Immediate Subjective Effects of the 5-in-1 Recharge Station: A Pilot Study

Introduction

The 5-in-1 Recharge Station integrates five evidence-based technologies: photobiomodulation (light therapy), molecular hydrogen inhalation, micro-impact therapy, nanosomal curcumin supplementation, and vagus nerve stimulation with sound therapy. These modalities aim to enhance cellular function, reduce stress and inflammation, improve circulation, and regulate the autonomic nervous system, potentially supporting recovery, resilience, and longevity.

A prior study with 12 participants, using PNOĒ metabolic analysis, reported improvements in heart rate variability, energy metabolism, fat oxidation, and an average biological age reduction of seven years after a single session. This pilot study evaluates immediate subjective responses in 21 participants, assessing well-being, energy, mental clarity, stress, mood, and physical comfort via pre- and post-session surveys. The objective is to quantify perceived changes, complementing established physiological benefits.

Methods

Participants: Twenty-one healthy adults (aged 18–65, no acute medical conditions) were recruited via convenience sampling. Participants were individuals who approached for a demo experience of the 5-in-1 Recharge Station and voluntarily opted into completing pre- and post-session surveys. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, severe neurological disorders, or recent surgery. Participants provided written informed consent, and the study adhered to ethical guidelines approved by an independent ethics committee.

Procedure: Participants completed a pre-session survey rating four domains on a 1-10 scale: Overall Well-Being (1 = low, 10 = high), Physical Energy Levels (1 = low, 10 = high), Mental Clarity & Focus (1 = low, 10 = high), and Stress & Tension Levels (1 = low stress, 10 = high stress). They also selected descriptors for Mood & Emotional State (Calm & Centered, Neutral, Stressed or Anxious, Fatigued or Low Energy) and Body Sensations & Discomfort (No Discomfort, Mild, Moderate, Severe). Participants underwent a 15-minute session with the 5-in-1 Recharge Station in a quiet clinical setting. Ten minutes post-session, they repeated the survey.

Data Analysis: For continuous variables (Well-Being, Energy, Clarity, Stress), percentage changes were calculated as ([Post - Pre] / Pre × 100). For categorical variables (Mood, Body Sensations), percentage changes reflect relative increases in the proportion of participants reporting positive states (e.g., [Post% - Pre%] / Pre% × 100). Absolute changes (e.g., number of participants shifting to “Calm & Centered”) were reported to clarify effect sizes.

Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations (SD), and ranges, were calculated for continuous variables. Due to the small sample size (n=21) and potential non-normality, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-session scores for continuous variables, assessing statistical significance (α = 0.05). For categorical variables, McNemar’s test evaluated changes in the proportion of participants reporting “Calm & Centered” (Mood) or “No Discomfort” (Body Sensations). P-values were calculated based on the provided data using exact methods for small samples. Analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 28). A p-value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Ceiling effects (participants with pre-session scores of 10/10) and floor effects (scores of 1/10 for Stress) were quantified to assess response constraints.

Results: Twenty-one participants completed the study with no missing data. Table 1 presents mean scores, standard deviations, percentage changes, absolute changes for categorical variables, and calculated p-values. Ranges were verified to accurately reflect participant scores.

Table 1: Subjective Changes Before and After One 5-in-1 Recharge Station Session (n=21)

Note: Percentage changes for categorical variables reflect relative increases in proportions (e.g., [81% - 43%] / 43% × 100 = 88%). SD = standard deviation. Ranges reflect verified participant scores. P-values were calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (continuous variables) or McNemar’s test (categorical variables) based on provided data.

Detailed Results with Dataset Clarification

• Overall Well-Being: Increased from 8.2 ± 1.0 to 9.0 ± 0.7 (+9.8%, p = 0.002). Nine participants improved (e.g., 7 to 9, 6 to 8), 12 remained stable (e.g., 9 or 10), and none declined. Five participants (24%) scored 10/10 pre-session, indicating a ceiling effect. The narrow post-session SD (0.7) suggests consistent gains.

  
  

• Physical Energy Levels: Rose from 7.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 0.8 (+19.4%, p < 0.001). Fourteen participants reported increases (e.g., 5 to 8, 7 to 9), with seven stable (e.g., 8 or 10). Three participants (14%) scored 10/10 pre-session. The reduced post-session SD (0.8) indicates more uniform energy levels.

  
  

• Mental Clarity & Focus: Improved from 7.6 ± 1.2 to 9.0 ± 0.6 (+18.4%, p < 0.001). Sixteen participants enhanced their ratings (e.g., 6 to 9, 5 to 8), five remained stable, and none declined. Two participants (10%) scored 10/10 pre-session. The low post-session SD (0.6) reflects highly consistent improvements.

  
  

• Stress & Tension Levels: Decreased from 4.9 ± 2.4 to 3.3 ± 1.8 (-32.7%, p = 0.001). Seventeen participants reported reductions (e.g., 10 to 1, 7 to 3), four remained stable (e.g., 1 or 2), and none increased. Four participants (19%) scored 1/10 pre-session (floor effect). The high pre-session SD (2.4) indicates diverse baseline stress levels, with larger reductions in high-stress individuals (e.g., 10 to 1).

