• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Hydrogen Water as a much cheaper alternative to MK677?

hydrogen water ghrelin

  • Please log in to reply
577 replies to this topic

#511 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 30 July 2017 - 03:44 PM

I usually fill my test tube to about 1 cm before the top, for the very reason you describe: to stop the reactants getting into the water in the bottle. 



#512 Oakman

  • Member
  • 532 posts
  • 272
  • Location:CO

Posted 30 July 2017 - 06:30 PM

Has anyone tried this brand > HTWO™ Hydrogen Water, and if so, is it any good and what noticeable effects have you observed?

It's available local to me here for about $1.50 box (of 1), if I remember right.  Is that a decent price?

That seems like a lot for water, but if it really does anything amazing different and wonderful (attested to by someone on the forum here?) ...maybe

All the links I looked at so far suggest it does something, mostly as an antioxidant, but so do a myriad of other substances. So the question is...

Is this just "one more antioxidant thing" or is this something unique that does something other antioxidants do not do?

 

81voZdcuIQL._SX522_.jpg



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#513 aconita

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 245
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 31 July 2017 - 01:27 AM

As the thread title implies hydrogen water leads to ghrelin release which in turn should stimulate HG.

 

As an antioxidant it should work at a mitochondrial level too, which isn't what your common antioxidant is able to achieve.

 

But likely there are other action's mechanism we don't grasp yet.

 

Amazing and wonderful?

 

I wouldn't push it so far, not in most cases at least, I wouldn't spend 1.50$ everyday on it...but it is interesting indeed and since to homemade cost near to nothing.... 



#514 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 108
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 31 July 2017 - 04:31 AM

@Hip,

In post 473 you write: "As far as ghrelin release is concerned, even low ppm concentrations of 0.08 ppm have been shown to be just as effective as higher concentrations..."--presumably referring to hydrogen-rich water.

Then, in post 476 you state that the H concentration in blood ("in the stomach") must be "...at least 0.08 ppm (the minimum concentration in the stomach known to release ghrelin)".

You proceed in post 477 to make a calculation (for which you have made certain assumptions). From your calculation you arrive at a value of 0.03ppm for "the assumed 1 liter of blood surrounding your lungs" from inhaling H2. Concluding that:

"So all in all, it does not look very likely that you will reach the 0.08 ppm H2 concentration in your blood with just one lungful of H2 gas, although this is only a rough calculation. You may need to take 5 or 10 lungfuls of H2 (slowly over a period of say 5 or 10 minutes), each held in as long as possible, in order to stand a reasonable chance hitting the 0.08 ppm concentration and stimulating ghrelin release."

Does the 0.08ppm minimum concentration needed for ghrelin release refer to a hydrogen-rich-water concentration ingested in some unstated amount or does it refer to what the blood concentration must be for ghrelin release?



#515 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 31 July 2017 - 04:51 AM

Does the 0.08ppm minimum concentration needed for ghrelin release refer to a hydrogen-rich-water concentration ingested in some unstated amount or does it refer to what the blood concentration must be for ghrelin release?

 

0.08 ppm refers to the minimum concentration of H2 in the hydrogen rich water known to trigger ghrelin release from the stomach, when taken orally, according to the study I cited. However, it is conceivable (but not proven) that the same ghrelin release might also be achieved if you were breathing H2 into the lungs, and your blood levels of H2 then reached 0.08 ppm. So that was the basis of my calculation.

 

But all we know for sure, based on the study, is that drinking 0.08 ppm or higher hydrogen rich water triggers  ghrelin release.


Edited by Hip, 31 July 2017 - 04:53 AM.


#516 Lreader

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 5
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 31 July 2017 - 12:24 PM

Hip, regarding HTWO hydrogen water referenced above, in their FAQ's they state: "Drink it about 30 minutes prior to any high performance activity or prior to any meal."

 

I usually start preparing my homemade hydrogen water when I start to prepare my breakfast, so that my hydrogen water is ready for drinking after I have finished my breakfast. Do you think I miss some of the benefits of hydrogen water by washing down my meal with it?



#517 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 31 July 2017 - 01:36 PM

Do you think I miss some of the benefits of hydrogen water by washing down my meal with it?

