
Effectiveness of Grounded Sleeping on Recovery After Eccentric Muscle Loading - arnoooooo
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00035/full
======
dingdingdang
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.

~~~
dkarl
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.

~~~
jbotz
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.

------
andor
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.

See:
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619805/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619805/)

~~~
joshspankit
Or it was indicating that the protocol was reducing blood lactate levels.

~~~
andor
I'm not sure what you mean?

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.

~~~
joshspankit
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”

------
pjc50
I don't care if this is peer-reviewed, the physics in it is highly suspect.
Electrons do not wander into your bloodstream like that.

~~~
jbob2000
They didn't wander, they travelled through the wire that's connected from your
body to the ground.

~~~
pjc50
.. 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!

~~~
jbob2000
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.

~~~
pjc50
From the paper:

> 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?

------
xjwm
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?

[0]
[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2007.7048](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2007.7048)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant)

------
ed312
n=22. Didn't see any mention of accidental grounding, not sure this is a
rigorous enough design.

~~~
WalterSear
The low number of participants is to be expected. The Journal is _Frontiers_
in Physiology.

