Despite this complexity, there are certain things we do know. We know that continuous dosing is not effective, unlike intermittent dosing¹. In addition to the published work, I have discussed this with Tyler W. LaBaron at the 44 minute mark and on
here. This is likely due to the need to raise cellular H₂ concentration and likely build up an immediate tolerance with no benefit. Many protocols given by companies with a lack of any fundamental knowledge of how hydrogen gas works insist on sipping hydrogen water throughout the day. This is, in all likelihood, completely ineffective. Exacerbating the issue is that many of the companies promoting this also push technologies that produce below, or hovering around, the minimum therapeutic concentration determined by the
International Hydrogen Standards Association.
Further, it is trending in the literature that for many outcomes, particularly metabolic issues as well as exercise performance and recovery, higher doses for a longer use is superior. In fact, as discussed with Tyler W. LeBaron in our second talk at around the 1:21 to 1:29 mark
here, in some cell lines there is a dose dependent response up to 800 μM of H₂, which based on Tyler's remark that 20μM would be the equivalent of consuming 1.6 mg of H₂, or 13 hydrogen tablets across 6.5 L in one go, assuming that no H₂ is exhaled, which isn't realistic. This is more or less impossible. For other technologies that may get 1mg/L, this would be drinking 64 : of water in one go. 1 mg/L is a high dosage for most machines and ready to drink products, many of which are below 0.5mg/L or even 0.1 mg/L. This is why concentration is so important, as I detailed in a two-part series (part 1
here and part 2
here)
For many molecules, higher dosages come with safety concerns. For H₂ gas, and the very small concentration of it that is delivered through water, safety concerns are almost non-existent. We naturally produce liters of H₂ gas aday through bacteria breaking down carbohydrates, and my friend Professor Ostojic, who I recorded a conversation with
here, has published hypotheses papers regarding endogenous H₂ production in the development of Parkinson's disease². Additionally, we know that hydrogen gas is incredibly safe, as it is used in doses 1000x and higher in mixed gas for deep sea diving. In published clinical research, only 3 studies with a totalof 63 subjects have noted potential adverse events (not necessarily related to hydrogen gas), while 72 trials with 1613 participants have noted no adverse events. In the three trials with reported adverse events, one should be viewed as positive (insulin needed to be lowered in a diabetic patient), another involved patients recovering from a traumatic stroke and bed ridden with no evidence hydrogen was causing the issue, and the final cluster of reported adverse events was a study that may habve been providing high doses of magnesium, in the form of magnesium hydroxide, with adverse events in line with magnesium overconsumption.
Since more is probably better, and more isn't harmful, should we always opt to take in the highest dose possible? Not necessarily. As I've detailed throughout the past, and as is discussed in published literature, molecular hydrogen is potentially working as a form of hormesis³, perhaps as a form of mitophormesis⁴ (hormesis for our mitochondria). Hormesis is a beneficial stress that creates a favourable physiological outcome, think exercise, cold exposure, fasting or even alcohol. It is fairly clear that the same exercise day in and day out stops being as beneficial as it stops becoming a stress. This is often why starting a new workout program leads to dramatic improvements in body composition. It typically isn't that the new exercise was superior to the previous strategy employed, but more that it is new. Likewise, I have noted a sharp decline in the benefits of fasting, and after eight months I began experimenting with new fasting protocols.
