MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dehydration and endurance performance in competitive athletes

2012· review· en· W2137671103 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesCompetitive athletesDehydrationEndurance trainingPhysical therapyMedicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of research examining the link between dehydration and endurance performance is at the dawn of a new era. This article reviews the latest findings describing the relationship between exercise-induced dehydration and endurance performance and provides the knowledge necessary for competitive, endurance-trained athletes to develop a winning hydration strategy. Acute, pre-exercise body weight loss at or above 3% may decrease subsequent endurance performance. Therefore, endurance athletes should strive to start exercise well hydrated, which can be achieved by keeping thirst sensation low and urine color pale and drinking approximately 5-10 mL/kg body weight of water 2 h before exercise. During exercise lasting 1 h or less, dehydration does not decrease endurance performance, but athletes are encouraged to mouth-rinse with sports drinks. During exercise lasting longer than 1 h, in which fluid is readily available, drinking according to the dictates of thirst maximizes endurance performance. In athletes whose thirst sensation is untrustworthy or when external factors such as psychological stress or repeated food intake may blunt thirst sensation, it is recommended to program fluid intake to maintain exercise-induced body weight loss around 2% to 3%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207