So I enjoy analysing things with a bit of a scientific lens - particularly when things pop up in my general sphere that are just plain ludicrous. I recently realised that this kind of scientific thinking is now relevant to the VCE study designs of the science subjects* - so, I thought I might share some things here for a bit of fun and to get people thinking scientifically themselves.
While most of this topic is going to be me posting things randomly as I feel like, I highly HIGHLY encourage y'all to get involved and discuss things with me. It's the best way to learn, and picking apart bad science is straight up fun.The pick of today comes from this reddit post I stumbled upon. Yes, I subscribe to r/chemistry, that's how you can tell I'm a nerd.By fusing two O2 molecules to create O4 molecule, OXIGEN water goes beyond hydration.
Now THIS one is a doozy - right off the bat, hopefully physics students have noticed something a bit funny. The idea of "fusion" has nothing to do with making new chemicals - in fact, fusion works on singular nuclei (atoms, essentially), which is why it's referred to as "nuclear fusion". So, let's disregard that - surely the company is just "dumbing down" the language for us? Let's see what's next:
With 100 times more oxygen* than regular water, it instantly replenishes your brain, body and spirit. Who science could be so refreshing?
Okay, wait, time out - now the maths doesn't make sense. O
4 only has 4 times the amount of oxygen as water does, why is it 100 TIMES in this ad? They say it's because of how much of the oxygen is bioavailable, but that's confusing because water itself doesn't have any bioavailable oxygen to begin with - 100 times 0 is still 0. Something doesn't add up here, almost like they're using a bunch of science words to sound smarter than they actually are?
Also, why didn't they use an Oxford comma? Bunch of animals.
Alright, we need to get to the bottom of this. Let's check out their websiteOXIGEN contains O4 – two O2 molecules fused together using a proprietary 120-step manufacturing process to create one oxygen super molecule that remains stable in water. That O4 super molecule is bioavailable, which means it enters your bloodstream upon consumption.
Okay, firstly, there's no such thing as a super molecule - that is straight made up. There are supramolecules, but those things are called that because they're big - as in, protein sized**. Four oxygen atoms by themselves ain't gonna cut it. Next point - if the "super molecule" is stable in water, how is your body going to use it? For the appropriate biochemical pathways to take place, your cells need that oxygen in the form of O
2 - but if their O
4 is so stable, how is your body going to turn it into oxygen that it can use? No biochemical pathway is gonna do that if O
4 isn't naturally occurring.
I'm going to ignore the next couple of paragraphs because it's more of them just using science words to sound smart, but the next paragraph is honestly hilarious:
Many waters claim to have electrolytes. But you might want to check their labels. Don’t see it? Maybe that’s because the FDA determined their water had such insignificant “trace amounts” of electrolytes they weren’t allowed to list it. If you check an OXIGEN label, you’ll see electrolytes listed right there. Because OXIGEN water actually contains enough to make a difference. Refreshing, huh?
Seriously, scroll up and have fun in that reddit post - the posted ingredients list literally says nothing about electrolytes.
Oh wait,
there's an article here we can analyse. Let's have a look and see what the results say:
Despite no evidence of improved exercise performance, ingestion of OS did enhance post-exercise recovery via increased lactate clearance.
So basically, it doesn't increase bioavailable oxygen, it just increases the reduction of lactate. Look, that's not a /bad/ finding, but let's double check their graphs. Unfortunately, if you scroll to page 4 and look at the bottom, you'll notice those giant lines attached to each dot. Those are error bars, and indicate that there's actually /no significant difference between the placebo group and the OS group/. They're also using the error bars wrong, but we'll ignore that. Funnily enough, they go on to state:
However, this apparent enhancement in lactate metabolism was not detectable during exercise and did not yield an improvement in overall performance
Almost as if there actually ISN'T a significant difference, and you were just talking out your arse, huh?
There's one final thing I want to discuss: at the end of the website, they mention a researcher by name who endorses the product:
“The main finding from the current battery of tests is that ingestion of [ASO®] significantly improved post-exercise recovery from high-intensity aerobic exercise via enhanced lactate clearance. The ability to clear lactate more efficiently and hence recover faster in the early rounds of competition is of clear benefit to an athlete.”
Dr. Neil Fleming, Ph.D.
Department of Kinesiology, Recreation and Sports , Indiana State University
Firstly: that extra comma is annoying me (but not as much as them not using an Oxford comma earlier, grrr)
Secondly, I don't like dragging other people's names through the mud, but also people misquoting and using PhDs to push their products is a big problem, so I'm going to do my best. Firstly, Dr Fleming does not operate at Indiana State University - hell, he's not even in the US. According to that very paper up above, he's from Trinity College Dublin. Nothing wrong there, of course - but I do question if they got the right Neil Fleming, because if you try googling the man lots of different people come up. Secondly, what he's quoted as saying is a bunch of fluff that technically doesn't actually prove their point? He says that ASO increases the degradation of lactate - cool, that's what the paper he says. He then says that metabolising lactate SHOULD benefit someone - he's not even saying that ASO does it. He's using an appeal to common sense (bonus English study, huzzah) to make YOU think that ASO should benefit the person. He never himself says it, and his own paper above even /states/ that there was no improvement to the athletes.
So, what do you all think of the points I've raised? Notice anything else funny in the reddit post or on their website? Did you find anything similar you want me to take an in-depth look at?
* = I do not promise to help improve your score, there's a reason this is in general discussion and not the science help boards. At most, I promise you a laugh and good time. If you're lucky, you might get some use out of this - but also, there's no such thing as too much exposure to general scientific thinking if you're doing a science subject, so maybe that'll help
** = okay, yes, they can be smaller than proteins - but look, four oxygen atoms still aren't going to fit the definition of a supramolecule. Even more important, if the four oxygen atoms are truly "fuse", then they're not supramolecules because they're no longer multiple molecules. If you're gonna fight me on this point, I should warn you that my PhD is on this, it likely won't be a fair fight