies of the WHM method or g-Tummo that are more than preliminary and small. Am I missing something? IMO that shouldn't be called "scientific" in the conventional everyday sense of the word. Most people who land on this page will wonder if they should try the WHM, and most of them will think "scientific" means "conclusive". So to start with a discussion of BAT being increased by mild cold seems like talking about the WHM, which it is not. My proposal (repeated from above) would be to start with 1. Scientists wanted to compare Wim to Andre to see if Wim's "lifestyle" (that is to say the WHM) increased BAT. 2. describe what they did, and 3. Describe the conclusion. I don't think we should reach into their data and come up with conclusions that they didn't. They concluded that extreme cold does NOT increase BAT. This is bad news for the WHM, but it wasn't until I read the sources that I understood this. It reads to the casual person that scientists did sciency things and seem to think that WHM is good.DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good program. I thought it was what I was doing, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough. Feel free to make those changes - the ones you have done so far have been good. I'd like to keep in a discussion of g-Tummo, but by all means make any changes that are needed. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go. I want to make sure I'm reading the g-tummo stuff properly. Reading research isn't my strong suit. Also, there might have been better studies done on g-tummo than the ones cited here. Let me know if you find anything. Usually research of esoteric practices is small in sample size, because there just aren't a lot of masters out there. And that's the problem with this Wim/Andre study. n=2. But given that they are identical twins I think it's fascinating. It's really quite a remarkable thing to have a fringe claim with a living control group.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's also remarkable that someone with fringe claims is so eager to seek out scientific testing. Unfortunately, he tends to spin the results afterwards. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Biology now source MEDRS compliant?

Is this WP:MEDRS? It seems odd to me. And some of the text in the article seems copyright violation to this text. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

References

records

It's not swim under ice, it's freediving under ice 95.178.253.249 (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Questionable source

Is it just me, or does this blog source that we cite in the lead seem to intentionally misrepresent the twin study? In the abstract for the study, it clearly says that "both participants [Wim and his twin] practised the g-Tummo like breathing technique". But the blog source says "His twin brother André (with similar brown fat amounts) also showed the bigger capability to endure the cold, without being trained in the breathing techniques Hof uses", implying that the breathing technique has nothing to do with it. The blog author got called out on this misrepresentation in the comments, and then apparently added a little note at the end of his post (marked with an asterisk) admitting that the twin brother did practice the breathing technique but was only "familiar" with it and didn't practice it regularly, as if that mattered. First off, I don't think we should be citing a blog. Second, if we are citing a blog (of a non-notable random person on the internet) it shouldn't go in the first paragraph of the lead, per WP:UNDUE. Finally, I don't think we should be repeating an obvious misrepresentation of a scientific paper. Kaldari (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina and RockMagnetist: Any opinions on this? Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I see your point. I think what we need is better secondary sources. I'm looking. Per WP:MEDRS neither the blog nor what you are calling a twin study (it's really an anecdotal collection of biometrics) belong in the lead. Here's the MEDRS policy:

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

WHM is WP:FRINGE. The tests they did on Wim and Andre with N=2, and with no actual contrast between the two subjects. What variable did they isolate? Per their own conclusion section their article does not really support the claims of WHM. So putting it in the lead is also UNDUE. In my estimation the skeptic's blog is not a great source, but it is closer to being WP:SECOND, whereas us reading the paper would be WP:OR. So let's find better sources and then discuss. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the lead. It looks like there have been a handful of additional papers published in the last few years (that aren't reflected in our article).[1][2][3] Hopefully we can find a secondary source which summarizes a few of these. Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: In cases like this, where the subject is extremely narrow and unlikely to ever have a review article published about it or an international expert body weigh in on the matter, how should MEDRS be applied? Should we include the handful of primary scientific sources in the article since they are the only scientific evaluations available? What about when a primary source cites another primary source? Does that count as secondary? Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We should make no health claims, if there are no decent sources. What text are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The sentence we were discussing wasn't a health claim, so I guess MEDRS doesn't need to be strictly applied to it. Probably the only statement in the article that could be characterized as a health claim is "Preliminary and proof-of-principle studies of Hof's method, as well as similar breathing practices, have shown that hyperventilating can temporarily suppress the innate immune response as well as temporarily increase heart rate and adrenaline levels." It looks like we do actually have a pretty good secondary source for this: [4] (an entire chapter devoted to Hof in a biology textbook, believe it or not), although that source relies almost entirely on one study ([5]). Other studies that could be cited for the claim include [6] and [7]. Does that seem adequate or should the statement be qualified further? Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources you site are all proof of concept. Multiple proof of concept studies do not add up to support for a FRINGE medical claim. And there are indeed health claims in the lead. MEDRS absolutely applies to this entire article as does NOPROMO. The lead needs to be rewritten. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposal: move all medical claims out of the lead. "Preliminary and proof-of-principle studies of Hof's method, as well as similar breathing practices, have shown that hyperventilating can temporarily suppress the innate immune response as well as temporarily increase heart rate and adrenaline levels." goes under "scientific investigation" and put the deleted skeptical responses, which are as good as these studies in terms of quality, in that section as well. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the medical claims from the lead and incorporated them into the "scientific investigation" section per your suggestion. I have not restored the blog source, however, since WP:RSOPINION says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." If there is a book or journal article that can be used as a source about skeptics of the WHM, I would be fine with adding that, however. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Combine "Early Life" and "Personal Life"?

