The effect of hypohydration before and different rehydration strategies after severe intensity exercise on post-exercise hypotension in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effect of 12 h of fluid deprivation before, and three different rehydration strategies (none, fixed volume, and ad libitum drinking) after exercise on post-exercise hypotension (PEH) in 12 normotensive Asian men. The participants underwent four experimental trials, comprising euhydration (Eu), dehydration only (De), dehydration with fixed fluid intake (De + Fixed) and dehydration with ad libitum fluid intake (De + Ad). The participants completed one of the dehydration trials at the severe intensity domain until volitional exhaustion. All other trials were strictly matched for the time to exhaustion reported in the dehydration trial (698 ± 179 s), with a 1-h recovery in all trials. The dehydration trials (De, De + Fixed and De + Ad) induced higher resting plasma osmolality (291 ± 4, 294 ± 6, 294 ± 4 vs. 287 ± 4 mOsm/kg, respectively), urine specific gravity and haematocrit (all P < 0.03) than Eu. The peak reduction in post-exercise diastolic blood pressure was larger in De (- 12 ± 2 mm Hg) than in Eu (- 6 ± 1 mm Hg), De + Fixed (- 4 ± 2 mm Hg) and De + Ad (- 5 ± 2 mm Hg), as was the reduction in mean arterial pressure (De: - 11 ± 2 vs - 7 ± 1, - 5 ± 1 and - 5 ± 1 mm Hg, all P < 0.05). These reductions did not differ across Eu, De + Fixed and De + Ad (all P > 0.80). No effects of dehydration on systolic pressure were observed (P = 0.06). Dehydration exacerbated PEH whilst fixed and ad libitum drinking during the post-exercise period were equally effective at mitigating hypotension in Asian men.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".