Comparison of Two Fluid Replacement Protocols During a 20-km Trail Running Race in the Heat

Personalized Hydration Strategy to Improve Fluid Balance and Intermittent Exercise Performance in the Heat

Sweat rate and electrolyte losses have a large inter-individual variability. A personalized approach to hydration can overcome this issue to meet an individual's needs. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a personalized hydration strategy (PHS) on fluid balance and intermittent exercise performance. Twelve participants conducted 11 laboratory visits including a VO2max test and two 5-day trial arms under normothermic (NOR) or hyperthermic (HYP) environmental conditions. Each arm began with three days of familiarization exercise followed by two random exercise trials with either a PHS or a control (CON). Then, participants crossed over to the second arm for: NOR+PHS, NOR+CON, HYP+PHS, or HYP+CON. The PHS was prescribed according to the participants' fluid and sweat sodium losses. CON drank ad libitum of commercially-available electrolyte solution. Exercise trials consisted of two phases: (1) 45 min constant workload; (2) high-intensity intermittent exercise (HIIT) until exhaustion. Fluids were only provided in phase 1. PHS had a significantly greater fluid intake (HYP+PHS: 831.7 ± 166.4 g; NOR+PHS: 734.2 ± 144.9 g) compared to CON (HYP+CON: 369.8 ± 221.7 g; NOR+CON: 272.3 ± 143.0 g), regardless of environmental conditions (p < 0.001). HYP+CON produced the lowest sweat sodium concentration (56.2 ± 9.0 mmol/L) compared to other trials (p < 0.001). HYP+PHS had a slower elevated thirst perception and a longer HIIT (765 ± 452 s) compared to HYP+CON (548 ± 283 s, p = 0.04). Thus, PHS reinforces fluid intake and successfully optimizes hydration status, regardless of environmental conditions. PHS may be or is an important factor in preventing negative physiological consequences during high-intensity exercise in the heat.

Does Hypohydration Really Impair Endurance Performance? Methodological Considerations for Interpreting Hydration Research

The impact of alterations in hydration status on human physiology and performance responses during exercise is one of the oldest research topics in sport and exercise nutrition. This body of work has mainly focussed on the impact of reduced body water stores (i.e. hypohydration) on these outcomes, on the whole demonstrating that hypohydration impairs endurance performance, likely via detrimental effects on a number of physiological functions. However, an important consideration, that has received little attention, is the methods that have traditionally been used to investigate how hypohydration affects exercise outcomes, as those used may confound the results of many studies. There are two main methodological limitations in much of the published literature that perhaps make the results of studies investigating performance outcomes difficult to interpret. First, subjects involved in studies are generally not blinded to the intervention taking place (i.e. they know what their hydration status is), which may introduce expectancy effects. Second, most of the methods used to induce hypohydration are both uncomfortable and unfamiliar to the subjects, meaning that alterations in performance may be caused by this discomfort, rather than hypohydration per se. This review discusses these methodological considerations and provides an overview of the small body of recent work that has attempted to correct some of these methodological issues. On balance, these recent blinded hydration studies suggest hypohydration equivalent to 2–3% body mass decreases endurance cycling performance in the heat, at least when no/little fluid is ingested.

Fluid Needs for Training, Competition, and Recovery in Track-and-Field Athletes

The 2019 International Amateur Athletics Federation Track-and-Field World Championships will take place in Qatar in the Middle East. The 2020 Summer Olympics will take place in Tokyo, Japan. It is quite likely that these events may set the record for hottest competitions in the recorded history of both the Track-and-Field World Championships and Olympic Games. Given the extreme heat in which track-and-field athletes will need to train and compete for these games, the importance of hydration is amplified more than in previous years. The diverse nature of track-and-field events, training programs, and individuality of athletes taking part inevitably means that fluid needs will be highly variable. Track-and-field events can be classified as low, moderate, or high risk for dehydration based on typical training and competition scenarios, fluid availability, and anticipated sweat losses. This paper reviews the risks of dehydration and potential consequences to performance in track-and-field events. The authors also discuss strategies for mitigating the risk of dehydration.

