Estimated fluid and sodium balance and drink preferences in elite male junior players during an ice hockey game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in many sports suggests that losing ~2% of body mass (BM) through sweating impairs athletic performance, although this has not been tested in ice hockey players. This study investigated pregame hydration, and on-ice sweat loss, fluid intake, and sodium (Na+) balance of elite male junior players during an ice hockey game. Twenty-four players (2 goalies, 7 defensemen, 15 forwards) volunteered to participate in the study (age, 18.3 ± 0.3 years; weight, 86.5 ±1.6 kg; height, 184.1 ± 1.3 cm). Players were weighed pre- and postgame, fluid and sodium intake were monitored throughout the game, and fluid and Na+ balance were determined within the time between BM measurements. Sweat Na+ loss was calculated based on sweat loss and sweat [Na+] determined from sweat-patch analysis on the same players during an intense practice. Players arrived at the rink in a euhydrated state and drank 0.6 ± 0.1 L of fluid before the game. Mean playing time for the forwards was 18:85 ± 1:15 min:s and playing time for the defense was 24:00 ± 2:46 min:s. Sweat loss was 3.2 ± 0.2 L and exceeded net fluid intake (2.1 ± 0.1 L). Mean BM loss was 1.3% ± 0.3%, with 8/24 players losing between 1.8% to 4.3% BM. Players preferred to drink water and a carbohydrate electrolyte solution before the game and during intermissions, while only water was consumed during each period. Practice mean forehead sweat [Na+] was 74 mmol·L-1. Estimated sweat Na+ losses of 3.1 ± 0.4 g (~8 g NaCl) coupled with low Na+ intake of 0.8 ± 0.2 g (~2 g NaCl) resulted in a significant Na+ deficit by the end of the game. This study demonstrated that despite abundant opportunities to hydrate during a hockey game, one-third of the players did not drink enough fluid to prevent sweat losses of 2% BM or higher. Losing 2% BM has been associated with decreases in athletic performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".