 

I'd like to know the answer to that question too: given that we now know much of the benefits of hydrogen rich water come through its ability to stimulate ghrelin release in the stomach, does having food in your stomach interfere with this ghrelin release? I would think that question could only answered by a study that measured ghrelin levels.


Edited by Hip, 31 July 2017 - 01:36 PM.


#518 Nate-2004

  • Member
  • 2,018 posts
  • 247
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 02 August 2017 - 07:23 PM

I haven't been keeping up with this thread but intermittent fasting is probably a better, cheaper way to activate ghrelin pathways and stimulate growth hormone than MK-677 or hydrogen water. So is sauna use, though that includes IGF-1.

 

I've quit making hydrogen water, it wasn't really helping all that much and was such a hassle. While there are a list of about 33 studies out there, they're all very specific targets with hardly significant results and only on mice. In my opinion there's nothing that can be claimed about it until more human research is done. Also, while it's a mild antioxidant compared to say, vitamin E, there is such a thing as being too antioxidant. ROS is just as important. It's why SENS aims to leave the metabolic processes alone and aim for cleaning up damage instead.


Edited by Nate-2004, 02 August 2017 - 07:23 PM.


#519 mfad

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Washington

Posted 03 August 2017 - 07:00 AM

Haven't glanced through much of the thread, but what you guys think about the hydrogen water generators? It can be used for roughly 7000 times I believe - something along these lines. Seems the best route?

 

link: https://www.amazon.c...rich+water&th=1



#520 Senshido

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Germany
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 08:48 AM

Can anyone tell me how it is possible (chemical) that you can produce a 13 ppm!!! water (500 ml) out of only 80 mg magnesium-malat in 5-10 minutes?! There is a company which claims that. They sell tablets that dissolve in water. They say that they produce much more ppm than other brands because competing brands have a lower level or quality of active ingredients plus a less effective design. Is this a scam or chemical possible?! I mean we use the same reaction in the DIY-methods that are explained in this thread and 5-7 ppm can be produced with arount 500 mg of magnesium with this methods. But 13 ppm with only 80 mg magnesium-malate?!?! If this is possible, than it must be repeatable in any way with the DIY-methods. I know that we dont have to produce such high ppm rates for health benefits, but i was baffled because of this advertising and would like to know, if this is possible at all? I was reading about the 13 ppm-product here in german:

 

https://www.ergomax....ff-60-tabletten

and here in english:

http://yourwatermatt...gen-rich-water/

 

Ingredients: 80 mg Magnesium-Malat, Lactose, DL-Malic acid, Natriumstearylfumarat

 

....which does not sound "magicial" in relation to the DIY-methods.

 


Edited by Senshido, 05 August 2017 - 08:49 AM.


#521 aconita

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 245
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 10:46 AM

Because the tablet obviously contains magnesium in powder form it  might be possible for the reaction to be much faster given the greater surface exposed compared to rods, the same can be achieved using mag powder instead of rods.

 

Maybe the faster reaction allows for a smaller mag amount to be used.

 

About the claimed concentration I would like to see some evidence since from experience it seems that pressure is a reaction limiting factor (once reached a certain pressure inside the bottle the reaction stops therefore no more hydrogen is produced).

 

The claim of quality ingredients is a bit vague, magnesium is magnesium and malic acid is malic acid, there is no better quality or worst quality, there might be a different purity degree but food grade malic acid doesn't come much purer and even if it does I seriously doubt it would make any difference in the reaction process, mag doesn't come as food grade but we are talking of high degrees of purity anyway.

 

I don't think there isn't anything special in that tablets but the easy of use.

 

Premix malic acid and mag powder and use a scoop of appropriate size or load  00 capsules with it to get almost the same easiness of use.

 

Sodium stearyl fumarate is a water-soluble lubricant used in the pharmaceutical industry for compressing tablets and lactose is a binding agent, totally irrelevant reaction wise.

 

Magnesium malate is the only extra ingredient, I can't see how it would help but my chemistry knowledge is to low to state anything about it.



