quote: On the other hand, I've expanded the box to include the universe and find amazing resemblence between how things work on a light year scale and an angstrom scale. I never was able to get God in the box that some claim to have Him in, but then I'm just a servant of His, not his master. Far be it from me to try to put Him in a box!
quote: Having a bit of an identity crisis David? Messiah Complex ?
Goey
Hey Goey, you're the one hiding your name, not me. I have no problem with who I am or people knowing my name. In fact, I even wrote a book with my name on it. It's called "The Two Ways of the First Century Church" and you can read the entire book, for free, including the brief biography at the end, at http://www.en.com/users/anders
That will give you an even better idea of who I am, where I'm coming from, and why. In fact, if you have one you've written, I'll be happy to exchange hard copies and then we'll both know more about each other that we did before.
But I still see no link furnished by you to the study you rely on to "prove" that highly oxygenated water doesn't work. Are you going to give us anything to go on, like maybe the title of the study, author's name, etc. or are we to believe it's as sloppy as your report of it with the 97% of something line?
We're not talking rocket science here but merely water and oxygen. Good thing your mother didn't demand that AMA approved research papers be given her before giving you a glass of water or you'd have been dead long ago.
So Pal, how about a name, a link, a title, something to go on to flesh out your cheep shot from the peanut gallary. Or maybe you can use your influence to have me thrown out of this fine establishment. For all I know you may be one of those rich and powerful people that can push your way around at the expense of others. You may even have some kind of vested interest in destroying a good thing because you want to sell something else. If not, buy some Penta Water and try it. It won't kill you and just might help you. But it will cost you more than the water from your kitchen sink so that's a consideration.
Hey, I know, make some yourself! I've told you how to do it and so you can save lots of money, maybe even go into competition with Penta Water and sell it in your neighborhood. Just don't process the water like they do or you'll be in violation of their patent. Personally I think it's the oxygen they add that makes it benificial and not the five water molecule clusters- that may or may not survive until you drink it.
Actually, what I'm trying to give you here is some Power for Abundant Living. I didn't get the information from VPW, though he was an excellent teacher, even if a liar and a thief as you say. But the Master that I serve really does want you to have life and have it more abundantly than anybody before him was able to give. But then maybe you're one of those unfortunates that threw out the baby with the bathwater when your "hero" didn't get you all the goodies you wanted.
Any more at all about the University of Wesconsin study you brought up- suposedly for discussion?
Assuming 75 ppm dissolved oxygen at 32 degrees, the amount of molecular oxygen in a liter of the stuff is about half that in one normal breath. Even if the oxygen were to remain dissolved through the warmth, churning, and chemical reactions of the stomach, and absorption were 100% (it wouldn't be) at best drinking it would provide no more oxygen than taking a few extra breaths a day.
It may very well taste good and be refreshing (as is any good-tasting, cold water) but it won't provide much extra oxygen to the body, if any at all.
Here's a recent post lifted from a closed discussion group called Horsescience. Notice the similarities between what it says and what has been posted here since the beginning of December.
quote: From: Jacques Vezina
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 10:18 am
Subject: oxygen water system
ADVERTISEMENT
Tom,
Do you know this man and his oxygen water system ?
December 30, 2004
Kelly Hoerdt is always looking for an edge. With millions of dollars in purses
available, he'd be foolish if he wasn't looking for a competitive advantage.
So, that explains why he jumped at the opportunity to become the first Canadian
harness trainer to try a radically different water system in his Northlands Park
stable.
SEAIR - a publicly traded Edmonton-based company - has installed an
oxygen-diffusion system in his barn that has "raised the level of oxygen (in the
water in the barn) to five times the amount (found) in Edmonton (tap) water,"
according to Hoerdt.
The system was installed last month - and the results are very intriguing.
Eye Promise U - a three-year-old gelding - started drinking the new water last
month and has earned $15,000 in just two races.
Bought for $15,000 by Hoerdt and two partners on Nov. 20, the gelding finished
third in his first start the following week and then won a stake race in his
next start.
"What a Cinderella story," said Mike McAllister, one of his owners. "The horse
is paid for (already). I'm not saying (this new water system) is the cause for
(the wins) but I'm sure it's a great help."
Skip The Run - a veteran pacer - has two wins and a third-place finish since
trying the water.
In total, 10 horses in Hoerdt's barn are being used as a testing case with the
new water.
"It's not an overnight cure," commented Hoerdt. "(The water system) is not going
to be the end-all and be-all (for racing), but it adds to the (training) program
we already have. And I'm very pleased.
"I know the horses I am using it on are performing very well for this time of
year. More oxygen in the water means more oxygen in a horse's system and that
means more oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, thus more energy and more
stamina."
There are other benefits.
"The horses love the taste of it," continued Hoerdt, referring to the slightly
sweeter taste. "The horses drink almost double the amount of water they do from
the tap and I add different vitamins and minerals to my water.
"And having that much oxygen in their system is obviously going to help their
immune system, which is crucial at this time of the year because of the weather
change."
This isn't the first time SEAIR has witnessed intriguing results while testing
the oxygen-diffusion system with horses.
The only other testing period occurred last year at famous Santa Anita Park in
California with a relatively unknown thoroughbred trainer.
