The biggest problem IMO with any of this stuff is people generally equate a theory with scientific fact. The problem with health and fitness is very very very few theories have been proven or even disproven. Most studies simply lean the researcher toward or away from believing in a particular theory.
I got my BS in kenisiology in the early 90's. My masters in exercise science in the 00's. And have just started working toward a doctorate. Being that spread out I've had a unique viewing of just how much the "science" changes. Literally what we do one decade is the worst thing we can do the next. Problem is its a new theory not a disproval of the previous theory.
People ask me all the time about things like icing. My answer I don't know and neither does anyone else. Some have opinions and are more than happy to proclaim that opinion as fact but they don't really know either.
Icing a pitchers arm is the perfect example. Yes icing can theoretically slow down recovery by constricting blood vessels and limiting recovery needed nutrients. But how many pitchers pitch that mornig and then need to recover to pitch that night? With a day's rest it won't matter either way. But some take "slow down recovery" meaning 6 hours instead of 5 hours and change it to ruin your arm. It's the way propaganda works. It's called marketing and there are multiple billions of reasons to market the fitness industry.
When those with PhD's are still disagreeing on a subject. That subject is no where near being conclusive. Don't dismiss something that's worked for years because a new theory says so nor do you hang on to something just because it's been done for years. Athletes need to know their body first and for most. Try new and old methods alike and listen to what "their body" tells them about its success, not what the person making the profit off it tells them.