CONTEXT: The behaviors and beliefs of recreational runners with regard to hydration maintenance are not well elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To examine which beverages runners choose to drink and why, negative performance and health experiences related to dehydration, and methods used to assess hydration status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Marathon registration site. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Men (n = 146) and women (n = 130) (age = 38.3 ± 11.3 years) registered for the 2010 Little Rock Half-Marathon or Full Marathon. INTERVENTION(S): A 23-item questionnaire was administered to runners when they picked up their race timing chips. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Runners were separated into tertiles (Low, Mod, High) based on z scores derived from training volume, expected performance, and running experience. We used a 100-mm visual analog scale with anchors of 0 (never) and 100 (always). Total sample responses and comparisons between tertile groups for questionnaire items are presented. RESULTS: The High group (58±31) reported greater consumption of sport beverages in exercise environments than the Low (42 ± 35 mm) and Mod (39 ± 32 mm) groups (P < .05) and perceived sport beverages to be superior to water in meeting hydration needs (P < .05) and improving performance during runs greater than 1 hour (P < .05). Seventy percent of runners experienced 1 or more incidents in which they believed dehydration resulted in a major performance decrement, and 45% perceived dehydration to have resulted in adverse health effects. Twenty percent of runners reported monitoring their hydration status. Urine color was the method most often reported (7%), whereas only 2% reported measuring changes in body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention should be paid to informing runners of valid techniques to monitor hydration status and developing an appropriate individualized hydration strategy.
CONTEXT: The behaviors and beliefs of recreational runners with regard to hydration maintenance are not well elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To examine which beverages runners choose to drink and why, negative performance and health experiences related to dehydration, and methods used to assess hydration status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Marathon registration site. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Men (n = 146) and women (n = 130) (age = 38.3 ± 11.3 years) registered for the 2010 Little Rock Half-Marathon or Full Marathon. INTERVENTION(S): A 23-item questionnaire was administered to runners when they picked up their race timing chips. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Runners were separated into tertiles (Low, Mod, High) based on z scores derived from training volume, expected performance, and running experience. We used a 100-mm visual analog scale with anchors of 0 (never) and 100 (always). Total sample responses and comparisons between tertile groups for questionnaire items are presented. RESULTS: The High group (58±31) reported greater consumption of sport beverages in exercise environments than the Low (42 ± 35 mm) and Mod (39 ± 32 mm) groups (P < .05) and perceived sport beverages to be superior to water in meeting hydration needs (P < .05) and improving performance during runs greater than 1 hour (P < .05). Seventy percent of runners experienced 1 or more incidents in which they believed dehydration resulted in a major performance decrement, and 45% perceived dehydration to have resulted in adverse health effects. Twenty percent of runners reported monitoring their hydration status. Urine color was the method most often reported (7%), whereas only 2% reported measuring changes in body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attention should be paid to informing runners of valid techniques to monitor hydration status and developing an appropriate individualized hydration strategy.
Authors: V A Convertino; L E Armstrong; E F Coyle; G W Mack; M N Sawka; L C Senay; W M Sherman Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sherry G Mansour; Thomas G Martin; Wassim Obeid; Rachel W Pata; Karen M Myrick; Lidiya Kukova; Yaqi Jia; Petter Bjornstad; Joe M El-Khoury; Chirag R Parikh Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Neeharika Namineni; O Alison Potok; Joachim H Ix; Charles Ginsberg; Dan Negoianu; Dena E Rifkin; Pranav S Garimella Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Nicholas B Tiller; Justin D Roberts; Liam Beasley; Shaun Chapman; Jorge M Pinto; Lee Smith; Melanie Wiffin; Mark Russell; S Andy Sparks; Lauren Duckworth; John O'Hara; Louise Sutton; Jose Antonio; Darryn S Willoughby; Michael D Tarpey; Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Michael J Ormsbee; Todd A Astorino; Richard B Kreider; Graham R McGinnis; Jeffrey R Stout; JohnEric W Smith; Shawn M Arent; Bill I Campbell; Laurent Bannock Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Eric K O'Neal; Sylvia P Poulos; Jonathan E Wingo; Mark T Richardson; Phillip A Bishop Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Daniela Chlíbková; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle; Josef Bednář Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 4.566