Repeatability of Ad Libitum Fluid Intake During Repeated 1 h Walking/Jogging Exercise Sessions Conducted Under Hot Ambient Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A drinking strategy aiming to replace a given percentage of the sweat losses incurred during exercise should result in reproducible fluid intake volume and, hence, fluid balance from one exercise session to the other performed under similar scenarios. Whether this may also be the case with ad libitum drinking during exercise is unclear. We characterized the repeatability of ad libitum fluid intake during repeated 1 h exercise sessions and examine its effect over time on fluid balance and selected physiological functions and perceptual sensations. Twelve (3 women) healthy individuals participated in this study. At weekly intervals, they completed 4, 2 x 30 min walking/jogging exercise bouts (55% VO2max, 40°C, 20-30% relative humidity) interspersed by a 3 min recovery period. During exercise, participants replaced water (20°C) ad libitum. There were no significant differences among the 4 exercise sessions for absolute fluid intake volume (~ 1000 mL · h-1), percent body mass loss (~ 0.4%), sweat rate (~ 1300 mL · h-1) and percent of sweat loss replaced by fluid intake (~ 80%). Heart rate, rectal temperature and perceived thirst and heat stress did not differ significantly between the first and fourth exercise session. Perceived exertion was significantly lower during the fourth vs. the first exercise session, but the difference was trivial, < 1 arbitrary unit. In conclusion, ad libitum fluid intake during 4 successive identical 1 h walking/jogging sessions conducted in the heat will result in similar fluid intake volumes and perturbations in fluid balance, heart rate, rectal temperature and perceived thirst, heat stress and exertion.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".