Molecular Hydrogen Mitigates Performance Decrement during Repeated Sprints in Professional Soccer Players
Botek M et al. · Nutrients. 2022;14(3):508.
What kind of evidence is this?
Human
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial
Exercise and recovery
H₂-rich water
Not reported in this record.
Not reported in this record.
Methods at a glance
Healthy professional male soccer players aged 17–21 years
16 participants
Two test sessions separated by a 1-week washout; acute pre-exercise exposure
1,260 mL hydrogen-rich water in four doses before the repeated-sprint test: 420 mL at 120 and 60 minutes, then 210 mL at 15 and 5 minutes
H₂ dissolved in water — H₂ only, not Brown’s gas.
0.9 ppm dissolved H₂; total reported dose 756 µmol H₂.
Not applicable — oral water, not gas inhalation.
No O₂ was co-delivered as part of the intervention.
Visually identical H₂-free placebo water; 0.0 ppm dissolved H₂
Outcomes and reported result
Times for fifteen 30 m sprints, ratings of perceived exertion and post-exercise blood lactate
Compared with placebo, later-sprint times were shorter after H₂ water: the 14th and 15th 0–15 m splits improved by 3.4% and 2.7%, and the final 0–30 m sprint by 1.9%. Blood lactate and sprint-specific perceived exertion comparisons did not differ significantly.
Methods, full results, funding and conflict statements checked in the open-access full text; independent appraisal remains incomplete.
A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.
Cautions and applicability
Small male-only crossover study, acute protocol and many sprint-level comparisons. The reported differences appeared only in the final repetitions; the authors declared no conflict of interest.
Young professional male soccer players performing the study’s repeated-sprint protocol.
Cochrane RoB 2 crossover variant · late repeated-sprint result
Some concerns — preliminary; independent reviewer pending
Small crossover study with objective timing but numerous sprint-level comparisons. Sequence concealment, period effects and the choice to emphasize the final repetitions require independent review.
Some concerns — randomization is reported; concealment detail is limited. · Low to some concerns — matched water and double blinding are described. · Low concern in the displayed report — all 16 participants are represented in the crossover analyses. · Low concern for automated sprint timing; blinding of all test personnel requires confirmation. · Some concerns — many repeated-sprint comparisons despite multiplicity adjustment; no public protocol was identified.
No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.
Sources and record status
PMID: 35276867 · DOI: 10.3390/nu14030508
Open-access publisher and PMC full texts are available.
Open-access full text through Europe PMC/PMC and PubMed bibliographic record.
2026-08-10