Does Mild Hypohydration Really Reduce Cycling Endurance Performance in the Heat?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor-in-Chief Bardis et al. (1) demonstrated that mild hypohydration of 1% body weight reduces exercise performance during three consecutive cycling loops in the heat consisting of a low-intensity, fixed-power output, 5-km ride, an all-out 5-km cycling time trial, and a 5-min rest period. Albeit Bardis et al.’s article shows some merits, we believe that 1) the conclusion requires fine-tuning to better reflect the study’s findings/research context and 2) the research protocol has significant shortcomings that call into question the validity of the results. Given the tumultuous debate that actually takes place surrounding the effect of hypohydration on endurance performance (8), readers deserve to be made aware of those weaknesses to perform a more enlightened analysis and evaluation of the article. Bardis et al. concluded that “... mild hypohydration decreased cycling performance, possibly by inducing greater thermal and cardiovascular strain.” It is our contention that this closing statement requires two adjustments. 1) Bardis et al. should have specified that their observation of mild hypohydration impairing cycling performance potentially only applies to the context of their exercise protocol and not to out-of-doors competitive exercise conditions. In fact, we demonstrated through meta-analyses that hypohydration of up to 4.3% body weight does not impair real-world-like cycling time trial performances under thermoneutral and warm temperatures (4,5). 2) Bardis et al. argued that hypohydration may have compromised stroke volume and cardiac output and, consequently, concluded that increased cardiovascular strain may have been one of the mechanisms through which hypohydration acted to impair cycling performance. Yet, Bardis et al. observed no difference in HR between interventions. In a classic article, Montain and Coyle (7) convincingly demonstrated that the hypohydration-associated impairment in stroke volume or cardiac output is accompanied by a compensatory increase in HR. Because Bardis et al.’s findings are unsupported by those of Montain and Coyle, we feel that it is reasonable to exclude the possibility that cardiovascular strain played a role in the hypohydration-mediated decrease in performance. Bardis et al. did not familiarize their participants with the exercise protocol. To this effect, Maughan (6) recently argued that familiarization trials are a prerequisite in hydration- and performance-related studies if valid and reproducible results are to be obtained. Research conditions were administered in a counterbalanced fashion; however, subjects were not randomly assigned to their experimental block. Therefore, one cannot be reasonably confident that the composition of the two blocks at the start of the study was equivalent with respect to variables that could have confounded findings (magnitude of learning effect, training-related fatigue, anxiety, etc.), thereby weakening causal conclusions. Of critical importance is that subjects were not fan cooled during the exercise protocols, which substantially lowered the body’s capacity for heat loss through convection and evaporation. It has been demonstrated that mild and moderate (3% body weight) hypohydration does not impair cycling (2) or running (3) endurance performance when subjects are properly ventilated during exercise, that is, at airflow matching their rate of forward progression. We look forward to reading the future contributions of Dr. Kavouras’s research laboratory on this topic. Eric D. B. Goulet, PhD Tommy Dion, MSc Felix A. Savoie, BSc Research Centre on Aging, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».