Urine Specific Gravity as a Practical Marker for Identifying Suboptimal Fluid Intake of Runners ∼12-hr Postexercise.

The legitimacy of urine specific gravity (USG) as a stand-alone measure to detect hydration status has recently been challenged. As an alternative to hydration status, the purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic capability of using the traditional USG marker of >1.020 to detect insufficient recovery fluid consumption with consideration for moderate versus high sweat losses (2.00-2.99 or >3% body mass, respectively). Adequate recovery fluid intake was operationally defined as ≥100% beverage fluid intake plus food water from one or two meals and a snack. Runners (n = 59) provided 132 samples from five previous investigations in which USG was assessed 10-14 hr after 60-90 min runs in temperate-to-hot environments. Samples were collected after a meal (n = 58) and after waking (n = 74). When sweat losses exceeded 3% body mass (n = 60), the relationship between fluid replacement percentage and USG increased from r = -.55 to -.70. Correct diagnostic decision improved from 66.6 to 83.3%, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve increased the diagnostic accuracy score from 0.76 to approaching excellent (0.86). Artifacts of significant prerun hyperhydration (eight of 15 samples has USG <1.005) may explain false positive diagnoses, while almost all (84%) cases of false positives were found when sweat losses were <3.0% of body mass. Evidence from this study suggests that euhydrated runners experiencing significant sweat losses who fail to reach adequate recovery fluid intake levels can be identified by USG irrespective of acute meal and fluid intake ∼12-hr postrun.

Fluid Retention and Utility of Practical Hydration Markers to Detect Three Levels of Recovery Fluid Intake in Male Runners.

Runners are unlikely to consume fluid during training bouts increasing the importance of recovery rehydration efforts. This study assessed urine specific gravity (USG) responses following runs in the heat with different recovery fluid intake volumes. Thirteen male runners completed 3 evening running sessions resulting in approximately 2,200 ± 300 ml of sweat loss (3.1 ± 0.4% body mass) followed by a standardized dinner and breakfast. Beverage fluid intake (pre/postbreakfast) equaled 1,565/2,093 ml (low; L), 2,065/2,593 ml (moderate; M) and 2,565/3,356 mL (high; H). Voids were collected in separate containers. Increased urine output resulted in no differences (p > .05) in absolute mean fluid retention for waking or first postbreakfast voids. Night void averages excluding the first void postrun (1.025 ± 0.008; 1.013 ± 0.008; 1.006 ± 0.003), first morning (1.024 ± 0.004; 1.015 ± 0.005; 1.014 ± 0.005), and postbreakfast (1.022 ± 0.007; 1.014 ± 0.007; 1.008 ± 0.003) USG were higher (p < .05) for L versus M and H respectively and more clearly differentiated fluid intake volume between L and M than color or thirst sensation. Waking (r = -0.66) and postbreakfast (r = -0.71) USG were both significantly correlated (p < .001) with fluid replacement percentage, but not absolute fluid retention. Fluid intake M was reported as most similar to normal consumption (5.6 ± 1.0 on 0-10 scale) after breakfast and equaled 122 ± 16% of sweat losses. Retention data suggests consumption above this level is not warranted or actually practiced by most runners drinking ad libitum, but that periodic prerun USG assessment may be useful for coaches to detect runners that habitually consume low levels of fluids between training bouts in warm seasons.

Influence of carbohydrate mouth rinsing on running and jumping performance during early morning soccer scrimmaging.

