Acute effect of hydrogen-rich water on physical, perceptual and cardiac responses during aerobic and anaerobic exercises
Jebabli N et al. · Front Physiol. 2023;14:1240871.
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
Male amateur middle-distance runners
22 participants
Four testing days; acute pre-exercise exposure
500 mL hydrogen-rich water consumed 30 minutes before exercise testing
H₂ dissolved in water — H₂ only, not Brown’s gas.
The article reports hydrogen concentration maintained between 0.55 and 0.65 mmol; wording and unit retained as printed, without conversion.
Not applicable — oral water, not gas inhalation.
No O₂ was co-delivered as part of the intervention.
500 mL placebo water
Outcomes and reported result
Maximal aerobic speed, time to exhaustion, squat jump, countermovement jump, five-jump test, perceived exertion and peak heart rate
The article reports improvements in maximal-aerobic-speed testing, time to exhaustion, perceived exertion and peak heart rate after H₂ water. Squat, countermovement and five-jump outcomes did not differ significantly.
Methods and principal results checked in the open-access full text. The abstract contains inconsistent wording about maximal aerobic speed, so the outcome table still requires an independent line-by-line check.
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 sample, multiple tests and outcomes, and unclear reporting of allocation concealment. The abstract is internally inconsistent about whether maximal aerobic speed changed.
Male amateur middle-distance runners under the reported acute testing conditions.
Cochrane RoB 2 crossover variant · aerobic and anaerobic exercise outcomes
Some concerns — reporting clarification required
The article reports randomization and double blinding, but allocation details and multiplicity are limited, and the abstract is internally inconsistent about maximal aerobic speed.
Some concerns — sequence generation and concealment are not sufficiently detailed. · Some concerns — double blinding is stated; adherence and carryover handling need verification. · Low to some concerns — 22 participants are reported, but complete flow requires structured review. · Mixed — several outcomes are objective, while perceived exertion is subjective. · Some concerns — multiple tests and outcomes plus inconsistent abstract wording; no linked prospective protocol 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: 38162831 · DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1240871
Open-access publisher and PMC full texts are available.
Open-access full text through Europe PMC/PMC and PubMed bibliographic record.
2026-08-10