Sweat Loss and Hydration Habits of Female Olympic, Varsity and Recreational Ice Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study measured sweat losses, voluntary fluid intake, sodium balance, and carbohydrate intake of female ice hockey players during on-ice practices at the Olympic, varsity, and recreational levels. Testing was conducted on 25 Canadian Olympic players, 21 varsity, and 21 recreational players. The average sweat rate for the Olympic players (0.99±0.08 L/h) was significantly greater than both the varsity (0.67±0.05 L/h, p=0.001) and the recreational players (0.42±0.03 L/h, p<0.001), and the varsity players also had a significantly greater sweat rate than the recreational athletes (p=0.016). Total fluid intake was significantly greater for both the Olympic (p=0.001) and varsity players (p=0.007) compared to the recreational group. Only 3 of 25 Olympic players lost>1.5% BM and 4 others lost>1% BM, with no players in both the varsity and recreational teams losing>1% BM. Half of the Olympic players consumed some carbohydrate during practice, but most of the varsity and recreational players did not. In conclusion, sweat rates in female ice hockey players during practices were proportional to competitive level. Fluid intake was similar between groups and resulted in only a few athletes at the Olympic level being at risk of excess body mass loss.
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 | 0.001 | 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".