Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've always wondered if a fish pedicure (where people let fish nibble on their feet to remove dead skin) actually has any real discernible benefits for the amount of time that people put their feet in tanks for. To me, it looks like a bit of a fad, especially with the high prices that some operators are charging. There are also some health warnings.

So, my question is this: is there any scientific evidence that shows that a fish pedicure actually does any good?

share|improve this question
3  
From a purely anecdotal stance, I can say whole-heartedly that it was a very relaxing experience - sitting with your feet in a vat of warm water is relaxing. Having the little nibbles on dead skin is a bizarre sensation at first, but my feet were definitely less calloused and smoother when it was over. Can't speak to any of the health risks - the spa where I was had very strict cleaning procedures (including kicking you out if you put your hands in the water - even after a foot wash prior to letting them soak). –  warren Apr 26 '11 at 15:15
19  
And there I was, about to point out that fish don't need pedicures. –  DJClayworth Apr 27 '11 at 15:23
add comment

2 Answers 2

I cannot speak to pedicures per se, but "fish therapy" for psoriasis has been around for decades. A skeptic might say that fish lips are unlikely to be the critical part of the treatment, which is essentially exfoliating and moisturizing the skin, while likely exposing it to relatively strong solar UV.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I'm not sure if you are more interested in whether the treatment is effective/worth the money, or whether it is dangerous?

For the latter, there is no published research I could find, but:

As of 2011, there is at least one insurance broker in the UK who insure harra rufa fish pedicures:

http://www.lockyers.co.uk/garra-rufa-fish-pedicure-insurance/

Considering the amount of convincing that the underwriters of such an insurance would require, that means that there was enough evidence of its general safety provided to them by the broker company.

share|improve this answer
1  
This argument is flawed. The biggest German health insurances routinely cover homeopathic and other quack treatments (e.g. tk.de/tk/leistungen-a-z/h/homoeopathie/39806), all the while acknowledging that there is no evidence for it. –  Konrad Rudolph May 17 '11 at 17:57
1  
@Konrad - they don't cover it against it failing to work. They cover it against being unsafe. Ditto here. Though it's an interesting data point - AFAIK American insurers don't routinely cover homepathy, though I saw some coverage of chirpractors –  Lola May 19 '11 at 0:59
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.