"We tried (the water) with six maiden (thoroughbreds) and all six broke their
maiden within two months," said SEAIR president Harold Kinasewich. "Some of them
paid $100 or more to win. There was a five-year-old thoroughbred ... that always
finished 14 or 15 lengths behind. The day he won he came from behind and passed
the pack like they were standing still. He won by almost 13 lengths. It made the
hair on the back of your neck stand up just watching this horse."
But the testing period didn't last much longer.
So, Hoerdt is the only trainer in North America using the technology.
But his competitive edge might not last long.
In exchange for using the system at no cost during this fall meet, Hoerdt agreed
to promote the product.
The publicity means some competing trainers could pay $7,500 to buy an identical
SEAIR system.
Hoerdt realizes that might happen - but also knows something else.
"I'm not pushing (this product) just because I'm getting to use it for free," he
said. "If I thought it didn't do anything I certainly wouldn't be here talking.
Just a little more antedotal evidence about highly oxygenated water. Seems good news does travel as fast as bad news- it just travels in different circles. Why before long there will be so much antidotal evidence that the AMA might even sponsor one of those "peer reviewed" tests that nobody reads. Hmmm, maybe the Edmonton Sun is tapped into the Greasespotcafe.com!
quote:Hey Goey, you're the one hiding your name,..."
If you actually particitated in these forums except for a "drive by" every now and then, you would know that I have never hidden my true identity. I have published it here on numerous occasions - you are quite presumptive. Do a search - you will find it.
quote:"...In fact, I even wrote a book with my name on it... If you have one you've written, I'll be happy to exchange hard copies and then we'll both know more about each other that we did before.
What's this logical fallacy called - an appeal to authority? The fact that you "wrote a book" is irrelevant to the topic at hand and to my observation of your "they didn't believe Jesus either" tactic. The fact that many didn't believe Jesus 2000 years ago is completely irrelevant to me not believing your "testimony" here regarding oxygenated water. You are not Jesus and oxygenated water is not the Word of God.
quote:But I still see no link furnished by you to the study you rely on to "prove" that highly oxygenated water doesn't work.
And BTW - I never said it doesn't work - I said that you have provided nothing other than opinions and anectotal evidence. I highly doubt that it works as you claim.
quote:Or maybe you can use your influence to have me thrown out of this fine establishment. For all I know you may be one of those rich and powerful people that can push your way around at the expense of others... You may even have some kind of vested interest in destroying a good thing because you want to sell something else.
LOL - What an idiotic dissertation. I have absolutoely no infulence here and am not sure if Pawtucket even likes me. So what's with the ad hominem and conspiracy horsecrap? My guess is that you were probably one of the high flying Way Corps bozos - an "abuser" in TWI - considering the way you respond with personal attacks and conjure up silly conspiracy theories when you are questioned and not adoringly believed and obeyed.
Hello all. Looks like a few nay-saysers have showed up in an attempt to derail this discussion so please allow me to see if I can answer them all in one post.
First of all, the fields of chemistry and physics are exact sciences and need no double- blind, cross-over tests to establish their validity. They are based on well proven laws that govern the universe and if one knows the laws he or she can use them to explain how something happens, why it happens, and predict what will happen if the same set of circumstances happen again- namely, the same thing, over and over again- as a matter of law not a matter of speculation or opinion.
Some, it seems, are confused by what is based on law and fact and what is mere opinion. But that is their problem, not mine. Others confuse psudoscience with with exact science. But again, that is their problem not mine. Some, it appears, have not even read the many posts that preceed this one and to them I'll only say that I have no interest whatsoever in repeating what they could already read if they weren't so lazy.
Goey has done us the favor of posting the link to the study he came across. I suggest you all read it- especially the fine print. For although they allude many times to "Superoxygenated water", the fact is that they did have both the tap water used as a control and the AquaRush brand bottled water used in the test (that they repeatedly say is billed at 7-10 times the amount of oxygen found in tap water) measured by the folks that know what they are doing at the University of Wesconsin (the testing lab) and report that the former contained 4.8 mlO2/l (ppm) verses 13.5 mlO2/l (ppm) in the AquaRush water.
They should have saved their time and the American Council on Exercise's expense before they even began the test. For the AquaRush water they used is not "Superoxygenated" and, in fact, they could have used water coming over Niagara Falls this time of year and had a higher concentration of oxygen in the test water.
The interesting thing about the study is the review of previous research at the beginning of it. Both of the studies mentioned showed there was a significant difference in preformance using oxygenated water verses using tap water. I didn't look up those papers and so don't know what oxygen concentration was in the test water of those studies. But evidently, these studies are what the one Goey referred to set out to refute.
The "American Council on Exercise" funded the study and their web page bills them as "a Workout Watchdog". So I rather assume they funded the "research" with an ulterior motive in mind. Otherwise I can't explain why they didn't ask for their money back as soon as it was known that the "Superoxygenated water" they used was bogus and not even saturated to the level that exists in nature in the dead of winter at Niagara Falls and probably the University of Wisconsin as well.