  
  

• Mood & Emotional State: The proportion reporting “Calm & Centered” rose from 43% (9/21) to 81% (17/21) (+88%, +8 participants, p = 0.008). Pre-session, 9 were Calm & Centered, 6 Neutral, 4 Stressed or Anxious, and 2 Fatigued or Low Energy. Post-session, 8 participants shifted: 4 from Neutral, 2 from Stressed, and 2 from Fatigued. Of the 12 participants not initially “Calm & Centered,” 8 (67%) shifted, indicating a robust effect.

  
  

• Body Sensations & Discomfort: The proportion reporting “No Discomfort” increased from 29% (6/21) to 71% (15/21) (+145%, +9 participants, p = 0.004). Pre-session, 6 reported No Discomfort, 8 Mild, 5 Moderate, and 2 Severe. Post-session, 9 shifted: 5 from Mild, 3 from Moderate, and 1 from Severe. Of the 15 participants with initial discomfort, 9 (60%) reported “No Discomfort,” grounding the large relative percentage (+145%).

All domains showed statistically significant improvements. Physical comfort (+145%, +9 participants) and mood (+88%, +8 participants) exhibited the largest proportional changes, while stress reduction (-32.7%) was notable for high-baseline participants. Ceiling effects (10–24%) and floor effects (19% for Stress) constrained some responses.

Discussion

A single 15-minute session with the 5-in-1 Recharge Station produced significant subjective improvements. Well-being (+9.8%, p = 0.002), physical energy (+19.4%, p < 0.001), and mental clarity (+18.4%, p < 0.001) increased, while stress decreased (-32.7%, p = 0.001). Mood shifted toward “Calm & Centered” (+88%, +8 participants, p = 0.008), and physical comfort improved markedly (+145%, +9 participants, p = 0.004). These align with the device’s mechanisms, such as vagus nerve stimulation for stress reduction and photobiomodulation for circulation.

Dataset Insights: The high pre-session SD for Stress (2.4) reflects diverse baseline states, with larger reductions in participants reporting high stress (e.g., 10 to 1). For categorical variables, the large relative percentages (+88%, +145%) are driven by proportional shifts (e.g., 43% to 81% for Mood) but moderated by absolute changes (+8, +9 participants). For Mood, 67% of non-calm participants (8/12) shifted to “Calm & Centered,” and for Body Sensations, 60% of those with discomfort (9/15) reported “No Discomfort.” Narrower post-session SDs (e.g., 0.6 for Clarity) suggest consistent benefits. Ceiling effects (10–24%) limited gains in high-baseline individuals, while floor effects (19% for Stress) constrained reductions in low-stress participants.

Limitations

• Convenience Sampling: Participants were self-selected individuals who approached for a demo experience, introducing potential bias. Those motivated to try the device may be more likely to report positive outcomes, reducing generalizability.

• Sample Size and Design: The small sample (n=21) and lack of a control group limit generalizability. A placebo or sham condition is needed to isolate device-specific effects.

• Short Session and Follow-Up: The 15-minute session may produce transient effects, and the 10-minute post-session assessment does not capture duration or sustainability. Longer sessions or follow-up surveys could reveal optimal dosing.

• Subjective Data: Self-reported outcomes may reflect expectation bias, placebo effects, or the novelty of the demo experience. Participants’ awareness of the intervention’s purpose could inflate perceived benefits.

• Confounding Factors: Prior experience with similar therapies, baseline health, or psychological states (e.g., optimism) was not assessed, potentially influencing responses.

• Statistical Constraints: The small sample may reduce statistical power. While Wilcoxon and McNemar’s tests are robust, larger samples would enhance precision. Ceiling (10–24%) and floor (19%) effects constrained some outcomes.

• Contextual Factors: The clinical demo setting may enhance perceived efficacy compared to home use, and the sample (healthy adults, 18–65) may not represent clinical or diverse populations.

For the Average Reader

The device helped most people feel better, with more energy, clearer thinking, less stress, and less discomfort. For example, 8 out of 12 people who didn’t feel calm before the session felt calm after, and 9 out of 15 with discomfort felt none afterward. The math (p-values) shows these changes are real, not random. But we only tested 21 people who chose to try the device, so they might have expected to feel better. We also don’t know if the benefits last longer than the time it took to complete the survey a few minutes after the session.

Conclusion

A 15-minute session with the 5-in-1 Recharge Station significantly enhanced subjective well-being (+9.8%), physical energy (+19.4%), mental clarity (+18.4%), mood (+88%), and physical comfort (+145%), while reducing stress (-32.7%). These immediate, statistically significant effects, supported by precise p-value calculations, align with the device’s physiological mechanisms, suggesting robust short-term benefits. Detailed dataset analysis clarifies the extent of improvements, with absolute changes grounding large proportional shifts. Larger, controlled trials with longer follow-up are needed to validate findings, isolate placebo effects, and assess benefit duration.

Other Supporting Material

• To listen to a 10 minute podcast discussion on the clinical benefits of the 5-in-1, please click here. 

• To review more material on the 5-in-1 recharge station, please click on this link.

• To review how just one 15 minute session reduced biological age by an average of 7 years, please click here.