Effect of Waters Enriched in O2 by Injection or Electrolysis on Performance and the Cardiopulmonary and Acid–Base Response to High Intensity Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several brands of water enriched with O2 (O2-waters) are commercially available and are advertised as wellness and fitness waters with claims of physiological and psychological benefits, including improvement in exercise performance. However, these claims are based, at best, on anecdotal evidence or on a limited number of unreliable studies. The purpose of this double-blind randomized study was to compare the effect of two O2-waters (~110 mg O2·L−1) and a placebo (10 mg O2·L−1, i.e., close to the value at sea level, 9–12 mg O2·L−1) on the cardiopulmonary responses and on performance during high-intensity exercise. One of the two O2-waters and the placebo were prepared by injection of O2. The other O2-water was enriched by an electrolytic process. Twenty male subjects were randomly allocated to drink one of the three waters in a crossover study (2 L·day−1 × 2 days and 15 mL·kg−1 90 min before exercise). During each exercise trial, the subjects exercised at 95.9 ± 4.7% of maximal workload to volitional fatigue. Exercise time to exhaustion and the cardiopulmonary responses, arterial lactate concentration and pH were measured. Oxidative damage to proteins, lipids and DNA in blood was assessed at rest before exercise. Time to exhaustion (one-way ANOVA) and the responses to exercise (two-way ANOVA [Time; Waters] with repeated measurements) were not significantly different among the three waters. There was only a trend (p = 0.060) for a reduction in the time constant of the rapid component of VO2 kinetics with the water enriched in O2 by electrolysis. No difference in oxidative damage in blood was observed between the three waters. These results suggest that O2-water does not speed up cardiopulmonary response to exercise, does not increase performance and does not trigger oxidative stress measured at rest.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".