Individual fluid plans versus ad libitum on hydration status in minor professional ice hockey playersReport as inadecuate




Individual fluid plans versus ad libitum on hydration status in minor professional ice hockey players - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

, 14:25

First Online: 01 August 2017Received: 25 April 2017Accepted: 27 July 2017

Abstract

BackgroundDespite 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.

MethodsA 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.

ResultsINT 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.

KeywordsHypohydration Urine specific gravity Urine color Body mass loss Fluid volume AbbreviationsBMBody mass

CEBCarbohydrate electrolyte beverage

CONControl

E-CEBElectrolyte enhanced carbohydrate electrolyte beverage

FvolFluid volume

IFPIndividual fluid plans

INTIntervention

Ucolurine color

Usgurine specific gravity

\ \dot{\mathrm{V}} \O2maxmaximum volume of oxygen consumed

Wwater

Download fulltext PDF



Author: Dawn M. Emerson - Toni M. Torres-McGehee - Charles C. Emerson - Teri L. LaSalle

Source: https://link.springer.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents