EFFECT OF DRINK COMPOSITION ON VOLUNTARY REHYDRATION IN BOYS FOLLOWING EXERCISE IN THE HEAT DEHYDRATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the effect of beverage composition on voluntary rehydration, thermoregulation and physiologic responses of hypohydrated boys during intermittent exercise in the heat. METHODS Six 10- to 12-year-old boys attended two identical (counterbalanced) sessions in which they first were dehydrated (2.1 % of initial body weight) through exercise (6x10-min bouts at 40–45% VO2max) in a climatic chamber at 35°C, 55% relative humidity (RH). After resting for 45 min in a thermoneutral room, they performed intermittent exercise (3x15-min bouts at 50% VO2max interspersed by 10 min rest) in 35°C, 50% RH, while drinking ad libitum either flavored water (FW) or FW with carbohydrate (6%) and NaCl 18 mmol·L−1 (CNa). Body weight (BW), heart rate (HR), body temperatures and perceptual variables were measured periodically. RESULTS Hypohydration level just prior of rehydration was identical in both FW and CNa. Total cumulative voluntary drink intake was similar (3.2–3.3 %BW) in both sessions. Almost half of it occurred in the first 15 minutes. Full rehydration was reached at 50 min. In both sessions the intensity of thirst perception dropped from initial 82–86 % to 50–53 % within first 15 min and to 30–40 % by the end of rehydration. Although rectal temperature increased significantly (p < 0.05) in CNa (from 37.6°C to 38.0°C) but not in FW (from 37.6°C to 37.8°C), differences between FW and CNa were insignificant. Heart rate at rest (90–97 bpm) and during exercise (145–150 bpm) was similar in both sessions. CONCLUSION Voluntary drinking of both flavored water and a flavored carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage is similarly effective in rehydrating boys who began exercise in the heat while hypohydrated. Supported by Gatorade Sports Science Institute
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".