Proper Hydration During Ultra-endurance Activities

The health and performance of ultra-endurance athletes is dependent on avoidance of performance limiting hypohydration while also avoiding the potentially fatal consequences of exercise-associated hyponatremia due to overhydration. In this work, key factors related to maintaining proper hydration during ultra-endurance activities are discussed. In general, proper hydration need not be complicated and has been well demonstrated to be achieved by simply drinking to thirst and consuming a typical race diet during ultra-endurance events without need for supplemental sodium. As body mass is lost from oxidation of stored fuel, and water supporting the intravascular volume is generated from endogenous fuel oxidation and released with glycogen oxidation, the commonly promoted hydration guidelines of avoiding body mass losses of >2% can result in overhydration during ultra-endurance activities. Thus, some body mass loss should occur during prolonged exercise, and appropriate hydration can be maintained by drinking to the dictates of thirst.

Ad libitum drinking adequately supports hydration during 2 h of running in different ambient temperatures

PURPOSE

To examine if ad libitum drinking will adequately support hydration during exertional heat stress.

METHODS

Ten endurance-trained runners ran for 2 h at 60% of maximum oxygen uptake under different conditions. Participants drank water ad libitum during separate trials at mean ambient temperatures of 22 °C, 30 °C and 35 °C. Participants also completed three trials at a mean ambient temperature of 35 °C while drinking water ad libitum in all trials, and with consumption of programmed glucose or whey protein hydrolysate solutions to maintain euhydration in two of these trials. Heart rate, oxygen uptake, rectal temperature, perceived effort, and thermal sensation were monitored, and nude body mass, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and plasma osmolality were measured before and after exercise. Water and mass balance equations were used to calculate hydration-related variables.

RESULTS

Participants adjusted their ad libitum water intake so that the same decrease in body mass (1.1-1.2 kg) and same decrease in body water (0.8-0.9 kg) were observed across the range of ambient temperatures which yielded significant differences (p < .001) in sweat loss. Overall, water intake and total water gain replaced 57% and 66% of the water loss, respectively. The loss in body mass and body water associated with ad libitum drinking resulted in no alteration in physiological and psychophysiological variables compared with the condition when hydration was nearly fully maintained (0.3 L body water deficit) relative to pre-exercise status from programmed drinking.

CONCLUSIONS

Ad libitum drinking is an appropriate strategy for supporting hydration during running for 2 h duration under hot conditions.

Running Mechanics and Metabolic Responses With Water Bottles and Bottle Belt Holders

PURPOSE

To determine whether differential kinematics, kinetics, rates of energy use, and cardiopulmonary responses occur during running with water bottles and bottle belt holders compared with running only.

METHODS

Trained runners (N = 42; age 27.2 [6.4] y) ran on an instrumented treadmill for 4 conditions in a randomized order: control run (CON), handheld full water bottle (FULL; 16.9 fluid oz; 454 g), handheld half-full water bottle (HALF; 8.4 fluid oz; 227 g), and waist-worn bottle belt holder (BELT; hydration belt; 676 g). Gas exchange was measured using a portable gas analyzer. Kinetic and kinematic responses were determined by standard 3-dimensional videographic techniques. Interactions of limb side (right and left) by study condition (CON, FULL, HALF, and BELT) were tested for rates of oxygen use and energy expenditure and kinematic and kinetic parameters.

RESULTS

No significant limb-side × condition interactions existed for rates of oxygen use or energy expenditure. A significant interaction occurred with sagittal elbow flexion (P < .001). Transverse pelvic-rotation excursions differed on average 3.8° across conditions. The minimum sagittal hip-flexion moment was higher in the right leg in the HALF and BELT conditions compared with CON (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Carrying water by hand or on the waist does not significantly change the kinematics of running motion, rates of oxygen use and energy expenditure, or cardiopulmonary measures over short durations. Runners likely make adjustments to joint moments and powers that preserve balance and protect the lower-extremity joints while maintaining rates of oxygen use and energy expenditure.

Considerations for ultra-endurance activities: part 2 - hydration

It is not unusual for those participating in ultra-endurance (> 4 hr) events to develop varying degrees of either hypohydration or hyperhydration. Yet, it is important for ultra-endurance athletes to avoid the performance limiting and potentially fatal consequences of these conditions. During short periods of exercise (< 1 hr), trivial effects on the relationship between body mass change and hydration status result from body mass loss due to oxidation of endogenous fuel stores, and water supporting the intravascular volume being generated from endogenous fuel oxidation and released with glycogen oxidation. However, these effects have meaningful implications during prolonged exercise. In fact, body mass loses well over 2% may be required during some ultra-endurance activities to avoid hyperhydration. Therefore, the typical hydration guidelines to avoid more than 2% body mass loss do not apply in ultra-endurance activities and can potentially result in hyperhydration. Fortunately, achieving the balance of proper hydration during ultra-endurance activities need not be complicated and has been well demonstrated to generally be achieved by simply drinking to thirst and avoiding excessive sodium supplementation with intention of replacing all sodium losses during the exercise.

