Grounding and Inflammation: What Has Actually Been Measured?
Inflammation is one of the most common themes in discussions about grounding. But there is an important question behind the claim:
Have researchers actually measured inflammation in grounded people?
The answer is yes — although the evidence is still preliminary.
Human grounding studies have measured white blood cells, neutrophils, platelets, C-reactive protein (CRP), cytokines, chemokines and molecules involved in inflammatory cell signaling. Several studies have reported differences between grounded and control conditions, including a 2025 randomized study in spinal-surgery patients in which the postoperative rise in CRP was significantly smaller in the grounded group.
At the same time, the findings are not uniform. Some inflammatory markers have shown no significant change, and several of the more detailed studies have been small.
So what has actually been measured — and what can we reasonably conclude?
The short answer
There are several intriguing signals in the human research.
Studies have reported differences in immune-cell responses following exercise-induced muscle damage, lower levels of certain inflammation-associated chemokines and an adhesion molecule during grounded recovery, changes in inflammatory markers after grounding was discontinued, and a smaller CRP increase after spinal surgery.
These findings do not establish that grounding is a proven anti-inflammatory treatment. But they do show that the relationship between grounding and inflammatory biology has been investigated using objective physiological measurements — and some of those measurements have produced statistically significant differences.
First: what counts as an inflammatory marker?
“Inflammation” is not a single substance that can simply be measured as high or low.
Researchers use a range of biological indicators.
C-reactive protein (CRP) is a commonly used marker of systemic inflammation. Levels often rise when the body is responding to infection, injury or tissue damage.
Cytokines and chemokines are signaling molecules that help coordinate immune activity.
Neutrophils and lymphocytes are immune cells involved in different aspects of the body’s response to injury and infection.
Platelets are best known for blood clotting but also participate in inflammatory and repair processes.
Adhesion molecules, including P-selectin, help immune cells interact with blood-vessel walls and move toward sites of injury.
Another measure that appears frequently in grounding studies is creatine kinase (CK). CK is useful when studying exercise or surgical recovery, but it is primarily a marker of muscle-cell damage rather than a direct measure of systemic inflammation.
That distinction matters: a change in one biomarker does not automatically mean that inflammation throughout the body has increased or decreased.
The first DOMS experiment: an intriguing immune signal
One of the earliest grounding studies to investigate inflammation indirectly was a 2010 pilot study by Brown, Chevalier and Hill.
Eight healthy participants performed eccentric exercise designed to produce delayed-onset muscle soreness, or DOMS. Four were grounded using conductive electrode patches and sleeping sheets connected to Earth, while four underwent an otherwise similar sham-grounding protocol.
Researchers measured a wide range of outcomes before exercise and at 24, 48 and 72 hours afterward.
Among the measures showing potentially interesting differences between the two groups were white blood-cell counts and related immune-cell patterns, alongside CK and other biochemical measures.
However, this was very much an exploratory study. With only four participants in each condition, the researchers were looking for signals worth investigating rather than conducting a definitive test of an anti-inflammatory effect.
The study also examined bilirubin, a naturally occurring antioxidant. The authors later proposed that differences in bilirubin behavior might relate to the availability of electrons during grounding. That interpretation remains a hypothesis, not evidence that Earth-derived electrons were responsible for the biological changes observed.
The useful takeaway from this study is therefore narrower: grounding was associated with differences in several measures linked to the body's response to exercise-induced tissue damage, including immune-cell measures.
A larger follow-up produced a more complicated picture
In 2015, Brown, Chevalier and Hill followed the pilot with a larger experiment involving 32 healthy young men.
Participants were randomly assigned to grounded or sham-grounded groups after performing 200 half-knee bends designed to produce muscle damage. Grounding or sham grounding was then applied for four hours on each of the first two days.
The immune findings were interesting — but they were not simply a case of inflammatory cells decreasing.
Total white blood cells and lymphocytes did not show significant between-group differences. However, the grounded group had higher neutrophil levels on day three, with a between-group result of P=0.05, and significantly higher platelet levels on days two through four.
That might sound counterintuitive if grounding is described simply as “reducing inflammation.”
But neutrophils and platelets can participate in both inflammatory responses and tissue repair. A higher circulating level does not automatically mean that the body is experiencing either more or less harmful inflammation.
