Impact of Mild Hypohydration on 100 m Front Crawl Performance and Starting Block Peak Force Production in Competitive University-Level Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unstructured, ad libitum drinking may predispose some athletes to start exercise already slightly hypohydrated (decreased body water). The impact of pre-exercise mild hypohydration on subsequent swimming performance is still unknown. Hence, the goal of this study was to examine its effect on peak force production on the starting block and 100 m front crawl swimming performance in competitive university-level swimmers. At least one hour after having been passively exposed to heat where a body mass loss of 1.5% was induced or euhydration (normal body water) maintained, nine participants (age: 22 ± 2 years) underwent an assessment of their peak force production on the starting block and 100 m front crawl performance. One hour following hypohydration, rectal temperature had returned to baseline in each condition. Urine osmolality and specific gravity were higher (p < 0.05) with hypohydration than euhydration (995 ± 65 vs. 428 ± 345 mOsmol/kg; 1.027 ± 0.003 vs. 1.016 ± 0.007 g/mL) prior to exercise testing, as was perceived thirst. Swimming performance (p = 0.86) and peak force production (p = 0.72) on the starting block did not differ between the hypohydration and euhydrated condition (63.00 ± 4.26 vs. 63.09 ± 4.52 s; 1322 ± 236 vs. 1315 ± 230 N). The current results indicate that mild hypohydration, which may occur with ad libitum drinking, does not impede peak force production on the starting block and 100 m front crawl performance in university-level competitive swimmers. Planned drinking is not required prior to such an event.
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".