So reading between the lines, my guess is that the people doing the research as well as the people that funded it have their PhD's in Physical Education and not in any of the legitimate fields of science. Two of my cousins have their PhD's in phys ed and neither of them ever had a physics course or a chemistry course even in high school as best I remember. Nor do I remember them as mental giants or math wizzards. That doesn't make them low class citizens but does put into perspective what one thinks of in the area of scientific ressearch- namely an Einstein or a Newton.
In any event, any scientist reading the "research" that Goey referenced, would laugh at their even publishing it after knowing what the lab measured as the oxygen content of the test water verses the control water.
But the ignorance goes deeper even than that. Any physiologist will tell you that women have, on average, 8% (or some such number) less hemoglobin than men in their bodies- which is the reason they faint easier. And so to set up a test using 6 men and 6 women, and then "randomly" mixing them in the cross-over study, is sure to make the test meaningless. If you doubt that, just look at the tables in the test on heart rate and blood pressure. The range included with each number insures that there will be no significant differences found.
Finally, the sample size (6 men and 6 women), who's only similarity seems to be that they are 22 years old, is so low one would think that millions of dollars in equipment cost or something else needed for the tests was involved rather than the cost of a bottle of water for each participant. Hell, they could have at least used the footabll team or basketball team, boy's or girls, for the test so they at least could assume they were all about at the same fitness level.
But hey, if you've stacked the deck with bogus "Superoxygenated water" to begin with, why go to the trouble of giving the appearance that at least your sample size is reasonable.
Also, they could easily have walked down to the physics department or engineering department and asked someone what the saturation of oxygen in air is verses what the saturation of oxygen is in a totally oxygen environment. These numbers have been around for a hundred years or more, or can esaily be calculated one from the other (using Henry's Law) and the fact that air contains about 21% oxygen.- so the equalibrium concentration of oxygen satureated water in an oxygen environment will be 100/21= 4.76 times as high at any given temperature and pressure than the corresponding saturation point in air.
So round off the 4.76 to 5 and the oxygen saturation of water at 32 degrees F from 14.8 to 15 ppm (ml/l) and you have 75 ppm as the stauration point of oxygen in water at 32 degrees in a pure oxygen environment. Granted that in distilled water it might stay supersaturated by maybe 10% for a time but the rates at which water loses oxygen are a whole different subject- but guaranteed it doesn't lose all it's oxygen and revert back to the concentration in air in minutes or even hours- probably more like days.
And to handle the objection of the fellow that calculated out (I didn't check his calculations) how little oxygen is in water, The analogy to one's car tires is appropriate. Water, with it's oxygen, that goes into the lymph system (approximately 2/3 of it) totally bypasses the circulatory system. Hemoglobin can only deliver it's oxygen at a maximum of 39 mmHg- and it goes down from there as we age. Oyxgen in the water I'm talking about (distilled water saturated with oxygen at 32 F) is close to 760 mmHg (atmospheric pressure). That's almost 20 times the pressure delivered at the cell wall as is possible by hemoglobin. And that is the difference between drinking oxygen saturated water and breathing air.
The one doesn't by any means replace the other, it just does different things- like waking up cells that have been starved for oxygen because they're sick and oxygen at 39 mmHg doesn't get to them to make them better, or perhaps the hemoglobin is only delivering it's oxygen at 32 mmHg instead of 39, in which case a dose of higher oxygen partial pressure might keep cells alive even while it's also waking up those sick or lazy hemoglobin molecules.
The matter of highly oxygenated water is more about rates and pressure gradients than it is about amounts. For example, in the average person some 80 million Red Blood Cells die per minute- just in the normal course of life. They die because they start getting to little oxygen and death happens when they get none.
Perhaps Krys can give us more info on the normal life cycle of a red blood cell, but even if that was slowed down by only 1%, it would result in a substantial increase in oxygen delivery.
Let's say you like a smooth ride in your car and so inflate the tires to only 28 psig. You'll burn more gas and your tires will wear out faster, but until you have a blow out from bald tires you'll have a better ride.
On the other hand, if you have a car with good springs and shock absorbers, you'll probably not notice the difference in ride if you put air in the tires at 35 psig. You will get better gas milage, your tires will last longer, and you'll get to the same places you did when the air pressure was only 28 psig- only you'll get to more places before a blow out from bald tires occurs.
Oh, before I go, there is another caveat to double-blind, cross-over, placebo controlled "research". One must add "well- designed" to really sound scientific. Obviously the one mentioned above was not well designed and should never have seen the light of day.
If the benefits are really as scientific and tangible as you say they are, David, then why don't you go to James Randi and offer up your wunderwasser for a double-blind experiment? If you manage to prove your claims, you'll be one rich man very quickly. (Look at Dr. Atkins...or Dr. Phil, for that matter. Doesn't matter if you can't patent it, no one's stopping you from writing the next Big Fad Book™ and making a mint.)
After all, true science has nothing to fear from testing and verification, because the answers will always be the same, if it's real science. Yet, you get quite defensive when anyone questions your home-grown oxy-gospel. Why? If you have hard facts to back up what you say, then they'll speak much louder than any irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Goey made a good point--if you were suckered into selling PFAL with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, it stands to reason that it could happen again with a different product.
At any rate, you have made a few glaring chemical gaffes that I feel it's my duty to point out to anyone considering fooling around with oxygen in their home.
