MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000342895 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181bd43e2

Glycerol-Induced Hyperhydration: A Method for Estimating the Optimal Load of Fluid to Be Ingested Before Exercise to Maximize Endurance Performance

2010· article· en· W2000342895 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesDehydrationEndurance trainingWork (physics)Body waterMedicineBody weightPhysical therapyInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glycerol-induced hyperhydration (GIH) has been shown to increase endurance performance (EP). However, EP starts declining at a dehydration level >2% body weight (BW). It thus appears that the use of GIH is only required when athletes anticipate that their fluid intake during exercise would not be sufficient to prevent a loss of BW >2%. In such a scenario, the optimal GIH load to be ingested before exercise would correspond to the amount of fluid that cannot be drunk during exercise and that would be just sufficient to keep the dehydration level <2% BW. No method exists enabling the estimation of the most optimal GIH load to be drunk before exercise to optimize EP. Here, such a method comprising 3 easy steps is presented. Step 1 provides a formula allowing users to determine relative exercise-induced dehydration level based on individual BW, exercise time, and estimated hourly sweat rate and fluid consumption during exercise. Step 2 takes into account the result of step 1 and provides a formula allowing determination of the minimal GIH load required before exercise to prevent a loss of BW >2%. Step 3 consists of identifying, among those pre-selected, a GIH protocol that increases body water by at least the amount computed in step 2. This method will remove much of the guess work involved in the decision-making process of the optimal amount of GIH that should be ingested before exercise by athletes for maximizing EP and will serve as a practical reference tool for all athletes using, and coaches, practitioners, and exercise physiologists recommending the utilization of, GIH as an ergogenic aid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207