Belief in the need for sodium supplementation during ultramarathons remains strong: findings from the Ultrarunners Longitudinal TRAcking (ULTRA) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, ultramarathon runners have commonly believed that consuming sodium supplements, as capsules or tablets, will prevent exercise-associated hyponatremia (EAH), dehydration, muscle cramping, and nausea, but accumulating evidence indicates that sodium supplementation during ultramarathons is not necessary and may be potentially dangerous. In this work, beliefs about whether sodium supplements should be made available at ultramarathons were assessed during 2018 among 1152 participants of the Ultrarunners Longitudinal TRAcking (ULTRA) study, of which 85.2% had completed an ultramarathon during 2014–2018. Two-thirds (66.4%) of study participants indicated that sodium supplements should be made available at ultramarathons, supported by beliefs that they prevent EAH (65.5%) and muscle cramping (59.1%). Of those indicating that sodium supplements should not be made available, 85.0% indicated it is because runners can provide their own, 27.9% indicated it is because they are not necessary, and 12.1% indicated they could increase thirst drive and cause overhydration. In general, there was a tendency for those who were older, less active in running ultramarathons in recent years, and with a longer history of ultramarathon running to be less likely to know that sodium supplements do not help prevent EAH, muscle cramping, and nausea. Novelty Ultramarathon runners continue to have misunderstandings about the need for sodium supplementation during ultramarathons. Few ultramarathon runners recognize that supplementing sodium intake beyond that in food and drink is generally not necessary during ultramarathons or that it could result in overhydration. Continued educational efforts are warranted to help ensure safe participation in the sport.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".