1) Welder's oxygen is frequently contaminated with carbon monoxide, sometimes up to 3%, which is why it should never be used for breathing apparatus. Presumably, it's even nastier when concentrated and bypasses the obviously-horribly-inefficient respiratory system. (that God designed, right?)
2) Nearly every single thing in your house will ignite, given sufficient heat, and the ignition point lowers in the presence of elevated O2 levels in the atmosphere. (Even the solid aluminum metal armor plate of the HMS Sheffield ignited when hit by an Argentinian Exocet missile, but I digress.) Unless there is a bona fide medical requirement for supplemental oxygen, the heightened risk of fire far outweighs the benefits. The astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 tragedy owe their deaths to the capsules 100% pure oxygen atmosphere at 15psi. One spark, one piece of Velcro insulation in the wrong place, and BOOM--three dead.
3) For all your supposed chemical expertise, you honestly don't know why your urine turned clear? Good grief. You bleached it! How do you think Clorox and OxiClean get stains out?
Look, if you're really onto something, get busy PROVING the science instead of DEFENDING the concept. You'll save a lot of hassle down the road if you spend your time more productively.
#1. Normally red blood cells live about 90 days in a healthy normal adult. When they begin to become inefficient, they are sent to the spleen for storage in case of emergency. If not used they go to the liver where they are systematically decomposed and some of their parts sent to waste, and some to produce bile and some to be recycled into new rbc's.[in an emergency, the spleen will forcefully contract and squeeze these not up to par cells into circulation to assist a failing system. Hey - it's not perfect, but some assistance is better than none at all.]
#2. It takes a normal adult between 90 - 120 days to broduce new rbc's - depending on general health and overall nutrition...the norm is closer to 90.
#3. double blind test studies are unnecessary when studying chemistry or physics...those rules have already been worked out BUT if you try to apply those rules to a living system...you need those kinds of tests because (a) we don't know all the rules of operation inside the black box called "living" and (b) every living thing is different...so it's physiology is also genetically different.
#4 If I were to design a double blind study of oxygenated water on humans - I would NOT use those whose bodies are already primed for physical activity. Once you've maxed out....you won't see an improvement. And I believe the healthy athletes have already maxed their circulation etc to match their performance...I wouldn't expect to see any change no matter what was done...(poisonining not withstanding).
I would use an ordinary group of college age (only because they are generally the healthiest)mostly sedintary folks. These guys don't have trained bodies, and I believe, if there is a difference in performance it would be shown here where the potential for improvement is great.
#5. Oxygen does have the ability to bleach! But I can't understand how David's urine could have been bleached by oxygen which you claim isn't in the water in the first place!?
#6. I'm ashamed to have been part of this thread if it's going to end on the comparison of the quality of one's burps!
I am very thankful to Raf and Zixar and Geoy for their input. I was waiting for you guys to weigh in on this. I was interested to read your logic and comments.
Except for the fact that I myself am compromised, I cannot see WHY this is beneficial to myself....I just know that it is...and I really don't believe it is a placebo effect [although anything is possible], this doesn't mean it is the end-all and be-all for all humanity.
I apologize for my bluntness, but as far as I'm concerned (and I'm being dead serious about this) the quality of one's burp is the only thing about superoxygenated water worth discussing. All else is a waste of perfectly useful vocabulary.
quote:One example of "voodoo science" Park gave was "superoxygenated" water produced locally by a company that claims it boosts the performance of athletes. Allan Stauffer, York professor of physics and astronomy and one of the congress organizers, said Parks analyzed the bottled contents bearing in mind that, for oxygen to be effective, it has to go into the bloodstream, usually through the lungs via the breathing process.
Stauffer pointed out, smiling, "The bottled superoxygenated water goes into the stomach first and somehow the oxygen has to be absorbed by the blood. What Park demonstrated was that you would need to drinks litres of the water per minute to get enough oxygen into the bloodstream in the hopes of boosting your athletic performance by even a few per cent. And that is called 'drowning'."
quote:#5. Oxygen does have the ability to bleach! But I can't understand how David's urine could have been bleached by oxygen which you claim isn't in the water in the first place!?
Same way soda doesn't go flat when you open it, even though you hear the fizz. Not all of it leaves. A lot does. But not all.
By the way, why would you be ashamed to discuss the quality of a burp but not the clarity of someone else's urine?
I don't know if anyone's done a study on the comparative effect of superoxygenated water on urine color. Unless such a study has been done, claims that "it cleared mine" are purely anecdotal and prove nothing.
By the way, lest I lose my posting credentials on this thread, the name's Olmeda. Rafael. I haven't published a book, but I have published well over 2,000 articles in two top 20 circulation newspapers across the country. Oh, and I'm listed.
David,
If you would, could you provide me with one scientific study that establishes the benefits of this stuff, conducted by someone who is not selling it?
One thing you might want to keep in mind amongst all of us so-called 'godless naysayers' --> (
And the overbearing amount of verbiage that goes with your pitch might even work against you for that matter. Particularly when it proves little, if anything.
I mean, we 'signed the green card' w/o question once before, and for many of us, it started out on a very rough and abusive trip.
