Enzymes for Athletic Injuries

Current Practices

One of the most widely recognized problems in rehabilitation therapeutics is the need for an effective non-toxic aid to control inflammation caused by athletic injuries. The ideal therapeutic aid in such cases should accelerate both the rate of recovery from the injury and the reduction of the pain phase of the inflammatory process which results from the tissue damage of the injury.

In current sports-injury therapeutics, the most popular aids to recovery are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). By inhibiting various natural physiological mechanisms, these NSAID agents tend to reduce the immediate inflammatory response and thus allow the athlete to enter a physical-therapy program more rapidly. However, there are serious concerns over the current widespread use of NSAIDs, including:

• Significant gastrointestinal side effects (the common saying among athletes is “those pills tear up your stomach.”).
• The very real possibility that, by inhibiting natural physiological processes, NSAIDs actually slow down recovery from injury.

An Attractive Alternative

Of increasing current interest in sports medicine are the possibilities offered by proteolytic enzymes to accelerate the recovery process. Proteolytic enzymes offer a possible alternative to the present extensive use of NSAIDs. Their mode of action appears to be rapid hydrolysis of the waste products that collect in injured tissue, thereby:

1. Enhancing—rather than suppressing—natural physiological mechanisms, improving the possibility of true recovery.
2. Avoiding negative GI side effects (except for pre-existing conditions such as ulcer or gastritis); by enhancing protein digestion they may actually benefit the GI tract.
3. Posing no long-term toxicity risk, because enzymes are rapidly degraded by the body.

European Practices

Proteolytic enzymes have been investigated for several decades. Despite promising findings, U.S. progress has been slow—likely more for economic than scientific reasons. Because these enzymes are naturally occurring (and therefore difficult to patent), large pharmaceutical firms have shown limited interest in sponsoring research.

The situation is different in Europe—particularly Germany—where enzyme use as anti-inflammatory agents is common, especially for sports injuries, and scientific investigation is robust.

Bruise Healing

Study: Dr. M. W. Kleine at the Sports Medicine Investigation Center (Grunwald, Germany) evaluated 100 athletes. A controlled hematoma was created on each athlete’s forearm; half received proteolytic enzymes, half a placebo (3× daily).

Results: 76 % of enzyme-treated subjects reported “good” outcomes vs. 14 % of placebo. Pain, tenderness, and visible hematoma all resolved markedly faster with enzymes.

Injury Prevention

Study: In a double-blind trial, 20 karate fighters were split into enzyme vs. placebo groups before competition.

Results: Hematomas in the enzyme group disappeared within 7 days; the placebo group required 16 days.

Surgery Preparation and Recovery

A knee-surgery specialist ran a double-blind study on meniscus patients:

• Pre-surgery swelling: Enzyme group ready in 17 days vs. 24 days for placebo.
• Post-surgery recovery: Hospital stay averaged 8 days with enzymes vs. 14 days without.

Growing Acceptance

These and many other clinical studies validate proteolytic enzymes as a powerful, non-toxic treatment for both preventing and healing injuries—especially in contact sports.

The most advanced preparation today is MSM Gold®, introduced in 1998 by NWC Naturals™. Leveraging decades of enzyme technology and state-of-the-art delivery systems, MSM Gold® delivers even more impressive and dependable results than previous formulas, promising a new level of safe relief from athletic injuries and other trauma.

References

1. Lie KK et al. Therapeutic value of oral proteolytic enzymes following hand surgery. Aran Surgery 96:103 (1961).
2. Boyne PS, Medhurst H. Oral anti-inflammatory enzyme therapy in professional footballers. The Practitioner 194:543 (1967).
3. Detric RE. Oral proteolytic enzymes in the treatment of athletic injuries: a double-blind study. The Penn Med. J. 68:35 (1965).
4. Woolf RM. Resolution of an artificially induced hematoma and the influence of a proteolytic enzyme. J. Trauma 5:491 (1965).
5. Sherr S, Fletcher AP. Proteolytic enzymes: a therapeutic evaluation. Clin. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 1:202 (1961).
6. Kleine MW, Vogler W. The effects of an oral enzyme treatment on experimentally induced hematomas. Forum Gen. Pract. 2:27 (1968).
7. Zuschlag H. Study reported by Lopez OA et al. in Enzymes, The Fountain of Life. Neville Press, Charleston SC (1994).