#522 Senshido

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Germany
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 11:19 AM

The Instructions for the tablets say:

..."Drop one tablet in a plastic bottle (335-600ml/11-20 oz) with a narrow mouth and tight-ftting lid. Bottles made for carbonated drinks are ideal. Fill the bottle filled to the brim with clean, water. Cold water produces best. Drop H2 tab(s) into the bottle and immediately close the lid tightly.Wait 5 to 10 minutes. Shake the bottle vigorously, and especially before opening. Drink the hydrogen infused water all at once."...

 

...so high pressure is used here too. And for the mag powder... i use such fine powder already (300 µm fine and 99,93% pure) but i get no higher ppm rates with less magnesium. For arount 3 - 3,5 ppm i need min. 250 mg mag. powder. So therefore it seems nearly impossible for me that 80 mg can produce 13 ppm.



#523 aconita

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 245
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 11:32 AM

There are only two variables: the mag/malic ratio and the mag malate.

 

It is easy to test both by keeping the mag amount the same playing around with different amounts of malic acid and by repeating the same but adding a mag malate tab to see what happens.

 

 



#524 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 05 August 2017 - 02:55 PM

Can anyone tell me how it is possible (chemical) that you can produce a 13 ppm!!! water (500 ml) out of only 80 mg magnesium-malat in 5-10 minutes?! 

 

The final ppm you achieve depends not only on the amount of reactants (magnesium + acid) that you place inside the bottle, but also depends a lot on the rigidity of the bottle, and how much that bottle expands in size under the pressure of the hydrogen gas produced within in. A rigid metal bottle, which will resist expansion under pressure more than a plastic soda bottle, would likely make higher ppm concentrations, even if the bottles are the same size and contain the same amount of reactants.

 

When I use a 1.5 liter plastic soda bottle to make my hydrogen rich water, I fill it completely to the top with water (which is recommended), with no air space at the top for the hydrogen gas to collect. But nevertheless, after 30 to 45 minutes, around 500 ml of hydrogen gas collects at the top of the bottle, but compressed by the pressure into a smaller volume of around 75 ml at the top of the bottle.

 

You can ask, how can this happen, because there was no air space at the top of the bottle, it was filled to the top with water, and water cannot be compressed into a smaller volume, so how did the bottle make room for an extra 75 ml of space for the hydrogen gas? The answer is that the pressure of the hydrogen gas inside the bottle expands and stretches the plastic of the bottle slightly, thereby slightly increasing the volume of the bottle, and that creates the extra 75 ml of space inside the bottle.

 

The amount that the bottle expands under pressure, and the amount of extra bottle volume that results from this expansion, depends not only on the pressure of the hydrogen gas inside the bottle (which in turn depends on the amount of reactants used), but also on the material of the bottle. If you used a rigid metal bottle, you would get less expansion of the bottle under pressure, and so in a metal bottle, your 500 ml of gas will be forced and pressurized into a smaller volume at the top of the bottle. 

 

So for example, in my plastic soda bottle, the 500 ml of hydrogen gas produced by the reaction gets compressed into around 75 ml at the top of the bottle, due to bottle expansion. But in a more rigid metal bottle that resists expansion, the expansion would be less, and so that same 500 ml would get compressed into a smaller volume, say 25 ml for example, at the top of the bottle, which is 3 times less space.

 

If you reduce the volume that a given amount of gas is compressed into, you will increase the gas pressure proportionally. So in this example, going from 75 ml to 25 ml, you will increase the pressure by a factor of 3.

 

When you increase the pressure, you get more hydrogen gas dissolved into the water. So that is how a more rigid metal bottle can produce higher ppm concentrations than a plastic soda bottle.

 

 

 

So to answer your question: I think the manufacturer of the Rejuvenation H2 tablets most likely used a strong rigid metal bottle to make the hydrogen rich water, and as a result, this created hydrogen rich water with much higher ppm concentrations of H2.

 

But as was discussed earlier on this thread, the amount of ghrelin release by drinking hydrogen rich water does not seem to depend on the ppm concentration. Even low concentrations of 0.8 ppm will release the same amount of ghrelin as higher concentrations. So from the ghrelin perspective, there is not much advantage in making higher ppm concentrations. 


Edited by Hip, 05 August 2017 - 03:01 PM.