So, if I were you, I wouldn't take the 'accept my sales pitch---err post as Gospel, or I'll dismiss you as the worthless godless naysayers that you are!' tack with us, please.
I've spent considerable time reading and looking for resources. I've invested a lot trying to make what I've posted understandable to those who don't have any background in physiology. I'm ashamed of all that since the whole 6 pages of dialogue go up in a couple of bloated burps! I'd rather have the thread sink into oblivion and die a normal death.
Somebody's urine can trun clear from drinking an abundance of water...it does not need bleaching.
quote: And please, don't go away from the thread. I'll leave if you do.
I'd rather leave with a posting credentials of 0 than those of -2.
I read every posted link and went looking for others and read them too. I'm trying to figure out why I feel better and there's nothing to base it on...I'm not willing to toss it into the placebo box quite yet. You have no how idea how foolish I feel after all that.
Stay or leave, as you wish, but don't pin what you do on a response to what I do! That would be stupider that stupid...besides, your opinions have been duly noted, and I don't really expect you to post on this thread again.
But when people start flinging their posting credentials around, it's time for those who have none to bow out.
Krys, I hope you won't abandon this thread because of the rudeness of a few.
I've learned a lot from your posts. I haven't posted much since the beginning of this thread because I wanted to defer to those who have a scientific background (e.g., you and David) and just consider your words and read some more on the subject.
You, my GS friend with the lovely butterfly, DO have credentials. They come from your consistently posting honestly and from the heart. They come from sharing on subjects you know about, as opposed to trying to show everyone how smart you are by denigrating others' opinions.
So I hope you'll stick around on this thread (and of course around GS!), dear Krys. Ditto for you, David.
To everyone who's so self-righteously pooh-poohing what David and Krys have said, let me just say that skepticism is healthy, but that it can reach a point where it just becomes disrespectful and contentious.
And Garth, David's name isn't "Davey," it's David. Whether you agree with what he says or not, MUST you so frequently reduce discussions to a derisive form of someone's name?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
72
106
68
48
Popular Days
Jan 29
30
Apr 26
21
Jan 18
17
Feb 9
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 72 posts
David Anderson 106 posts
krys 68 posts
oldiesman 48 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2005
30 posts
Apr 26 2005
21 posts
Jan 18 2005
17 posts
Feb 9 2005
16 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame
So God is a "He"~~~ interesting that box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Hey Goey, you're the one hiding your name, not me. I have no problem with who I am or people knowing my name. In fact, I even wrote a book with my name on it. It's called "The Two Ways of the First Century Church" and you can read the entire book, for free, including the brief biography at the end, at http://www.en.com/users/anders
That will give you an even better idea of who I am, where I'm coming from, and why. In fact, if you have one you've written, I'll be happy to exchange hard copies and then we'll both know more about each other that we did before.
But I still see no link furnished by you to the study you rely on to "prove" that highly oxygenated water doesn't work. Are you going to give us anything to go on, like maybe the title of the study, author's name, etc. or are we to believe it's as sloppy as your report of it with the 97% of something line?
We're not talking rocket science here but merely water and oxygen. Good thing your mother didn't demand that AMA approved research papers be given her before giving you a glass of water or you'd have been dead long ago.
So Pal, how about a name, a link, a title, something to go on to flesh out your cheep shot from the peanut gallary. Or maybe you can use your influence to have me thrown out of this fine establishment. For all I know you may be one of those rich and powerful people that can push your way around at the expense of others. You may even have some kind of vested interest in destroying a good thing because you want to sell something else. If not, buy some Penta Water and try it. It won't kill you and just might help you. But it will cost you more than the water from your kitchen sink so that's a consideration.
Hey, I know, make some yourself! I've told you how to do it and so you can save lots of money, maybe even go into competition with Penta Water and sell it in your neighborhood. Just don't process the water like they do or you'll be in violation of their patent. Personally I think it's the oxygen they add that makes it benificial and not the five water molecule clusters- that may or may not survive until you drink it.
Actually, what I'm trying to give you here is some Power for Abundant Living. I didn't get the information from VPW, though he was an excellent teacher, even if a liar and a thief as you say. But the Master that I serve really does want you to have life and have it more abundantly than anybody before him was able to give. But then maybe you're one of those unfortunates that threw out the baby with the bathwater when your "hero" didn't get you all the goodies you wanted.
Any more at all about the University of Wesconsin study you brought up- suposedly for discussion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Scientifically, the burden of proof lies with the claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Assuming 75 ppm dissolved oxygen at 32 degrees, the amount of molecular oxygen in a liter of the stuff is about half that in one normal breath. Even if the oxygen were to remain dissolved through the warmth, churning, and chemical reactions of the stomach, and absorption were 100% (it wouldn't be) at best drinking it would provide no more oxygen than taking a few extra breaths a day.
It may very well taste good and be refreshing (as is any good-tasting, cold water) but it won't provide much extra oxygen to the body, if any at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Here's a recent post lifted from a closed discussion group called Horsescience. Notice the similarities between what it says and what has been posted here since the beginning of December.
