• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ionised Energy Fabric

Nigelwyn

New Blood
N
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2
In my programme for the Cardiff v Newport this afternoon I saw an advert for Canterbury rugby equipment manufacturers' new "Ionised Energy Fabric".

They say that
"CCC BaseLayer IonX is revolutionary in apparel technology as it delivers ionic energy to the body through a negatively charged electromagnetic field."

and they claim that
"CCC BaseLayer IonX improves performance. Ionisation improves the flow of oxygen-enriched blood to bring more energy to the muscles, which increases your average power output, improving speed and strength."

They say that they have proof from a study carried out at Loughborough University
"IonX™ represents a revolutionary performance apprel technology. A study conducted in the Sports Technolgy Laboratory at Loughborough University showed a significant increase in repetitive, short duration, high intensity exercise performance (power output) in both competitive and recreational athletes when wearing IonX™ versus non-ionised control garments. This improvement is likely to be functionally relevant to all team sport players or indeed anybody undertaking repetitive bouts of high intensity exercise during training or performance"
Dr Mike Caine, Senior Lecture, Sports Technology, Loughborough University UK "

The above quotes are from thier web site
As I can't post url's yet just google for "Canterbury NZ rugby clothing" to find their web site.
 
It sure sets off my personal prevarimeter.

ETA: Funny how their site doesn't have a direct link/page to to the test. Their PDF clipping mentions a 2.7% increase in 30 second exercise output. But it doesn't say anything about the protocol- double blind? Ionised stuff run first, normal stuff after athlete was tired? How many tests were run? On how many athletes?

If everything they say is true, Is a 3% boost for 30 seconds important in a contest that lasts hours?
 
Last edited:
Nigelwyn said:
In my programme for the Cardiff v Newport this afternoon I saw an advert for Canterbury rugby equipment manufacturers' new "Ionised Energy Fabric".

They say that
"CCC BaseLayer IonX is revolutionary in apparel technology as it delivers ionic energy to the body through a negatively charged electromagnetic field."

and they claim that
"CCC BaseLayer IonX improves performance. Ionisation improves the flow of oxygen-enriched blood to bring more energy to the muscles, which increases your average power output, improving speed and strength."

They say that they have proof from a study carried out at Loughborough University
"IonX™ represents a revolutionary performance apprel technology. A study conducted in the Sports Technolgy Laboratory at Loughborough University showed a significant increase in repetitive, short duration, high intensity exercise performance (power output) in both competitive and recreational athletes when wearing IonX™ versus non-ionised control garments. This improvement is likely to be functionally relevant to all team sport players or indeed anybody undertaking repetitive bouts of high intensity exercise during training or performance"
Dr Mike Caine, Senior Lecture, Sports Technology, Loughborough University UK "

The above quotes are from thier web site
As I can't post url's yet just google for "Canterbury NZ rugby clothing" to find their web site.
Click to expand...

Well, the explanation does consist of English words placed in coherent strings. Beyond that I'll have to say a word that will be replaced by this forum's software by eight asterisks -- ********. That's ********
 
They must work, the South Africans winning the last Rugby World Cup wore them. Oh wait a minute, so did the English, Australian, Irish, Scots and Japanese.

Grauniad

Mike Cain of Loughborough who produced these results was funded by the manufacturers. He was going to present the results at a sports science conference in Singapore in October but I cannot find any ref to this from Google. Considering the squeeze on money for UK research into science it is surprising he can get to Singapore to publish this. I wonder when the peer reviewed paper will arrive.
 
"Resonance." They left out "resonance." There has to be "resonance" in there somewhere.

It's not proper woo without "resonance."
 
Last edited:
Seems to me "delivering ionic energy through a negatively charged electromagnetic field" would have to be quantum resonance, and besides, quantum is another buzzword for these fools and the ones who believe them.

I mean, seriously, what is "ionic energy?" How can an electromagnetic field be negatively charged? Why NOT throw quantum resonance in there, just as a nice dressing for that word salad?
 
Oh yes, I wasn't addressing this seriously. Probably from my inexperience in physics. But looking at it closely, it would have to either be an electrostatic field which would be neutralised pretty quickly unless supplied by some high voltage equipment or the fabric could have a heavy infiltration of negative ions, which again would be neutralised by the sweat possibly before the caustic burns appear.

Either way one of the claims is the selective removal of lactic acid and this is very improbable. And there doesn't seem to be any rational reason for the lactic acid removal affecting exercise in a 30 sec interval.

According to the Canterbury web site the trial was double blind and the difference was significant. However no results have appeared, until we see them, all we can do is speculate on the science or lack thereof.

Interestingly, the team everyone feared in the last RFWC was New Zealand, the home country of Canterbury and IONX. They were one of the few teams not to use the shirts, perhaps they knew something.
 
But that’s the point, Schneibester, these fools are trying to distinguish themselves from the other fools, by not invoking quantum tom foolery they are just invoking macro tom foolery. “Ionic energy” is just the work done by opposing ionic charges attracting each other or similar charges repelling each other. A negatively charged electromagnetic field simply results from a negative static charge. Well the magnetic portion only comes from moving charges but your clothes are usually moving when you’re wearing them. Can’t you see the science in this (LOL)? Of course I can’t see how wearing statically charged clothing, positive or negative, helps you in any way but then of course I’m not trying to sell this crap. I just think of all the money I’ve wasted on dryer sheets to eliminate static charges in my clothing.

Doesn’t negatively charged clothing make you like an electrostatic air filtration system? Not a good prospect for people with allergies.
 
Schneibster said:
How can an electromagnetic field be negatively charged?
Click to expand...


Well, when I take a fur pelt and rub it with a glass rod, the rod becomes positively charged and the fur becomes negatively charged.

Of course, I don't think the woo-woo folks who invented this (ahem) wonder fabric were thinking of Static Cling when they said it had a negatively charged E-M field....
 
Acleron said:
Oh yes, I wasn't addressing this seriously. Probably from my inexperience in physics. But looking at it closely, it would have to either be an electrostatic field which would be neutralised pretty quickly unless supplied by some high voltage equipment

<< SNIP >>
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Look up "electret" -- it's the electrical equivalent of a magnet.

Not that I think they are built into any fabric.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Not quite true. Look up "electret" -- it's the electrical equivalent of a magnet.

Not that I think they are built into any fabric.
Click to expand...

Said my physics wasn't up to much.
I see that most modern electrets are synthetic polymers so perhaps that's what the shirts have. Even so, wouldn't they just attract positive particles and be neutralised?
 
Seems to me that a handful of table salt in their underpants would achieve similar ionic energy.

And kill most harmful bacteria.

I need me a sponsor...
 
Soapy Sam said:
Seems to me that a handful of table salt in their underpants would achieve similar ionic energy.

And kill most harmful bacteria.

I need me a sponsor...
Click to expand...

AH, YES! When exposed to the moisture in the sweat, the salt will break down into Sodium IONs and Chloride IONs. Obviously good for the circulation, as proven by all the redness around the abrasion rash. Hmm, now if we could just work 'resonance' into the equation...
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
AH, YES! When exposed to the moisture in the sweat, the salt will break down into Sodium IONs and Chloride IONs. Obviously good for the circulation, as proven by all the redness around the abrasion rash. Hmm, now if we could just work 'resonance' into the equation...
Click to expand...
What frequency makes NaCl crystals resonate? What's the frequency Kenneth?:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom