Rehydration After Exercise-Induced Fluid Losses: Comparing Flavored Water, Coconut Water, and Carbohydrate-Electrolyte Sports Beverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Bell, SK and Spriet, LL. Rehydration following exercise-induced fluid losses: comparing flavored water, coconut water, and carbohydrate-electrolyte sports beverage. J Strength Cond Res 40(4): 431-438, 2026-Effective fluid volume and electrolyte replacement after exercise is essential to rehydration and optimal athletic performance. Despite coconut water's (CW) inherently high electrolyte content, there is still limited supporting evidence on its use and rehydration efficacy. The following study investigated the rehydration efficacy and palatability of natural CW compared with flavored water (FW) and carbohydrate-electrolyte sports (CES) beverage, after exercise-induced dehydration. During this randomized, single-blind, cross-over study, 8 recreational athletes (7 men, 1 woman; 22.3 ± 0.4 years and 48.2 ± 2.2 ml min kg -1 V̇ o2 max), cycled at 70% V̇ o2 max for 60 minutes until dehydrated by 1.36 ± 0.1% (1.07 ± 0.1 kg) of initial body mass (BM). During separate trials, subjects ingested 1 of 3 electrolyte beverages: FW, CW, or CES in volumes equivalent to 150% of BM lost. Hydration status was assessed with body mass measures and urine volume collections. Perceptual measures of beverage saltiness, thirst, and nausea were recorded using a 5-point Fluid Sensation Scale. After rehydration, FW produced statistically greater total urine output (530 ± 119.2 ml) compared with CW (170 ± 35.8 ml) and CES (170 ± 35.8 ml), p < 0.05. Subjects retained the greatest fluid volume with CW, but fluid status post rehydration was statistically insignificant between all beverages ( p > 0.05). Perceived thirst was significantly greater for FW and CES at 0 minutes of rehydration ( p < 0.05), while saltiness and nausea were insignificantly different between trials ( p > 0.05). This study demonstrated that potassium-rich CW as a natural electrolyte rehydration alternative is equally effective in rehydration and palatability as the commercial CES drink, after moderate-to-high intensity exercise, despite having lower sodium concentrations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".