The Proof Gap

What cold and heat science can prove today, and what it cannot

Dr. Susanna Søberg, PhD · soeberginstitute.com

Welcome to the Journal. This is free article. New pieces go out free to subscribers first, and land in your inbox the day they publish. After that they move into the members’ archive, so your inbox is the place to read them free. Subscribe below and you will not miss one.

Members get access to the full archive at all times, the deep dives as well, the protocols, the doses, the exact how.

If you have followed my work for any length of time, you know I try to tell you both halves of the truth at once.

Here is the first half. Cold and heat are two of the oldest practices in human history, and we now have real science explaining why they work.

Here is the second half. A large amount of what you see online about them is not proven. Some of it is early. Some of it is extrapolated from a single study. Some of it is simply wrong.

Both halves are true at the same time. That is uncomfortable for the internet, which prefers one clean claim per video. It is not uncomfortable for a scientist. It is the normal state of a young field.

So I am starting a series.

Over the next year I am going to take the biggest claims in cold, heat, and contrast therapy and sort them into three honest piles. What the evidence supports well. What is promising but not yet settled. And what is being sold to you with far more confidence than the data allows.