#525 Oakman

  • Member
  • 532 posts
  • 272
  • Location:CO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:03 PM

It is well known fact that glass bottles hold a much higher carbonation than plastic bottles, plus they are far cheaper than metal, with no chance of contamination through any coatings metal containers might have.



#526 aconita

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 245
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:20 PM

If you reduce the volume that a given amount of gas is compressed into, you will increase the gas pressure proportionally. So in this example, going from 75 ml to 25 ml, you will increase the pressure by a factor of 3.

 

I am not sure about that.

 

It seems pressure is a reaction limiting factor therefore there is a certain pressure limit achievable with mag/malic acid reaction, if available reactants aren't a limiting factor (abundance of mag, malic and water) the pressure limit will be always reached and the same regardless of the container (if properly sealed, of course).

 

In our case reactants aren't the limit and containers are reasonably sealed therefore regardless of the container plasticity (a metal bottle against a plastic one) the achieved pressure would be always the same, it can't be pressure what makes the difference if pressure is the same.

 

What makes the difference is the extra space that a plastic bottle allows to be created by expanding under pressure which a metal bottle won't or at least to a much smaller degree.

 

If there is space hydrogen will prefer to collect there instead than in the water, the more space the more hydrogen collects there and not in the water, shaking "mixes" things up to a certain degree but it is possible that very little space is much better on regard of hydrogen concentration, something not achievable with plastic bottles.



#527 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:29 PM

It is well known fact that glass bottles hold a much higher carbonation than plastic bottles, plus they are far cheaper than metal, with no chance of contamination through any coatings metal containers might have.

 

I very much doubt it. Glass bottles will tend to explode at pressures higher than around 3 atmospheres or so (except champagne bottles, which can hold around 6 atmospheres), whereas plastic PET soda bottles will only explode at around 12 atmospheres. The amount of carbonation depends on the internal pressure you can safely achieve. 



#528 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:39 PM

It seems pressure is a reaction limiting factor therefore there is a certain pressure limit achievable with mag/malic acid reaction, if available reactants aren't a limiting factor (abundance of mag, malic and water) the pressure limit will be always reached and the same regardless of the container (if properly sealed, of course).

 

I thought initially that pressure might slow down the reaction rate, based on my observation that as the pressure increases inside the bottle, the stream of bubbles coming out of the test tube slows down considerably. But now I realize there is a flaw in that logic, because of course as the pressure increases inside the bottle, the amount of H2 gas in each bubble will increase proportionally. That is to say, as the pressure increases, each bubble will contain more H2 gas.

 

So if you have an internal pressure of say 7 atmospheres, the rate of production of bubbles will go down by a factor of 7, even if the reaction continues at the same rate and produces the same amount of H2 gas per minute.


Edited by Hip, 05 August 2017 - 03:43 PM.


#529 aconita

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,389 posts
  • 245
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:41 PM

It is well known fact that glass bottles hold a much higher carbonation than plastic bottles, plus they are far cheaper than metal, with no chance of contamination through any coatings metal containers might have.

 

Indeed...and glass doesn't possess much plasticity too (it doesn't expand), problem is sealing it.

 

Yes, I know latch sealing...it works all right for a few times, than the steel frame gets loose because of use and pressure and leaks, you change the rubber seal but not much happens, you bend the steel frame in shape but again after a while back to square one...

 

A bit frustrating.

 

I know because I do use a glass bottle and keep it upside down in order to have the water collaborating as a sealer for the hydrogen, I keep it upside down in the fridge inside a container and I can easily see how much water escapes, unlike hydrogen (bottle kept upside up) water is visible. :)

 

A really nice and sturdy latch would be a solution but is that available?

 

Glass bottles will tend to explode at pressures higher than around 3 atmospheres or so

 

It depends by the bottle, there are quite thick walled glass bottles intended for beer that I bet would hold quite a bit of pressure, anyway the latch sealing will give up first.



#530 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:49 PM

It depends by the bottle, there are quite thick walled glass bottles intended for beer that I bet would hold quite a bit of pressure, anyway the latch sealing will give up first.

 

Yes, the bottle tops on glass beer bottles are usually designed to give, and allow the contents to escape at pressures of around 3 atmospheres, as a safety feature. So that suggests that it is unsafe to have pressures higher than around 3 atmospheres in such glass bottles. 