The study also found that CK rose significantly in the sham-grounded group on day two but did not rise significantly in the grounded group; the difference between groups was significant at P=0.04. CK, however, is primarily a muscle-damage marker, so this result is more directly relevant to muscle recovery than to systemic inflammation.
Importantly, the study found no difference in pain relief between the groups.
Taken together, the study suggests that grounding may influence aspects of the biological response to muscle injury, but it does not support the simplistic idea that every inflammatory measure should fall during grounding.
What happened when researchers measured specific inflammatory signaling molecules?
A 2019 study by Müller and colleagues went considerably further in the types of inflammatory biomarkers examined.
Twenty-two healthy participants completed an intensive downhill-running protocol and were randomly assigned to grounded sleeping or sham-grounded sleeping during a 10-day recovery period. The study was designed so that participants, testers and data analysts were blinded to group assignment.
The important detail is that the study had two levels of analysis.
The main recovery experiment involved all 22 participants.
The extensive blood analysis of inflammatory markers, however, involved only four participants — two grounded and two sham-grounded. This makes those molecular findings particularly preliminary.
Despite that limitation, the findings were interesting.
The soluble adhesion molecule sP-selectin was lower in the grounded group and remained approximately 20% below baseline across the observation period (P=0.003).
The inflammation-associated chemokines IP-10 and MIP-1α were also lower in the grounded group (P=0.014 and P=0.004 respectively).
MIP-1β was lower but not statistically significant (P=0.359), while MCP-1 and sE-selectin showed no significant alterations.
Several familiar inflammatory cytokines — including IL-6 and TNF-α — could not be detected within the assay's detection limits in these healthy athletes. CRP also remained unchanged in all four participants.
This is a useful example of why “grounding reduced inflammation” is too broad a summary.
Some specific signaling molecules differed. Others did not. Others were too low to measure reliably in this population.
The researchers themselves described the detailed blood findings as preliminary and called for further research into the underlying mechanisms. They also reported no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest.
What about people who weren't recovering from exercise?
A 2018 exploratory study examined 16 massage therapists who were grounded while working and sleeping over a four-week period.
Researchers measured several inflammatory biomarkers, including IFN-γ, IL-6, TNF-α and high-sensitivity CRP, as well as oxidative-stress markers.
One of the more unusual findings appeared after grounding was discontinued.
Some inflammatory markers increased during the following ungrounded week. The authors interpreted this as suggesting that grounding may have been exerting a moderating effect while it was being used.
That interpretation is interesting, but it requires caution.
The sample was small, the two participant cohorts differed on several measures, and factors such as stress and timing may have contributed to the changes. The study therefore cannot establish that stopping grounding directly caused inflammatory markers to rebound.
It does, however, add another piece to the picture: cytokines and CRP have been measured directly in a human grounding study, and their behavior generated findings worth testing under more tightly controlled conditions.
The 2025 spinal-surgery study adds a different kind of evidence
Perhaps the most interesting recent development comes from a 2025 study by Sokal and colleagues involving 84 people undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.
This matters because surgery produces a clear physiological injury and inflammatory response.
Participants were assigned to two groups of 42. The intervention group was grounded during nighttime postoperative rest, while the control condition used a sham-earthing setup. CRP and CK were measured, along with several other biochemical parameters.
CRP increased after surgery in both groups — which is expected following tissue injury.
But the rise was substantially smaller in the grounded group, and the difference in CRP change between groups was statistically significant at P<0.001.
This is particularly interesting because CRP is a direct and widely used marker of systemic inflammatory activity, and the sample was considerably larger than in the early grounding experiments.
There is, however, a reporting problem in the published paper. The exact CRP change values reported in the abstract do not agree with those reported in the detailed Results section, and the units in the Results section also appear internally inconsistent. For that reason, the safest conclusion is the one supported by both presentations of the data:
CRP increased after surgery in both groups, but the increase was significantly smaller in the grounded group.
The study also measured CK. CK declined in both groups, with a numerically greater reduction in the grounded group, but the between-group difference was not statistically significant.
The study reported no external funding and no conflicts of interest.
This does not prove that grounding suppresses inflammation generally, but it provides one of the clearest human signals so far that grounding may influence an inflammatory response under a defined physiological challenge.
How might grounding affect inflammation?
