With interest booming, wellness experts and pool builders have seen more homeowners hoping to take cold therapy immersion into their own backyards.
4 min
Cold plunges have gone from fringe curiosity to full-blown cultural phenomenon, the wellness world’s equivalent of a headline-grabbing breakout star.
Adherents slip into icy water on a daily basis, chasing an electric jolt of clarity that feels like a flip has been switched inside your brain.
Dedicated cold plunge practices are everywhere from upscale fitness studios and pro sports locker rooms to renowned wellness destinations such as Mountain Trek Health Reset Retreat in British Columbia.
Considering the ever-expanding assortment of companies flooding the market with cold plunge tubs and other custom devices dedicated to achieving icy bliss—with costs potentially reaching into the tens of thousands—some homeowners are tempted to use their swimming pools as an alternative.
“We’re absolutely seeing more homeowners use their pools as year-round cold plunges, especially in colder climates,” said Nick McNaught, CEO and co-founder of Toronto-based Stay Unbounded, which offers cold exposure workshops, retreats and certifications.
“The motivation is often simplicity and cost. If the water is already cold, people see value in keeping the pool open longer or winterizing it differently to support cold exposure.”
Suzanne Vaughan, president of Massachusetts-based pool builder SwimEx, points out the inherent convenience that comes with taking a frosty dip out back.
“From what homeowners tell us, the appeal of a cold plunge at home is less about chasing extremes and more about having a simple ritual that’s always available,” she said.
“It’s quick, accessible and easy to build into a daily routine.”
Among new clients Vaughan works with, year-round cold plunge use is usually planned from the start rather than as an afterthought.
“More are choosing indoor pools or small attached structures because that makes temperature control, equipment protection and day-to-day use much easier in colder climates,” she said.
If someone is thinking about using an existing home pool as a cold plunge, the main questions are likely to involve practicality and protection.
“Larger volumes of water take more energy and time to keep at colder temperatures, and you need a plan to protect plumbing, finishes and equipment from freeze–thaw cycles,” she added.
“Whatever the design, you want a system that’s built for the temperature range you have in mind, and a pool professional who can help you winterize safely.”
One such professional is Hunter Gary, a certified master pool builder and owner of H2 Outdoor Living in Tennessee.
“Most everyone has a ‘number’ in degrees when it comes to cold plunging. When a client asks our company to design a cold plunge for them, I ask ‘what’s your number?’” Gary said.
“A smaller body of water or cold plunge vessel may be much easier for maintaining a balanced temperature…but if using a pool gets you excited about a more serious approach to inviting this wellness experience in your life, then go for it.”
Amy McDonald, owner and CEO of Under a Tree, a wellness consultancy, said transforming a pool into a plunge might not be worth time and investment
“It is almost impossible to retrofit a standard swimming pool into a cold plunge,” she said.
“The energy and money to do it properly is greater compared to just creating a complimentary contrast circuit.”
A proper setup needs to be exceptionally cold, she noted, so depending on where the pool is located it might not get chilly enough to provide optimal health benefits.
“That could work in northern areas of the U.S., but it takes a lot for a pool to generate and keep that kind of cold, not even considering if the pool ices over,” she said.
McNaught echoed those concerns, citing how home pools aren’t designed specifically for cold plunging, so temperature consistency, cleanliness, ease of access and safety become important factors.
“Dedicated cold plunge setups offer more control, smaller volumes and lower ongoing maintenance,” he said.
“For many people, a pool works as an entry point. Over time, those who commit to the practice transition to a dedicated setup because it better supports frequency, comfort and long-term use.”
Beyond geography and climate, industry experts pointed out other challenges homeowners are likely to face.
“Pools are saturated with chlorine and other chemicals that directly absorb into the bloodstream. The advantage of many cold plunges is that no chemicals are required for residential use,” said David Haddad, as the co-founder of Oregon-based BlueCube Wellness.
“Constant ozonation and filtration is enough to kill organic compounds without exposure to sanitizing chemicals.”
Most cold-plunge systems are monitored to stay between 50-60 degrees Fahrenheit—with experienced plungers often preferring lower temperatures.
While “the ultimate experience might be a glacial lake in Finland, unfortunately that’s a bit out of reach for most of us,” said Andreas Stelluti, co-founder at Texas-based Colderatti, whose vessels feature the world’s first chemical-free cold plunge technology, powered by a triple filtration system that removes 99% of impurities to provide a system with drinking-quality water.
“Having a cold plunge at home brings that experience to your backyard, making it very easy and accessible, so you have the ability to make it part of your lifestyle,” he added.
Stelluti noted that as spring arrives and clients’ home pools start to warm up again, they begin to miss the cool water.
“Many say ‘I really need this to be part of my lifestyle year-round’ and that desire for consistent, accessible cold immersion is what motivates them to invest in a dedicated cold plunge setup,” he explained.
“Unfortunately, you can’t use your pool as a year-round cold plunge during the summer. Especially not here in Texas.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
