Blood Pressure Response to 1-Month, Electrolyte-Carbohydrate Beverage Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many occupations where workers undergo daily exposure to rigorous environments, often with only limited access to fluids. Such conditions warrant the use of an electrolyte rehydration beverage; however, the long-term use of such beverages may pose potential health risks due to the increase in dietary sodium intake. This study proposed to determine blood pressure response to daily electrolyte-beverage consumption during strenuous work in a group of young normotensive workers. Three groups of tree planters (mean age = 23 +/- 3 years, n = 51) were provided with electrolyte-beverage (3 mmol/L potassium, 18 mmol/L sodium), electrolyte-carbohydrate-beverage (addition of 333 mmol/L carbohydrate to electrolyte-beverage), or water at a rate of 500 mL/hour during the working day. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were measured each week over the course of 23 working days (30 days total elapsed time). Planters spent 8.4 +/- 1.0 hours/day at heart rates of 124 +/- 10 b/min. There were no differences between the groups for volume of fluid consumed; however, the electrolyte beverages appeared to be more effective than water at maintaining hydration during planting. Daily sodium intake approximated estimated losses in all groups, with total intake lowest in the water group. Resting plasma volume expanded by approximately 4% in all groups, from the first to the 30th day. No changes were observed over time for systolic or diastolic blood pressure. One month of daily consumption of approximately 4.5 L of electrolyte-beverage or electrolyte-carbohydrate-beverage did not appear to affect resting blood pressure in young normotensive workers engaged in heavy physical work.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".