There's a lot of duplicated information here, including linking to all his children's instagram accounts twice. I'm not sure why the "hofs" have as much room in this article as they do. There's also a weird line "It has been in recent years that the Method really took off.". I'm not really sure what that's about. Switfoot (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Switfoot: Yes, let's combine those into a "Biography" section or something similar. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I combined early life and personal life sections. I removed some un-cited material and updated record information. --Switfoot (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wim Hof's injury

It is probably relevant to describe how Wim Hof received the injury on his abdomen, though I do not think the current source is adequate. Currently the line in his summary reads "He has also experienced serious drawbacks of his techniques, in 2008 he was urgently hospitalized because he sat on a public fountain in Amsterdam and ruptured his rectum when doing so. [3]" This event is also described here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BecomingTheIceman/comments/e9m2jt/this_is_wim_hofs_abdomen_did_he_hurt_himself/ It has been a while since I have read it, and I no longer have a copy available to me, however I believe that a version of that tale is also described in Hof's book "Becoming the Iceman". I believe that the damage was also more extensive than just rupturing his rectum, as it also sliced through his colon and intestines. I recommend moving this line to the "early life" section instead of in his opening bio. Switfoot (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Whooah. Are there some decent sources (i.e. not reddit)?! Alexbrn (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wim Hof Method

Why was the Wim Hof Method paragraph removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.104.60 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Wim Hof .webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• How to Do the Breathwork.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS

@Pieces4lifewater: When it comes to health claims, we have to follow a higher standard of evidence than what is written in blogs or popular press. What's more, even a study published in a science journal is not, in and of itself, enough to establish health claims. Please read WP:MEDRS if you haven't already. Here is another helpful essay on this --WP:MEDFAQ. Healthline is not a MEDRS source and the Radboud study clearly states "The results obtained are remarkable, however, the investigators emphasize that so far, these results have only been obtained in a single individual. Therefore, they can not serve as scientific evidence for the hypothesis that the autonomic nervous system and the immune response can be influenced through concentration and meditation techniques." Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay but you deleted other information that improved the article non related to health issues. please explain why? Pieces4lifewater (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but here are the changes I'm about to make, and why. 1.The YouTube video is promotional material. It definitely does not belong in the lead. If you want to use it as a source for some of the text explaining the method that might fly. Or you could put it in "publications" section. It's important that we don't use Wikivoice to promote medical advice that isn't supported by the current scientific consensus. 2. The "criticism" and the "supporting evidence" headings are not helpful given how the text reads right now, so I will delete both of them. Generally speaking "criticism" sections are discouraged. See [[8]]. The first study under the criticism heading is actually not criticism. The supporting evidence is not supporting evidence of the WHM method per se. 3.There is no citation for the psychosomatic journal study, it is not a well regarded publication and it is just a study of Hof himself, and in no way provides evidence for the WHM. If you want to include it, you need a citation and it is yet another medical assessment of an individual, in other words anecdotal Evidence. 4. The Wouter van Marken Lichtenbelt section is duplicated. I move it to the top of the section because it sums up all the data we have thus far on the WHM. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The best study currently citation # 25 could be expanded more. It DID test the effect of the method itself. If you like I can do that next. I think it would be best to remove one of the weaker studies and replace it with that. cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)