Just a little more antedotal evidence about highly oxygenated water. Seems good news does travel as fast as bad news- it just travels in different circles. Why before long there will be so much antidotal evidence that the AMA might even sponsor one of those "peer reviewed" tests that nobody reads. Hmmm, maybe the Edmonton Sun is tapped into the Greasespotcafe.com!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Here it is. http://www.css.edu/users/tboone2/asep/Porcari.pdf
And BTW - I never said it doesn't work - I said that you have provided nothing other than opinions and anectotal evidence. I highly doubt that it works as you claim.
LOL - What an idiotic dissertation. I have absolutoely no infulence here and am not sure if Pawtucket even likes me. So what's with the ad hominem and conspiracy horsecrap? My guess is that you were probably one of the high flying Way Corps bozos - an "abuser" in TWI - considering the way you respond with personal attacks and conjure up silly conspiracy theories when you are questioned and not adoringly believed and obeyed.Take a hike A H.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Hello all. Looks like a few nay-saysers have showed up in an attempt to derail this discussion so please allow me to see if I can answer them all in one post.
First of all, the fields of chemistry and physics are exact sciences and need no double- blind, cross-over tests to establish their validity. They are based on well proven laws that govern the universe and if one knows the laws he or she can use them to explain how something happens, why it happens, and predict what will happen if the same set of circumstances happen again- namely, the same thing, over and over again- as a matter of law not a matter of speculation or opinion.
Some, it seems, are confused by what is based on law and fact and what is mere opinion. But that is their problem, not mine. Others confuse psudoscience with with exact science. But again, that is their problem not mine. Some, it appears, have not even read the many posts that preceed this one and to them I'll only say that I have no interest whatsoever in repeating what they could already read if they weren't so lazy.
Goey has done us the favor of posting the link to the study he came across. I suggest you all read it- especially the fine print. For although they allude many times to "Superoxygenated water", the fact is that they did have both the tap water used as a control and the AquaRush brand bottled water used in the test (that they repeatedly say is billed at 7-10 times the amount of oxygen found in tap water) measured by the folks that know what they are doing at the University of Wesconsin (the testing lab) and report that the former contained 4.8 mlO2/l (ppm) verses 13.5 mlO2/l (ppm) in the AquaRush water.
They should have saved their time and the American Council on Exercise's expense before they even began the test. For the AquaRush water they used is not "Superoxygenated" and, in fact, they could have used water coming over Niagara Falls this time of year and had a higher concentration of oxygen in the test water.
The interesting thing about the study is the review of previous research at the beginning of it. Both of the studies mentioned showed there was a significant difference in preformance using oxygenated water verses using tap water. I didn't look up those papers and so don't know what oxygen concentration was in the test water of those studies. But evidently, these studies are what the one Goey referred to set out to refute.
The "American Council on Exercise" funded the study and their web page bills them as "a Workout Watchdog". So I rather assume they funded the "research" with an ulterior motive in mind. Otherwise I can't explain why they didn't ask for their money back as soon as it was known that the "Superoxygenated water" they used was bogus and not even saturated to the level that exists in nature in the dead of winter at Niagara Falls and probably the University of Wisconsin as well.
So reading between the lines, my guess is that the people doing the research as well as the people that funded it have their PhD's in Physical Education and not in any of the legitimate fields of science. Two of my cousins have their PhD's in phys ed and neither of them ever had a physics course or a chemistry course even in high school as best I remember. Nor do I remember them as mental giants or math wizzards. That doesn't make them low class citizens but does put into perspective what one thinks of in the area of scientific ressearch- namely an Einstein or a Newton.
In any event, any scientist reading the "research" that Goey referenced, would laugh at their even publishing it after knowing what the lab measured as the oxygen content of the test water verses the control water.
But the ignorance goes deeper even than that. Any physiologist will tell you that women have, on average, 8% (or some such number) less hemoglobin than men in their bodies- which is the reason they faint easier. And so to set up a test using 6 men and 6 women, and then "randomly" mixing them in the cross-over study, is sure to make the test meaningless. If you doubt that, just look at the tables in the test on heart rate and blood pressure. The range included with each number insures that there will be no significant differences found.
Finally, the sample size (6 men and 6 women), who's only similarity seems to be that they are 22 years old, is so low one would think that millions of dollars in equipment cost or something else needed for the tests was involved rather than the cost of a bottle of water for each participant. Hell, they could have at least used the footabll team or basketball team, boy's or girls, for the test so they at least could assume they were all about at the same fitness level.
But hey, if you've stacked the deck with bogus "Superoxygenated water" to begin with, why go to the trouble of giving the appearance that at least your sample size is reasonable.
Also, they could easily have walked down to the physics department or engineering department and asked someone what the saturation of oxygen in air is verses what the saturation of oxygen is in a totally oxygen environment. These numbers have been around for a hundred years or more, or can esaily be calculated one from the other (using Henry's Law) and the fact that air contains about 21% oxygen.- so the equalibrium concentration of oxygen satureated water in an oxygen environment will be 100/21= 4.76 times as high at any given temperature and pressure than the corresponding saturation point in air.
So round off the 4.76 to 5 and the oxygen saturation of water at 32 degrees F from 14.8 to 15 ppm (ml/l) and you have 75 ppm as the stauration point of oxygen in water at 32 degrees in a pure oxygen environment. Granted that in distilled water it might stay supersaturated by maybe 10% for a time but the rates at which water loses oxygen are a whole different subject- but guaranteed it doesn't lose all it's oxygen and revert back to the concentration in air in minutes or even hours- probably more like days.