Personalized Hydration Strategy Attenuates the Rise in Heart Rate and in Skin Temperature Without Altering Cycling Capacity in the Heat

The optimal hydration plan [i.e., drink to thirst, ad libitum (ADL), or personalized plan] to be adopted during exercise in recreational athletes has recently been a matter of debate and, due to conflicting results, consensus does not exist. In the present investigation, we tested whether a personalized hydration strategy based on sweat rate would affect cardiovascular and thermoregulatory responses and exercise capacity in the heat. Eleven recreational male cyclists underwent two familiarization cycling sessions in the heat (34°C, 40% RH) where sweat rate was also determined. A fan was used to enhance sweat evaporation. Participants then performed three randomized time-to-exhaustion (TTE) trials in the heat with different hydration strategies: personalized volume (PVO), where water was consumed, based on individual sweat rate, every 10 min; ADL, where free access to water was allowed; and a control (CON) trial with no fluids. Blood osmolality and urine-specific gravity were measured before each trial. Heart rate (HR), rectal, and skin temperatures were monitored throughout trials. Time to exhaustion at 70% of maximal workload was used to define exercise capacity in the heat, which was similar in all trials (p = 0.801). Body mass decreased after ADL (p = 0.008) and CON (p < 0.001) and was maintained in PVO trials (p = 0.171). Participants consumed 0 ml in CON, 166 ± 167 ml in ADL, and 1,080 ± 166 ml in PVO trials. The increase in mean body temperature was similar among trials despite a lower increase in skin temperature during PVO trial in comparison with CON (2.1 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.5°C, p = 0.0038). HR was lower toward the end of TTE in PVO (162 ± 8 bpm) in comparison with ADL (168 ± 12 bpm) and CON (167 ± 10 bpm), p < 0.001. In conclusion, a personalized hydration strategy can reduce HR during a moderate to high intensity exercise session in the heat and halt the increase in skin temperature. Despite these advantages, cycling capacity in the heat remained unchanged.

Individual fluid plans versus ad libitum on hydration status in minor professional ice hockey players

Background

Despite exercising in cool environments, ice hockey players exhibit several dehydration risk factors. Individualized fluid plans (IFPs) are designed to mitigate dehydration by matching an individual’s sweat loss in order to optimize physiological systems and performance.

Methods

A randomized control trial was used to examine IFP versus ad libitum fluid ingestion on hydration in 11 male minor professional ice hockey players (mean age = 24.4 ± 2.6 years, height = 183.0 ± 4.6 cm, weight = 92.9 ± 7.8 kg). Following baseline measures over 2 practices, participants were randomly assigned to either control (CON) or intervention (INT) for 10 additional practices. CON participants were provided water and/or carbohydrate electrolyte beverage to drink ad libitum. INT participants were instructed to consume water and an electrolyte-enhanced carbohydrate electrolyte beverage to match sweat and sodium losses. Urine specific gravity, urine color, and percent body mass change characterized hydration status. Total fluid consumed during practice was assessed.

Results

INT consumed significantly more fluid than CON (1180.8 ± 579.0 ml vs. 788.6 ± 399.7 ml, p = 0.002). However, CON participants replaced only 25.4 ± 12.9% of their fluid needs and INT 35.8 ± 17.5%. Mean percent body mass loss was not significantly different between groups and overall indicated minimal dehydration (<1.2% loss). Pre-practice urine specific gravity indicated CON and INT began hypohydrated (mean = 1.024 ± 0.007 and 1.024 ± 0.006, respectively) and experienced dehydration during practice (post = 1.026 ± 0.006 and 1.027 ± 0.005, respectively, p < 0.001). Urine color increased pre- to post-practice for CON (5 ± 2 to 6 ± 1, p < 0.001) and INT (5 ± 1 to 6 ± 1, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Participants consistently reported to practice hypohydrated. Ad libitum fluid intake was not significantly different than IFP on hydration status. Based on urine measures, both methods were unsuccessful in preventing dehydration during practice, suggesting practice-only hydration is inadequate to maintain euhydration in this population when beginning hypohydrated.