Acute ingestion of hydrogen-rich water does not improve incremental treadmill running performance in endurance-trained athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is emerging evidence that hydrogen-rich water (H2-water) has beneficial effects on the physiological responses to exercise. However, few studies investigate its ergogenic potential. This randomized controlled trial examined the effects of H2-water ingestion on physiological responses and exercise performance during incremental treadmill running. In a double-blind crossover design, 14 endurance-trained male runners (age, 34 ± 4 years; body mass, 63.1 ± 7.2 kg; height, 1.72 ± 0.05 m) were randomly assigned to ingest 2 doses of 290-mL H2-water or placebo on each occasion. The first bolus was given before six 4-min submaximal running bouts, and the second bolus was consumed before the maximal incremental running test. Expired gas, heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded; blood samples were collected at the end of each submaximal stage and post maximal running test. Cardiorespiratory responses, RPE, and blood gas indices were not significantly different at each submaximal running intensity (range: 34%–91% maximal oxygen uptake) between H2-water and placebo trials. No statistical difference was observed in running time to exhaustion (618 ± 126 vs. 619 ± 113 s), maximal oxygen uptake (56.9 ± 4.4 vs. 57.1 ± 4.7 mL·kg−1·min−1), maximal HR (184 ± 7 vs. 184 ± 7 beat·min−1), and RPE (19 ± 1 vs. 19 ± 1) in the runners between the trials. The results suggest that the ingestion of 290 mL of H2-water before submaximal treadmill running and an additional dose before the subsequent incremental running to exhaustion were not sufficiently ergogenic in endurance-trained athletes. Novelty Acute ingestion of H2-water does not seem to be ergogenic for endurance performance. A small dose of H2-water does not modulate buffering capacity during intense endurance exercise in athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".