Anaerobic performance when rehydrating with water or commercially available sports drinks during prolonged exercise in the heat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects that rehydrating drinks ingested during exercise may have on anaerobic exercise performance are unclear. This study aimed to determine which of four commercial rehydrating drinks better maintains leg power and force during prolonged cycling in the heat. Seven endurance-trained and heat-acclimatized cyclists pedaled for 120 min at 63% maximum oxygen consumption in a hot, dry environment (36 degrees C; 29% humidity, 1.9 m.s-1 airflow). In five randomized trials, during exercise, subjects drank 2.4 +/- 0.1 L of (i) mineral water (WAT; San Benedetto), (ii) 6% carbohydrate-electrolyte solution (Gatorade lemon), (iii) 8% carbohydrate-electrolyte solution (Powerade Citrus Charge), (iv) 8% carbohydrate-electrolyte solution with lower sodium concentration than other sports drinks (Aquarius orange), or (v) did not ingest any fluid (DEH). Fluid balance, rectal temperature (Trec), maximal cycling power (Pmax), and leg maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) were measured. During DEH, subjects lost 3.7 +/- 0.2% of initial body mass, whereas subjects lost only 0.8% +/- 0.1% in the other trials (p < 0.05). Final Trec was higher in DEH than in the rest of the trials (39.4 +/- 0.1 degrees C vs. 38.7 +/- 0.1 degrees C; p < 0.05). Pmax was similar among all trials. Gatorade and Powerade preserved MVC better than DEH (-3.1% +/- 2% and -3.8% +/- 2% vs. -11% +/- 2%, p < 0.05), respectively, whereas WAT and Aquarius did not (-6% +/- 2%). Compared with DEH, rehydration with commercially available sports drinks during prolonged exercise in the heat preserves leg force, whereas rehydrating with water does not. However, low sodium concentration in a sports drink seems to preclude its ergogenic effects on force.
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".