Repeated familiarisation with hypohydration attenuates the performance decrement caused by hypohydration during treadmill running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of repeated familiarisation to hypohydration on hypohydrated exercise performance. After familiarisation with the exercise protocol, 10 recreationally active males completed a euhydrated (EU-pre) and hypohydrated (HYPO-pre) trial, which involved a 45-min steady state run at 75% peak oxygen uptake (45SS) followed by a 5-km time trial (TT). Euhydration and hypohydration were induced by manipulating fluid intake in the 24-h pre-exercise and during the 45SS. Subjects then completed 4 habituation sessions that involved replication of the HYPO-pre trial, except they completed 60 min of running at 75% peak oxygen uptake and no TT. Subjects then replicated the euhydrated (EU-post) and hypohydrated (HYPO-post) trials. Body mass loss pre-TT was 0.2 (0.2)% (EU-pre), 2.4 (0.3)% (HYPO-pre), 0.1 (0.1)% (EU-post), and 2.4 (0.3)% (HYPO-post). TT performance was 5.8 (2.4)% slower during the HYPO-pre trial (1459 (250) s) than during the EU-pre trial (1381 (237) s) (p < 0.01), but only 1.2 (1.6)% slower during the HYPO-post trial (1381 (200) s) than during the EU-post trial (1366 (211) s) (p = 0.064). TT performance was not different between EU-pre and EU-post trials, but was 5.1 (2.3)% faster during the HYPO-post trial than the HYPO-pre trial (p < 0.01). Heart rate was greater during HYPO trials than EU trials (p < 0.001), whilst rating of perceived exertion (RPE) response was similar to TT time and was lower in the HYPO-post trial than the HYPO-pre trial (p < 0.01). In conclusion, hypohydration impaired 5-km running performance in subjects unfamiliar with the hypohydration protocol, but 4 familiarisation sessions designed to habituate subjects with the hypohydration protocol attenuated the performance decrement, seemingly via an attenuation of RPE during hypohydrated exercise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".