#531 Senshido

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Germany
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:50 PM

The manufacturer of the Rejuvenation H2 tablets dont sell a special bottle with their tabs. The recommendation is to use a small plastic bottle made for carbonated drinks or a small steel bottle. And because they claim the 13 ppm can be produced with plastic or steel bottles i was irritated. Because when both bottle-types can produce 13 ppm water, although they react completely differently to pressure (extra space created by expanding and little to no extra space) i thought either they have a special "secret" or it is misleading advertising / scam.



#532 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:55 PM

And because they claim the 13 ppm can be produced with plastic or steel bottles i was irritated. 

 

I can't see in the link you posted where they claim that. They just say 13 ppm is the "maximum concentrations under ideal creation methods".


Edited by Hip, 05 August 2017 - 03:55 PM.


#533 Senshido

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Germany
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 04:42 PM

This is the missleading part i mean. They didn't write this directly in one sentence (in the english description), but let you assume.

 

"13 ppm under ideal creation methods" without writing exactly what these ideal creation methods are. Instead they advise to use plastic or steel bottles, which you can find under "FAQs" and "What is the best bottle for making hydrogen-rich water with Rejuvenation H2 tabs?". So this seems to be the best creation method at least from the customer's perspective who reads this, because why there should be a ideal creation method and the company doesn't describe it to their customer's? Therefore the customer thinks he can produce 13 ppm with this tablets and the bottles they recommend.

 

In the german advertising (link in the post earlier) they only write that their tablets are the best on the market because they produce 13 ppm in a closed bottle even without the note "under ideal creation methods". So that i mean with missleading and or scam.


Edited by Senshido, 05 August 2017 - 04:47 PM.


#534 Nate-2004

  • Member
  • 2,018 posts
  • 247
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 06:21 PM

 

Can anyone tell me how it is possible (chemical) that you can produce a 13 ppm!!! water (500 ml) out of only 80 mg magnesium-malat in 5-10 minutes?! 

 

The final ppm you achieve depends not only on the amount of reactants (magnesium + acid) that you place inside the bottle, but also depends a lot on the rigidity of the bottle, and how much that bottle expands in size under the pressure of the hydrogen gas produced within in. A rigid metal bottle, which will resist expansion under pressure more than a plastic soda bottle, would likely make higher ppm concentrations, even if the bottles are the same size and contain the same amount of reactants.

 

When I use a 1.5 liter plastic soda bottle to make my hydrogen rich water, I fill it completely to the top with water (which is recommended), with no air space at the top for the hydrogen gas to collect. But nevertheless, after 30 to 45 minutes, around 500 ml of hydrogen gas collects at the top of the bottle, but compressed by the pressure into a smaller volume of around 75 ml at the top of the bottle.

 

You can ask, how can this happen, because there was no air space at the top of the bottle, it was filled to the top with water, and water cannot be compressed into a smaller volume, so how did the bottle make room for an extra 75 ml of space for the hydrogen gas? The answer is that the pressure of the hydrogen gas inside the bottle expands and stretches the plastic of the bottle slightly, thereby slightly increasing the volume of the bottle, and that creates the extra 75 ml of space inside the bottle.

 

The amount that the bottle expands under pressure, and the amount of extra bottle volume that results from this expansion, depends not only on the pressure of the hydrogen gas inside the bottle (which in turn depends on the amount of reactants used), but also on the material of the bottle. If you used a rigid metal bottle, you would get less expansion of the bottle under pressure, and so in a metal bottle, your 500 ml of gas will be forced and pressurized into a smaller volume at the top of the bottle. 

 

So for example, in my plastic soda bottle, the 500 ml of hydrogen gas produced by the reaction gets compressed into around 75 ml at the top of the bottle, due to bottle expansion. But in a more rigid metal bottle that resists expansion, the expansion would be less, and so that same 500 ml would get compressed into a smaller volume, say 25 ml for example, at the top of the bottle, which is 3 times less space.

 

If you reduce the volume that a given amount of gas is compressed into, you will increase the gas pressure proportionally. So in this example, going from 75 ml to 25 ml, you will increase the pressure by a factor of 3.

 

When you increase the pressure, you get more hydrogen gas dissolved into the water. So that is how a more rigid metal bottle can produce higher ppm concentrations than a plastic soda bottle.

