BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Few user-friendly hydration assessment techniques exist for the general population to use on a daily basis. The present study evaluated void number over 24 h as a potential hydration assessment tool. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Male and female subjects collected urine for 24 h while adequately hydrated (n=44; 22 ± 4 years, 168 ± 16 cm, 73 ± 15 kg) or fluid restricted (n=43; 22 ± 3 years, 175 ± 10 cm, 81 ± 24 kg). As a control, participants were asked to void when feeling the 'first urge to void' on a commonly used urge scale and noted the volume of each void. For each sample, 24-h urine volume, osmolality (U(OSM)), specific gravity (U(SG)) and color were measured in the laboratory. RESULTS: As designed, the level of urge upon voiding was consistent throughout the study (2 ± 0; 'first urge to void'). Samples were classified by U(SG) as either euhydrated (U(SG)<1.020) or hypohydrated (U(SG) ⩾ 1.020). Grouping by U(OSM) did not change results. Euhydrated versus hypohydrated individuals had greater 24-h urine volume (1933 ± 864 versus 967 ± 306 ml, respectively) and lower urine color (2 ± 1 versus 5 ± 1), U(SG) (1.012 ± 0.004 versus 1.025 ± 0.004) and UOSM (457 ± 180 versus 874 ± 175 mOsm/kg H2O; all P<0.001). Euhydrated individuals voided more than hypohydrated individuals over the 24-h period (5 ± 2 versus 3 ± 1 voids; P<0.001). Additionally, void number inversely correlated with hydration status as identified by U(SG) (r=-0.50; P<0.05) and U(OSM) (r=-0.56; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, over 24 h, individuals with a higher void number were euhydrated (that is, had less concentrated hydration biomarkers) than those with a lower void number. Based on these data, void number might be utilized as a simple and feasible hydration assessment for the general public, as it utilizes no equipment or technical expertise.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Few user-friendly hydration assessment techniques exist for the general population to use on a daily basis. The present study evaluated void number over 24 h as a potential hydration assessment tool. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Male and female subjects collected urine for 24 h while adequately hydrated (n=44; 22 ± 4 years, 168 ± 16 cm, 73 ± 15 kg) or fluid restricted (n=43; 22 ± 3 years, 175 ± 10 cm, 81 ± 24 kg). As a control, participants were asked to void when feeling the 'first urge to void' on a commonly used urge scale and noted the volume of each void. For each sample, 24-h urine volume, osmolality (U(OSM)), specific gravity (U(SG)) and color were measured in the laboratory. RESULTS: As designed, the level of urge upon voiding was consistent throughout the study (2 ± 0; 'first urge to void'). Samples were classified by U(SG) as either euhydrated (U(SG)<1.020) or hypohydrated (U(SG) ⩾ 1.020). Grouping by U(OSM) did not change results. Euhydrated versus hypohydrated individuals had greater 24-h urine volume (1933 ± 864 versus 967 ± 306 ml, respectively) and lower urine color (2 ± 1 versus 5 ± 1), U(SG) (1.012 ± 0.004 versus 1.025 ± 0.004) and UOSM (457 ± 180 versus 874 ± 175 mOsm/kg H2O; all P<0.001). Euhydrated individuals voided more than hypohydrated individuals over the 24-h period (5 ± 2 versus 3 ± 1 voids; P<0.001). Additionally, void number inversely correlated with hydration status as identified by U(SG) (r=-0.50; P<0.05) and U(OSM) (r=-0.56; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, over 24 h, individuals with a higher void number were euhydrated (that is, had less concentrated hydration biomarkers) than those with a lower void number. Based on these data, void number might be utilized as a simple and feasible hydration assessment for the general public, as it utilizes no equipment or technical expertise.
Authors: Lawrence E Armstrong; Amy C Pumerantz; Kelly A Fiala; Melissa W Roti; Stavros A Kavouras; Douglas J Casa; Carl M Maresh Journal: Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Matthew S Ganio; Lawrence E Armstrong; Douglas J Casa; Brendon P McDermott; Elaine C Lee; Linda M Yamamoto; Stefania Marzano; Rebecca M Lopez; Liliana Jimenez; Laurent Le Bellego; Emmanuel Chevillotte; Harris R Lieberman Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Aarthi Raman; Dale A Schoeller; Amy F Subar; Richard P Troiano; Arthur Schatzkin; Tamara Harris; Douglas Bauer; Shiela A Bingham; James E Everhart; Anne B Newman; Frances A Tylavsky Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2003-11-04
Authors: M A Tucker; M A Gonzalez; J D Adams; J M Burchfield; N E Moyen; F B Robinson; B A Schreiber; M S Ganio Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Brendon P McDermott; Scott A Anderson; Lawrence E Armstrong; Douglas J Casa; Samuel N Cheuvront; Larry Cooper; W Larry Kenney; Francis G O'Connor; William O Roberts Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Na Zhang; Songming Du; Zhenchuang Tang; Mengqi Zheng; Ruixia Yan; Yitang Zhu; Guansheng Ma Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Erica T Perrier; Lawrence E Armstrong; Jeanne H Bottin; William F Clark; Alberto Dolci; Isabelle Guelinckx; Alison Iroz; Stavros A Kavouras; Florian Lang; Harris R Lieberman; Olle Melander; Clementine Morin; Isabelle Seksek; Jodi D Stookey; Ivan Tack; Tiphaine Vanhaecke; Mariacristina Vecchio; François Péronnet Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.614