1.3 ATA vs 1.4 ATA Hyperbaric Chambers: FAQs for Home Users

Here at Recovathlete, we often get questions from people exploring hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for the first time—especially around the difference between 1.3 ATA and 1.4 ATA chambers. It can feel overwhelming when you hear terms like PSI or KPA tossed around, and many wonder if they need a medical degree just to understand the basics.

The good news? It’s simpler than it sounds. In this guide, we’ll break down the real differences between 1.3 and 1.4 ATA, so you can make an informed decision without the jargon. Whether you’re looking to improve recovery, support your wellness goals, or just understand what you’re investing in, we’ve got you covered.

Key Takeaways

• Both 1.3 ATA and 1.4 ATA are considered safe for home wellness use.
• The difference in oxygen delivery is marginal but may matter for some users.
• 1.4 ATA chambers are often priced higher due to perceived performance.
• Most studies for TBI and neurological recovery vary between mild and clinical pressures.
• Consistency of use and pairing with an oxygen concentrator matter more than small pressure differences.

Browse Safe 1.3 ATA Chambers Here →

Table of Contents

• What’s the Main Difference Between 1.3 ATA and 1.4 ATA?
• Effectiveness: Is 1.4 ATA Better Than 1.3 ATA?
• Safety Considerations
• Oxygen Concentrator Use
• Expected Results and Wellness Outcomes
• Cost Differences Explained
• Ear Pressure and Equalization
• Setup and Operation
• FDA Approval and Legality
• Session Duration and Sensory Differences
• Use for Specific Health Conditions
• Common Complaints
• Upgradability and Pressure Limits
• Oxygen Purity Explained
• Side Effects and Tolerance
• Research in Support of Mild HBOT
• Athletic Recovery: Which One’s Better?

What’s the Main Difference Between 1.3 ATA and 1.4 ATA?

1.3 ATA means the chamber reaches 1.3 times normal air pressure, while 1.4 ATA is slightly higher. Both are mild HBOT levels.

Effectiveness: Is 1.4 ATA Better Than 1.3 ATA?

Some anecdotal evidence and claims suggest enhanced oxygen absorption at 1.4 ATA. However, clinical comparisons are limited. Both fall under mild HBOT therapy.

Research: Boussi-Gross et al., Journal of Neurotrauma, 2013 – Improvements in TBI patients were noted at 1.5 ATA pressure.

Safety Considerations

Both pressures are considered safe. Risks like barotrauma are low but require attention to ear equalization during pressurization.

Oxygen Concentrator Use

Oxygen concentrators significantly enhance therapy at both pressures. Most users pair their chamber with one for better results.

Expected Results and Wellness Outcomes

Users report benefits like better sleep, reduced inflammation, and improved recovery. Effects vary by person and consistency of use.

Cost Differences Explained

1.4 ATA chambers usually cost more due to enhanced materials and perception of added benefit.

Ear Pressure and Equalization

1.4 ATA may require slightly more attention to equalizing ear pressure, but it’s manageable for most users.

Setup and Operation

Both chamber types operate similarly. Differences are minor and usually related to adjustable pressure settings.

FDA Approval and Legality

Soft chambers are not FDA-approved for treating diseases but are often cleared for wellness and altitude sickness relief.

Session Duration and Sensory Differences

Sessions typically last 60–90 minutes. Sensory differences between 1.3 and 1.4 ATA are minimal once pressurized.

Use for Specific Health Conditions

Consult a healthcare provider for guidance. The pressure difference alone should not dictate use for a medical condition.

Common Complaints

Users report issues like chamber noise, confined space discomfort, and zipper difficulties across both types.

Upgradability and Pressure Limits

Do not attempt to modify a 1.3 ATA chamber to reach 1.4 ATA. This is unsafe and voids warranties.

Oxygen Purity Explained

Oxygen purity depends on the concentrator, not the chamber pressure. Using 90%+ oxygen delivers far more impact than the 0.1 ATA difference.

Side Effects and Tolerance

Ear pressure discomfort is most common. Some users feel fatigue or claustrophobia. Serious side effects are rare at mild pressures.

Research in Support of Mild HBOT

Studies in NeuroRehabilitation (2015) show promising effects of mild HBOT on inflammation and neuroplasticity.

Athletic Recovery: Which One’s Better?

Both pressures help recovery. Consistency, oxygen use, and recovery lifestyle habits play a bigger role than the 0.1 ATA difference.

See Full Range of Hyperbaric Chambers →

Browse Safe 1.4 ATA Chambers Here →

Disclaimer: This information is for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before starting any new health treatment, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

References

1. Boussi-Gross, R., Golan, H., Fishlev, G., et al. (2013). Hyperbaric oxygen therapy can improve post concussion syndrome years after mild traumatic brain injury – randomized prospective trial. Journal of Neurotrauma.
2. Efrati, S., et al. (2015). Hyperbaric oxygen therapy can induce neuroplasticity and significant clinical improvements in patients suffering from fibromyalgia syndrome. NeuroRehabilitation, 37(3).