The attempt to shut these sort of results down by pointing out the lack of scientific explanation is a bit sad in my optics.
If the study can not be replicated or the methodology is crap then fair enough but no-one had (have?) the correct scientific explanation for, say, Copernicus' observations and they still drove science forward immensely. Blue sky thinking and observation should be encouraged even if it produces results that are not immediately explainable.
If grounding matters for body chemistry, it should matter for non-body chemistry, and there should be an effect that can be shown on the bench. But normal electrochemistry does nothing with a single, non-reactive electrical contact.
(Two electrodes, sure. Or things like sacrificial anodes.)
>> If grounding matters for body chemistry, it should matter for non-body chemistry
True within a specific domain but as it is we have very little idea about the forces that affect biological systems at a lower level - my favourite example is that basic disciplines like the use of anesthesia in medicine have to rely on extremely complex quantum theories* to even come close to explaining how the drugs work. Evolution has had no reason not to rely on extremely subtle aspects of reality.
Is there any scientific motivation for this research? Any motivation at all, other than the quack products that are sold based on this theory? My father-in-law bought some "grounding mats" that he was supposed to stand on or put his feet on while he was sitting to improve the function of basically every organ in his body. Cures liver problems, kidney problems, digestion, etc. And of course it came with a huge list of vague symptoms like fatigue and trouble sleeping that could mean your liver, kidneys, etc. were malfunctioning. Doctors won't tell you the truth because it threatens their ability to get rich selling you overpriced and unnecessary medication, instead be smart and buy our product for only $29.99, blah blah blah.
With that motivation in mind, I need to hear a plausible scientific motivation before I take it seriously. That's why the lack of a theory matters. If it's not motivated by a scientifically plausible theory of how it could work, or as an attempt to explore or extend a known phenomenon, I have to assume something else.
No, you have it completely backwards. This is actually a very valid use of the scientific method to test a completely scientifically valid and reasonable hypothesis that produced a negative result. It goes like this...
Observation: Some new-agey quacks are selling products claiming that "grounding" has beneficial effects on physiology, but reasonable people doubt doubt this.
Hypothesis: "Grounding" is complete nonsense, a "grounded" organism functions exactly the same as an ungrounded one. This hypothesis is easily justifiable by undergraduate physics and biology.
Experiment: In this study we'll show that there's no difference in recovery after eccentric muscle loading in a grounded organisms than in an ungrounded one. Ooops! Negative result... hypothesis falsified?
OK, I'm joking... sort of. The best scientists try to look at any phenomenon from as many angles as possible, even, and especially, absurd ones.
I don't think the study controlled for differences in muscle damage. The more damage, the longer it takes to recover, even if the rate of recovery is the same.
The ungrounded group was measured with higher blood lactate levels, suggesting that the exercise was more strenuous for the and that they experienced more muscle damage.
Blood lactate was measured 5 minutes after the exercise intervention. If by "protocol" you mean the choice of bedsheet, that wouldn't have an influence.
If you mean the exercise intervention reduced blood lactate levels—compared to resting levels that's quite unlikely given how lactate metabolism works. Also, both groups did the same exercise.
Better-trained individuals are generally expected to have lower peak lactate levels at the same effort, and a higher capability for clearing lactate from muscles and blood stream. I was arguing that the study did not control for differences in training levels between the two groups.
I couldn’t find the exact stats, but here’s my argument:
If the grounding protocol had an effect on lactate peaks and clearing ability, then the second and subsequent runs would show what you’re seeing. What I couldn’t verify before my point is whether the lactate measurements were different the first day before “grounded sleeping”
That's actually a good point: it should be trivially feasible to record charge differences overnight, even if they're miniscule. You'd expect differences between rested and exhausted participants.
.. however, they can only travel towards positively charged objects, which they then proceed to make less positive.
Note that at no point do they attempt to quantify these alleged electrons, measure a potential difference between the body and ground, or the magnitude of current flow in the wire.
Moreover, free electrons do not float about in solutions. They're usually carried about by negative ions. If you can change that the battery industry would be very interested to hear about it.
Edit: I'm wrong about not quantifying!
> Electrostatic charge was measured on the skin at the region of the vastus lateralis via an electrostatic voltmeter (ESVM 1000, Wolfgang Warmbier, Germany). The pilot study revealed values of -0.2 ± 0.1 V vs. -81.9 ± 25.6 V (P < 0.001) in the grounded vs. sham-grounded situation clearly demonstrating the effects of grounding via the conductive sheet.
.. but there's another problem. Humans are conductive. Even if there's a net charge on your surface, the charge inside you must be zero in conventional electrostatics.
Also, some of those measured values are negative, so if this alleged effect is tied to electrons, those people are made "worse" by grounding them!
Is an electron a particle? You're expecting it to behave like a particle, but it's not a particle.
This study demonstrates that grounding increases muscle recovery time. We definitely need to learn more (and they highlight some potential explanations) but it's not trying to prove anything about electrons.
> the main hypothesis about earthing is based on the connection to the surface of the Earth, which is satiated with free electrons. This indirect or direct contact with the Earth enables “mobile” electrons to migrate into the body
(it then goes into anti-oxidants etc.)
This hypothesis has remarkable implications for ordinary chemistry, if it were true. I don't see why wave-particle duality would be relevant here, do you care to explain?
The wandering of electrons is called electric current. The article claims the earth crust would be saturated with free electrons - thus having a fairly detectable (I imagine) negative load. Which it doesn't have. And even if it had, those free electrons still wouldn't wander without having a reason to, say the body got itself a positive load by friction or whatever. Then the transfer would be immediate, a hopefully small shock and done, no more wandering (scatter wouldn't matter at such distances anyway). Shortly put: it's an interesting study from the physiology statistics point of view, but the physics interpretation doesn't hold.
Well, the entire theory of this paper seems to revolve around the reference[0] that asks "Can Electrons Act as Antioxidants?" Since Oxidation[1] is the loss of an electron from an atom/ion/molecule, it seems like the entire premise doesn't make sense, or I have a severe misunderstanding of what is being discussed. Are we claiming that the free electrons are somehow preventing atoms from losing electrons, and that impacts muscle recovery?
If the study can not be replicated or the methodology is crap then fair enough but no-one had (have?) the correct scientific explanation for, say, Copernicus' observations and they still drove science forward immensely. Blue sky thinking and observation should be encouraged even if it produces results that are not immediately explainable.