01/02/2026
Do the claims stand up to what the data actually shows?
For those who missed my last video or didnât have time to watch it â hereâs a short summary of the latest study on the Wim Hof Method.
In a brief post, claimed that the method outperformed meditation. But much of the story was left out.
Of the four hypotheses tested in the study, three were not supported. The only area where the method appeared to outperform meditation was state change.
However, when you look more closely at the data, the Wim Hof group started with significantly lower baseline scores in those same measures. That raises an important possibility: what weâre seeing may simply be a shift toward the mean, rather than a true superiority of effect.
Though itâs quite clear high ventilation and ice baths provide Adrenalin, dopamine, endorphins and a sense of achievement.
This isnât a knock on the method itself.
Itâs about the difference between making claims and analysing scientific data. They are not the same thing.
And if Iâm honest, this distinction is a big part of why the School of Breath Science exists â to encourage neutral, careful interpretation of evidence and to raise scientific and professional standards in this space.
Itâs also worth noting the studyâs limitations. The participants were healthy individuals, so the findings cannot be extended to people with disease or mental health conditions. And compliance across all three groups was only 66%, suggesting that many participants struggled to fully adhere to the protocols â which makes strong conclusions even harder to justify.
Breathing practices can be powerful. But perhaps slow breathing and Ice baths come with lower risks and trade offs.
But power comes from understanding when, for whom, and why something works â not from oversimplified headlines.
If you value reasoning over recipes, this conversation matters.
Much appreciation to those who care
Martin
