Jason said: "The 38% more air relates to an individual's ability to sustain an optimum level of activity longer than could otherwise and could improve output i.e. run longer, cycle longer, walk longer ect."
No, it doesn't. And that is precisely my point. If they had measured time to exhaustion that would have been a great study. However they didn't
Jason said: "Even from say a weight control angle, being able to sustain more intensive activity longer simply through an almost double dosage of air per normal breath could see more calories burnt."
Again, this in false. Particularly "almost double dosage".
I have a sports science / sports medicine background so I understand this to a certain degree.
And don't get me wrong, I think this is potentially a good product, they've just done a poor job of proving it.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?