 

 

 

So to answer your question: I think the manufacturer of the Rejuvenation H2 tablets most likely used a strong rigid metal bottle to make the hydrogen rich water, and as a result, this created hydrogen rich water with much higher ppm concentrations of H2.

 

But as was discussed earlier on this thread, the amount of ghrelin release by drinking hydrogen rich water does not seem to depend on the ppm concentration. Even low concentrations of 0.8 ppm will release the same amount of ghrelin as higher concentrations. So from the ghrelin perspective, there is not much advantage in making higher ppm concentrations. 

 

 

You can probably achieve that with this bottle here. I may try again with these tabs when I get a chance. Even on that page they reference one or two mouse studies and some guy's hypothesis.



#535 Lreader

  • Guest
  • 26 posts
  • 5
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2017 - 07:51 PM

After many different setups using a metal bottle, and testing using H2 Blue, a scientist I correspond with did not exceeded 3 to 4 ppm concentration. The plastic bottle consistently achieves at least 5 ppm.

 

The 13 ppm mentioned in ads is misleading. One of the vendors told me it is due to measuring only the very top of the water where transient hydrogen is concentrated.

 

Once you get a routine it is very easy and cheap to make hydrogen water yourself. I drink it every single day, because when I skipped a day or two I definitely felt the difference. I frequently update my blog detailing my experiences: http://pieeconomics....log-page_2.html


Edited by Lreader, 05 August 2017 - 07:53 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#536 Senshido

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Germany
  • NO

Posted 06 August 2017 - 04:21 PM

I found a video where someone produces over 9 ppm in less than 2 minutes with one tablet and without any extra pressure from a closed bottle. Even though the concentrations are possibly only so high on the very top of the water for a short time, it is remarkable that this concentrations occur out of this little amount of magnesium-acid-mix and without any extra pressure. Therefore i think when this is possible, our DIY-methods can be pushed a little bit further in terms of effectiveness by playing around.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=a4GYubGtLSs


  • Informative x 1

#537 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:21 PM

I found a video where someone produces over 9 ppm in less than 2 minutes with one tablet and without any extra pressure from a closed bottle.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=a4GYubGtLSs

 

The only problem with that is it contradicts the laws of physics. In an open container at normal atmospheric pressure, the maximum concentration that you can achieve is 1.57 ppm. This comes from Henry’s Law.

 

 

I suspect that what is happening is that micro-particles of the reactants are floating off into the water and are continuing to react (those micro-particles I think form the milky cloud you see in the water). Then when you use the blue drops (H2Blue drops) to measure the ppm concentration, it measures more hydrogen that there actually is dissolved in the water, because the micro-particles of reactants are continuing to make hydrogen, even while you measure it. So you get a false reading. 

 

That's not to say that this product will not work; it will probably quite effective in stimulating ghrelin release in the stomach. But the claims that it produces 9 ppm in an open container I think are false. 


  • Good Point x 1

#538 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,331 posts
  • 626

Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:38 PM

I suspect that what is happening is that micro-particles of the reactants are floating off into the water and are continuing to react (those micro-particles I think form the milky cloud you see in the water). 

 

Assuming what you say is true (and more than likely probable), then wouldn't consuming the milky/cloudy solution allow it to continue reacting in the stomach increasing the efficacy of the desired effect?



#539 Hip

  • Guest
  • 435 posts
  • 171
  • Location:X

Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:44 PM

Assuming what you say is true (and more than likely probable), then wouldn't consuming the milky/cloudy solution allow it to continue reacting in the stomach increasing the efficacy of the desired effect?

 

Given that we know ghrelin release occurs with hydrogen rich water of 0.8 ppm concentration, and that further increases of ppm concentration do not produce any extra ghrelin release, then I don't think this product continuing reacting in the stomach will provide any further benefits, at least from the ghrelin perspective.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#540 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 108
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:58 PM

@Hip, in posts 473, and 476 you use 0.08ppm as the concentration at which ghrelin can be released. Is it 0.8ppm as in post 539 or is 0.08 the correct value?

 

(eyesight restored)


Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 06 August 2017 - 07:08 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: hydrogen water, ghrelin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users