Originally Posted by MoAlpha

Skimmed the cited work. Maybe if someone takes a closer look they'll find gems in the *********, but I didn't see any.

Hydrogen-rich water for improvements of mood, anxiety, and autonomic nerve function in daily life - PMC (nih.gov)
No plausible hypothesis. No power analysis and gross lack of statistical power: This means that any significant findings are likely to be spurious. Several outcome variables tested with independent t-tests and no adjustment of significance threshold for multiple comparisons. Simply not valid research.

Effects of 7-day intake of hydrogen-rich water on physical performance of trained and untrained subjects - PMC (nih.gov)
This one's a little better design, but also lacks a power analysis, so it is bad clinical research right off the bat. Then, if you look at the statistical tables, they report a bunch of significant main effects of group (athletes vs. non-athletes) as would be expected, and only a few borderline significant group x treatment interactions. So again, no primary outcome variable identified (you can't do that in clinical research!) and no adjustment for multiple statistical tests, making those very borderline p values completely meaningless. Notably there are no main effects of the treatment, meaning it did nothing across groups. I really can't understand how this got published.

Drinking hydrogen water enhances endurance and relieves psychometric fatigue: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (cdnsciencepub.com)
Another junk study. The first experiment has six independently tested outcomes, two of which differed significantly across treatment groups, and again, no primary outcome identified or adjustment for multiple comparisons. Worse yet, they didn't even record what their groups did on those ergometers, so subjective fatigue could have simply tracked which group worked harder for totally random reasons. Again, one wonders how this got published.