Sweat Loss and Fluid Intake of Female Varsity Ice Hockey Players During On-Ice Practices and Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bigg, JL, Gamble, ASD, Vermeulen, TF, Bigg, LM, and Spriet, LL. Sweat loss and fluid intake of female varsity ice hockey players during on-ice practices and games. J Strength Cond Res 34(2): 389-395, 2020-Sweat losses of ∼1.5-2% body mass (BM) during exercise impairs athletic performance in stop and go sports such as ice hockey. The study examined the pre-exercise hydration status, sweat loss, fluid and carbohydrate (CHO) intake, and sodium balance of female hockey players. Twenty-four female varsity hockey players were tested during 2 practices and 4 games. Data analyses were performed using a level of significance of p ≤ 0.05. Over 70% of players arrived at the practices and ∼50% of players arrived at the game mildly dehydrated. Before the high- (P1) and low-intensity (P2) practices, players consumed an average of 0.19 ± 0.14 and 0.15 ± 0.13 L. Before the games, mean fluid intake was 0.39 ± 0.19 L. The sweat rate during P1 was significantly greater than P2 (p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference in total fluid intake between practices (p = 0.279). Consequently, the average BM loss for P1 was significantly greater than that for P2 (p = 0.016). Sweat loss during games was 1.01 ± 0.29 L and fluid intake was 0.70 ± 0.43 L, resulting in minimal BM losses (<1% BM for all players). CHO intake during games was 39.2 ± 22.8 g, with 19/20 players consuming CHO before or during the intermissions of the game. Sweat sodium losses were 0.64 ± 0.34 and 0.32 ± 0.18 g·h for P1 and P2, and 0.83 ± 0.38 g during the game. In conclusion, female ice hockey players replaced the fluid they lost through sweat during practices and games and maintained adequate hydration. Players also consumed adequate CHO during games from the CHO containing food and drinks provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".