MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeatability Of Ad Libitum Fluid Intake During 1 H Exercise Sessions Conducted Under Hot Ambient Conditions

2023· article· en· W4387062514 on OpenAlexaff
Eric DB Goulet, Thomas A. Deshayes, David Jeker, Ivan L. Simoneau, Antoine Jolicoeur-Desroches

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsCégep de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluid intakeSWEATAthletesMedicineBody fluidHeart rateRepeatabilityDehydrationPhysical therapyAnimal scienceInternal medicineChemistryBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ad libitum fluid intake is a strategy used by athletes. To what extent the amount of fluid consumed under ad libitum fluid intake conditions is repeatable across time under a given exercise scenario remains unknown. PURPOSE: Determine whether the variation in the amount of fluid consumed, % of sweat lost replaced and dehydration level associated with ad libitum fluid intake differs significantly between 1 h exercise sessions repeated on multiple occasions across time. METHODS: Twelve (9 men) non heat-acclimated athletes underwent 4 successive training weeks where they completed 3 standardized exercise sessions/week consisting in a 1 h exercise session with ad libitum fluid intake and two other sessions where exercise was maintained until a 2 or 4% body mass loss has been replaced with fluid. Exercise consisted in walking/running at 55% VO2max, 40 °C and 20% relative humidity. The goal of the 1 h exercise session was not mentioned to participants. No control was imposed on hydration, nutrition and training prior to the 1 h training sessions. During the 1 h exercise periods participants had free access to 20 °C water provided in opaque bottles. Body mass was measured prior to and following each exercise. Heart rate and rectal temperature were measured at 10 min intervals during exercise. RESULTS: Only results pertaining to the 1 h exercise sessions are reported. Mean body mass (72.1 ± 12.3 kg) prior to each exercise sessions did not differ among weeks (p = 0.18), indicating a similar hydration state prior to exercise. Sweat loss (1272 ± 400 mL, p = 0.36) and heart rate (131 ± 21 b/min, p = 0.06) did not change across weeks. Mean rectal temperature was significantly higher during week 1 (38.26 ± 0.23 °C) than week 2 (38.14 ± 0.23 °C) or 3 (38.15 ± 0.23 °C), but no difference was observed with week 4 (38.25 ± 0.23 °C, p = 0.73). Ad libitum fluid intake was similar among weeks (W1: 952 ± 770; W2: 1010 ± 449; W3: 1053 ± 402; W4: 1117 ± 431 mL, p = 0.54), as was the % of sweat loss replaced (W1: 77 ± 57; W2: 86 ± 38; W3: 88 ± 33; W4: 87 ± 32 %, p = 0.56) and dehydration level (W1: 0.44 ± 1.03; W2: 0.31 ± 0.66; W3: 0.26 ± 0.60; W4: 0.31 ± 0.64 % body mass, p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Ad libitum fluid intake during 4 successive identical 1 h training sessions conducted in the heat will result in similar volumes of fluid intake and perturbations in fluid balance and heart rate and rectal temperature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207