Whole-Body Cryotherapy: Temperature, Duration, and Evidence

Name: Whole-Body Cryotherapy: Temperature, Duration, and Evidence
Creator: Cold Tower
Published: 2026-02-27

Category: protocols Updated: 2026-02-27

Whole-body cryotherapy uses −110°C to −140°C air for 2–3 minutes; skin temp drops to ~10°C while core remains stable. Meta-analyses find WBC recovery benefits moderate and less robust than cold water immersion evidence.

Key Data Points
Measure	Value	Unit	Notes
WBC chamber temperature	−110 to −140	°C	Nitrogen vapor or refrigerated air; exposure is 2–3 minutes
Skin temperature during WBC	~10	°C	Surface temperature drops rapidly; recovers within 15 min after exit
Core temperature change during WBC	<0.2	°C	Brief duration prevents significant core cooling despite extreme skin cold
WBC session duration	2–3	minutes	Standard protocol; longer durations risk frostbite
NE response to WBC vs CWI	WBC: lower magnitude		CWI produces greater NE surge due to conductive vs convective heat loss
DOMS reduction (WBC)	Moderate		Similar to or slightly less effective than CWI in direct comparisons

Whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) chambers expose the entire body to ultra-cold air (−110°C to −140°C) for brief durations (2–3 minutes). Despite the extreme temperature, the physiological effects on core temperature and biochemical markers are surprisingly modest compared to cold water immersion.

WBC Physics: Why 2 Minutes at −140°C Is Less Challenging Than 15 Minutes at 12°C

The key difference is the thermal conductivity of the medium:

Medium	Thermal Conductivity	Heat Transfer Rate
Water at 12°C	~0.58 W/m·K	Rapid; 25–30× air
Air at −140°C	~0.015 W/m·K	Slow; despite extreme temperature
Metal (contact)	10–200 W/m·K	Very rapid

Cold air at −140°C transfers heat much more slowly than cold water at 12°C. In 2–3 minutes of air-based cryotherapy, the body loses far less total heat than during 15 minutes of water immersion, explaining why core temperature barely changes.

WBC vs CWI — Comparative Effects

Outcome	WBC	CWI (10–15°C)	Evidence Quality
Core temp change	<0.2°C	<0.5°C	Both minimal
Muscle temp change	~−2°C	~−4°C	CWI greater
NE response	Moderate	High (200–300%)	CWI greater
DOMS reduction	Moderate	~20%	Similar
Anti-inflammatory	Moderate	Moderate	Similar
Accessibility	Low (clinic/gym)	High (bathtub)	CWI wins
Cost	High ($50–100/session)	Low	CWI wins

Evidence for WBC Recovery

Costello et al. (2012) review found WBC reduced DOMS and perceived fatigue in most studies, with effect sizes similar to CWI. Pournot et al. (2011) showed reduced inflammatory markers (IL-6, CRP) after multi-session WBC following intense exercise.

The evidence base for WBC is growing but smaller and less consistent than for CWI. Most WBC studies have smaller sample sizes and shorter follow-up periods than the established CWI meta-analyses.

WBC for Non-Athletic Applications

WBC has been studied for:

Rheumatoid arthritis: Reduced joint pain scores in several small studies
Multiple sclerosis: Fatigue reduction reported
Psoriasis: Some skin symptom improvement
Fibromyalgia: Pain reduction in small RCTs

Most of these studies are small and methodologically limited. WBC for clinical conditions is not FDA-approved; evidence is insufficient for clinical recommendations.

Safety Considerations

WBC is generally safe with precautions:

Extremities (fingers, toes) must be covered to prevent frostbite
No wet skin or clothing — ice crystals at skin contact risk
Contraindicated with cardiovascular disease, Raynaud’s, cryoglobulinemia
Not suitable for uncontrolled hypertension (blood pressure spikes during WBC)

🧊 🧊 🧊

Sources

← All cold exposure pages · Dashboard