Impact of Repeated Acute Exposures to Low and Moderate Exercise-Induced Hypohydration on Physiological and Subjective Responses and Endurance Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine whether repeated exposures to low (2%) and moderate (4%) exercise-induced hypohydration may reverse the potentially deleterious effect of hypohydration on endurance performance. Using a randomized crossover protocol, ten volunteers (23 years, V˙O2max: 54 mL∙kg−1∙min−1) completed two 4-week training blocks interspersed by a 5-week washout period. During one block, participants replaced all fluid losses (EUH) while in the other they were fluid restricted (DEH). Participants completed three exercise sessions per week (walking/running, 55% V˙O2max, 40 °C): (1) 1 h while fluid restricted or drinking ad libitum, (2) until 2 and (3) 4% of body mass has been lost or replaced. During the first and the fourth week of each training block, participants completed a 12 min time-trial immediately after 2% and 4% body mass loss has been reached. Exercise duration and distance completed (14.1 ± 2.7 vs. 6.9 ± 1.5 km) during the fixed-intensity exercise bouts were greater in the 4 compared to the 2% condition (p < 0.01) with no difference between DEH and EUH. During the first week, heart rate, rectal temperature and perceived exertion were higher (p < 0.05) with DEH than EUH, and training did not change these outcomes. Exercise-induced hypohydration of 2% and 4% body mass impaired time-trial performance in a practical manner both at the start and end of the training block. In conclusion, exercise-induced hypohydration of 2% and 4% body mass impairs 12 min walking/running time-trial, and repeated exposures to these hypohydration levels cannot reverse the impairment in performance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".