The attempt to shut these sort of results down by pointing out the lack of scientific explanation is a bit sad in my optics.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>See: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619805/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619805/</a>
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?<p>[0] <a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2007.7048" rel="nofollow">https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2007.7048</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioxidant</a>