And to handle the objection of the fellow that calculated out (I didn't check his calculations) how little oxygen is in water, The analogy to one's car tires is appropriate. Water, with it's oxygen, that goes into the lymph system (approximately 2/3 of it) totally bypasses the circulatory system. Hemoglobin can only deliver it's oxygen at a maximum of 39 mmHg- and it goes down from there as we age. Oyxgen in the water I'm talking about (distilled water saturated with oxygen at 32 F) is close to 760 mmHg (atmospheric pressure). That's almost 20 times the pressure delivered at the cell wall as is possible by hemoglobin. And that is the difference between drinking oxygen saturated water and breathing air.
The one doesn't by any means replace the other, it just does different things- like waking up cells that have been starved for oxygen because they're sick and oxygen at 39 mmHg doesn't get to them to make them better, or perhaps the hemoglobin is only delivering it's oxygen at 32 mmHg instead of 39, in which case a dose of higher oxygen partial pressure might keep cells alive even while it's also waking up those sick or lazy hemoglobin molecules.
The matter of highly oxygenated water is more about rates and pressure gradients than it is about amounts. For example, in the average person some 80 million Red Blood Cells die per minute- just in the normal course of life. They die because they start getting to little oxygen and death happens when they get none.
Perhaps Krys can give us more info on the normal life cycle of a red blood cell, but even if that was slowed down by only 1%, it would result in a substantial increase in oxygen delivery.
Let's say you like a smooth ride in your car and so inflate the tires to only 28 psig. You'll burn more gas and your tires will wear out faster, but until you have a blow out from bald tires you'll have a better ride.
On the other hand, if you have a car with good springs and shock absorbers, you'll probably not notice the difference in ride if you put air in the tires at 35 psig. You will get better gas milage, your tires will last longer, and you'll get to the same places you did when the air pressure was only 28 psig- only you'll get to more places before a blow out from bald tires occurs.
Oh, before I go, there is another caveat to double-blind, cross-over, placebo controlled "research". One must add "well- designed" to really sound scientific. Obviously the one mentioned above was not well designed and should never have seen the light of day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
If the benefits are really as scientific and tangible as you say they are, David, then why don't you go to James Randi and offer up your wunderwasser for a double-blind experiment? If you manage to prove your claims, you'll be one rich man very quickly. (Look at Dr. Atkins...or Dr. Phil, for that matter. Doesn't matter if you can't patent it, no one's stopping you from writing the next Big Fad Book™ and making a mint.)
After all, true science has nothing to fear from testing and verification, because the answers will always be the same, if it's real science. Yet, you get quite defensive when anyone questions your home-grown oxy-gospel. Why? If you have hard facts to back up what you say, then they'll speak much louder than any irrelevant ad hominem arguments. Goey made a good point--if you were suckered into selling PFAL with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, it stands to reason that it could happen again with a different product.
At any rate, you have made a few glaring chemical gaffes that I feel it's my duty to point out to anyone considering fooling around with oxygen in their home.
1) Welder's oxygen is frequently contaminated with carbon monoxide, sometimes up to 3%, which is why it should never be used for breathing apparatus. Presumably, it's even nastier when concentrated and bypasses the obviously-horribly-inefficient respiratory system. (that God designed, right?)
2) Nearly every single thing in your house will ignite, given sufficient heat, and the ignition point lowers in the presence of elevated O2 levels in the atmosphere. (Even the solid aluminum metal armor plate of the HMS Sheffield ignited when hit by an Argentinian Exocet missile, but I digress.) Unless there is a bona fide medical requirement for supplemental oxygen, the heightened risk of fire far outweighs the benefits. The astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 tragedy owe their deaths to the capsules 100% pure oxygen atmosphere at 15psi. One spark, one piece of Velcro insulation in the wrong place, and BOOM--three dead.
3) For all your supposed chemical expertise, you honestly don't know why your urine turned clear? Good grief. You bleached it! How do you think Clorox and OxiClean get stains out?
Look, if you're really onto something, get busy PROVING the science instead of DEFENDING the concept. You'll save a lot of hassle down the road if you spend your time more productively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I may add my anecdote as evidence:
I find superoxygenated water produces a far more satisfying burp than regular water.
Almost no aftertaste.
Another unreliable study to add to Bill Goey's unreliable study.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
David
This is what the "Mind of Minolta" has become.
Only you will know what I mean.
Your Bro Down the Road,
CWF
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I prefer beer for my burps. Tastes good, less filling and cheaper!
:D-->
sorry for the derail. I just couldn't resist!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah, Belle.
It's not nice to fool mother nature.
Only you will know what I mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
#1. Normally red blood cells live about 90 days in a healthy normal adult. When they begin to become inefficient, they are sent to the spleen for storage in case of emergency. If not used they go to the liver where they are systematically decomposed and some of their parts sent to waste, and some to produce bile and some to be recycled into new rbc's.[in an emergency, the spleen will forcefully contract and squeeze these not up to par cells into circulation to assist a failing system. Hey - it's not perfect, but some assistance is better than none at all.]