One of the best-known proposed explanations involves electrons.
Researchers including Oschman, Chevalier and Brown have hypothesized that conductive contact with Earth could make electrons available to the body and that these electrons might interact with reactive oxygen species involved in inflammatory responses.
Reactive oxygen species are part of normal immune activity. Following tissue damage, they can participate in the destruction of pathogens and damaged material, but excessive oxidative activity can also affect surrounding tissue.
The grounding hypothesis proposes that electrons obtained through contact with Earth could influence these processes and thereby modify downstream inflammatory signaling.
It is an interesting mechanism — but at present it remains a proposed explanation.
The human studies discussed here measured changes in blood cells, CRP, chemokines and other biomarkers. They did not demonstrate that electron transfer caused those changes.
That distinction is important.
So, does grounding reduce inflammation?
The current research does not justify a definitive yes.
But neither is inflammation simply an untested grounding claim.
Human studies have actually measured inflammatory and immune-related biology, and several have reported differences associated with grounding.
The findings include altered immune-cell patterns after exercise-induced muscle damage, differences in neutrophils and platelets, lower levels of selected chemokines and sP-selectin during grounded recovery, changes in inflammatory markers following the withdrawal of grounding, and a significantly smaller postoperative CRP rise in a randomized spinal-surgery study.
There are also important null findings. Total white blood cells and lymphocytes have not consistently differed between groups. CRP was unchanged in the small Müller biomarker substudy. Several cytokines could not be detected, and not every chemokine or adhesion molecule measured showed a significant effect.
That mixed pattern is not necessarily surprising. Inflammation is a coordinated biological process involving many different cell types, signaling molecules and stages of repair. If grounding has an effect, there is no reason to assume that every inflammatory marker would move in the same direction at the same time.
What are the main limitations?
The biggest limitation is simply the size and maturity of the evidence base.
Several studies are small, with the detailed inflammatory analysis in the 2019 experiment involving only four people. Some of the earlier studies were funded by Earth FX and involved researchers with commercial relationships to grounding companies, making independent replication particularly important.
There is also considerable variation between studies. Researchers have examined healthy exercisers, massage therapists and postoperative patients; grounding protocols have ranged from several hours to overnight use and repeated use across several weeks; and different studies have measured different parts of the inflammatory response.
That makes direct comparison difficult.
The encouraging development is that research has progressed from very small exploratory experiments toward larger controlled clinical studies such as the 84-participant spinal-surgery trial.
The bottom line
Grounding and inflammation is an area where the evidence is early, but genuinely interesting.
Researchers have moved beyond subjective reports and measured objective biological outcomes including CRP, immune cells, chemokines, cytokines and adhesion molecules.
Not every measure has changed, and the existing research is not sufficient to conclude that grounding is an established anti-inflammatory therapy.
But several studies have produced measurable differences that are difficult to dismiss as purely subjective effects — most notably selected inflammatory signaling molecules after exercise-related muscle damage and, more recently, a smaller postoperative rise in CRP following spinal surgery.
The next step is clear: larger, well-controlled and independently replicated trials using standardized inflammatory markers.
For now, the evidence supports continued investigation rather than a definitive verdict.
Research references
Brown D, Chevalier G, Hill M. Pilot Study on the Effect of Grounding on Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2010;16(3):265–273. DOI: 10.1089/acm.2009.0399.
Brown R, Chevalier G, Hill M. Grounding after moderate eccentric contractions reduces muscle damage. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;6:305–317. DOI: 10.2147/OAJSM.S87970.
Chevalier G, Patel S, Weiss L, et al. Effects of Grounding (Earthing) on Massage Therapists: An Exploratory Study. Health. 2018;10:228–250. DOI: 10.4236/health.2018.102019.
Müller E, Pröller P, Ferreira-Briza F, Aglas L, Stöggl T. Effectiveness of Grounded Sleeping on Recovery After Intensive Eccentric Muscle Loading. Frontiers in Physiology. 2019;10:35. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00035.
Sokal P, Broda M, Zając M, Sokal J. Earthing as a Supportive Therapy for Post-Spinal Surgery Recovery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(11):3844. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14113844.
Oschman JL, Chevalier G, Brown R. The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Journal of Inflammation Research. 2015;8:83–96. DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S69656.