Carbohydrate mouth rinse (CMR) is a novel method proposed to enhance endurance performance lasting ≤ 60 min. The current study examined the influence of CMR on anaerobic performance tasks in 11 collegiate female soccer players after an overnight fast. Athletes completed two experimental sessions, during which carbohydrate (CHO; 6% maltodextrin) or taste- and colour-matched placebo (PLA) mouth-rinse solutions were administered in a counterbalanced, double-blinded design. Three rounds of a 5-min scrimmage bout and series of performance tests including a single countermovement vertical jump (1VJ), a set of four consecutive vertical jumps, a 72-m shuttle run (SR72) and 18-m sprint comprised each trial. Thirst sensation (TS), session TS, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE were assessed as secondary outcomes. The first SR72 approached significance (p = 0.069), but no significant between-trials differences were observed for any of the mean performance tasks. The highest 1VJ scores did not differ for the first (CHO = 47.3 ± 3.4, PLA = 47.7 ± 3.5 cm; p = 0.43), second (CHO = 48.0 ± 4.1, PLA = 47.9 ± 3.5 cm; p = 0.82) or third bout (CHO = 47.4 ± 3.9, PLA = 48.1 ± 3.9 cm; p = 0.26). TS approached significance (p = 0.053) during the first bout. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found for any of the perceptual variables. Current results fail to support ergogenic influence of CMR on anaerobic performance tasks in collegiate female athletes.

Agreement of urine specific gravity measurements between manual and digital refractometers.

CONTEXT: Urine specific gravity (Usg), measured by a handheld manual refractometer (MAN), has been recognized as a valid and practical means of assessing hydration status. Newer, digital refractometers are faster and more user friendly but have not been validated against the traditional MAN. OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability and validity of 2 digital refractometer models and a MAN. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Sample of convenience was recruited from the local university and surrounding community (n = 82). INTERVENTION(S): Participants provided multiple urine samples (n = 124) over a 5-month period under various hydration conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Urine specific gravity was compared among a MAN, a digital refractometer requiring the prism to be dipped (DIP) into a urine sample, and a digital refractometer that requires urine to be pipetted (PIP) onto its prism for analysis. RESULTS: The MAN measurements were strongly correlated with the DIP (r = 0.99, P < .001) and PIP (r = 0.97, P < .001) measurements. Bland-Altman analyses revealed slight mean underestimation (95% upper and lower levels of agreement) between MAN and DIP (-0.0012 [0.0028] and PIP -0.0011 [0.0035], respectively) and trends toward increased underestimation at higher Usg. Measurement error ≥ .005 was greater for PIP (4/124, 3.2%) than for DIP (2/124, 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Negligible differences were exhibited between PIP and DIP, with both displaying acceptable reliability and validity compared with the MAN. However, the Bland-Altman analysis suggests underestimation bias for the DIP and PIP as Usg increases, with the potential for rare but substantial underestimation when using PIP that should be recognized by clinicians, particularly when used as a screening measure in weight-class sports.

Hydration kinetics and 10-km outdoor running performance following 75% versus 150% between bout fluid replacement.

Current American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines recommend replacing 150% of sweat losses between training bouts separated by ≤12 hours, but little evidence exists concerning the implications of this strategy for runners. Participants (n = 13) in this study replaced 75% (1637 ± 372 mL) or 150% (3099 ± 850 mL) of sweat losses following an outdoor evening run (∼75 minutes; Wet-bulb-globe temperature (WBGT) = ∼27°C) and consumed a standardised evening meal and breakfast before completing an outdoor (WBGT = ∼23°C) 10-km time-trial the following morning. Urine was collected between runs and urine specific gravity (USG) was assessed pre-run. Significant differences were found in pre-run body mass (75% = 69.6 ± 9.2; 150% = 70.1 ± 9.3 kg; P = 0.02) and USG (75% = 1.026 ± 0.005; 150% = 1.014 ± 0.007; P < 0.001). Heart rate during 10-km run (168 ± 14 versus 168 ± 12 beats min(-1)) and post-run intestinal temperature (39.08 ± 0.52 versus 39.00 ± 0.70 °C) did not differ for 75% and 150%, respectively, despite an ∼3% performance improvement (75% = 47.28 ± 6.64; 150% = 45.93 ± 6.04 minutes; P = 0.001) due to a faster pace in the second half of the run with 150% replacement. Session rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was lower (P = 0.02) during 150% (7.5 ± 1.3) versus 75% (8.4 ± 0.9). Reluctant drinkers potentially hinder training quality between evening and morning runs in the heat, but copious urine production and difficulty in consuming recommended fluid volumes suggest fluid replacement <150% may be more ideal.