#2. It takes a normal adult between 90 - 120 days to broduce new rbc's - depending on general health and overall nutrition...the norm is closer to 90.
#3. double blind test studies are unnecessary when studying chemistry or physics...those rules have already been worked out BUT if you try to apply those rules to a living system...you need those kinds of tests because (a) we don't know all the rules of operation inside the black box called "living" and (b) every living thing is different...so it's physiology is also genetically different.
#4 If I were to design a double blind study of oxygenated water on humans - I would NOT use those whose bodies are already primed for physical activity. Once you've maxed out....you won't see an improvement. And I believe the healthy athletes have already maxed their circulation etc to match their performance...I wouldn't expect to see any change no matter what was done...(poisonining not withstanding).
I would use an ordinary group of college age (only because they are generally the healthiest)mostly sedintary folks. These guys don't have trained bodies, and I believe, if there is a difference in performance it would be shown here where the potential for improvement is great.
#5. Oxygen does have the ability to bleach! But I can't understand how David's urine could have been bleached by oxygen which you claim isn't in the water in the first place!?
#6. I'm ashamed to have been part of this thread if it's going to end on the comparison of the quality of one's burps!
I am very thankful to Raf and Zixar and Geoy for their input. I was waiting for you guys to weigh in on this. I was interested to read your logic and comments.
Except for the fact that I myself am compromised, I cannot see WHY this is beneficial to myself....I just know that it is...and I really don't believe it is a placebo effect [although anything is possible], this doesn't mean it is the end-all and be-all for all humanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Krys,
I apologize for my bluntness, but as far as I'm concerned (and I'm being dead serious about this) the quality of one's burp is the only thing about superoxygenated water worth discussing. All else is a waste of perfectly useful vocabulary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
LOL!!
Source: http://www.yorku.ca/ycom/gazette/past/arch...81600/issue.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Same way soda doesn't go flat when you open it, even though you hear the fizz. Not all of it leaves. A lot does. But not all.
By the way, why would you be ashamed to discuss the quality of a burp but not the clarity of someone else's urine?
I don't know if anyone's done a study on the comparative effect of superoxygenated water on urine color. Unless such a study has been done, claims that "it cleared mine" are purely anecdotal and prove nothing.
By the way, lest I lose my posting credentials on this thread, the name's Olmeda. Rafael. I haven't published a book, but I have published well over 2,000 articles in two top 20 circulation newspapers across the country. Oh, and I'm listed.
David,
If you would, could you provide me with one scientific study that establishes the benefits of this stuff, conducted by someone who is not selling it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Davey,
One thing you might want to keep in mind amongst all of us so-called 'godless naysayers'
--> (
And the overbearing amount of verbiage that goes with your pitch might even work against you for that matter. Particularly when it proves little, if anything.
I mean, we 'signed the green card' w/o question once before, and for many of us, it started out on a very rough and abusive trip.
So, if I were you, I wouldn't take the 'accept my sales pitch---err post as Gospel, or I'll dismiss you as the worthless godless naysayers that you are!' tack with us, please.
That will get you nowhere fast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
is not the same as:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I have a name too, but I can't post it in public.
I've never written two paragraphs worthy of preserving.
I think that makes my posting credentials = 0!
Since that's the case, I shall not bother to do so again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah, you are correct on the "ashamed" line. I would rephrase, but why?
:)-->
And please, don't go away from the thread. I'll leave if you do.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I've spent considerable time reading and looking for resources. I've invested a lot trying to make what I've posted understandable to those who don't have any background in physiology. I'm ashamed of all that since the whole 6 pages of dialogue go up in a couple of bloated burps! I'd rather have the thread sink into oblivion and die a normal death.
Somebody's urine can trun clear from drinking an abundance of water...it does not need bleaching.
I'd rather leave with a posting credentials of 0 than those of -2.
I read every posted link and went looking for others and read them too. I'm trying to figure out why I feel better and there's nothing to base it on...I'm not willing to toss it into the placebo box quite yet. You have no how idea how foolish I feel after all that.
Stay or leave, as you wish, but don't pin what you do on a response to what I do! That would be stupider that stupid...besides, your opinions have been duly noted, and I don't really expect you to post on this thread again.
But when people start flinging their posting credentials around, it's time for those who have none to bow out.
".....poof....."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Krys, I hope you won't abandon this thread because of the rudeness of a few.
I've learned a lot from your posts. I haven't posted much since the beginning of this thread because I wanted to defer to those who have a scientific background (e.g., you and David) and just consider your words and read some more on the subject.
You, my GS friend with the lovely butterfly, DO have credentials. They come from your consistently posting honestly and from the heart. They come from sharing on subjects you know about, as opposed to trying to show everyone how smart you are by denigrating others' opinions.
So I hope you'll stick around on this thread (and of course around GS!), dear Krys. Ditto for you, David.
To everyone who's so self-righteously pooh-poohing what David and Krys have said, let me just say that skepticism is healthy, but that it can reach a point where it just becomes disrespectful and contentious.
And Garth, David's name isn't "Davey," it's David. Whether you agree with what he says or not, MUST you so frequently reduce discussions to a derisive form of someone's name?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.