No 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).ConclusionsParticipants 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.

Few controlled laboratory studies have examined the negative effects non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can have on fluid-electrolyte balance during exercise. Our objective was to determine whether a 24-h naproxen dose negatively affected hydration and electrolyte measures before, during, and 3 h after 90 min of cycling in a hot or ambient environment. Using a double blind, randomized and counterbalanced cross-over design, 11 volunteers (six male, five female) completed four trials, with conditions as follows: (1) placebo and ambient, (2) placebo and heat, (3) naproxen and ambient, and (4) naproxen and heat. We found no statistically significant differences among experimental conditions for any dependent measures. Though not statistically significant, mean fluid volume was higher and urine volume was lower during naproxen trials compared with placebos. Mean aggregate plasma sodium was <135 mmol/L at all time points and did not significantly change over time. Overall plasma potassium significantly increased pre-(3.9 ± 0.4) to post-exercise (4.2 ± 0.4 mmol/L, p = 0.02). In conclusion, an acute naproxen dose did not significantly alter hydration-electrolyte balance. The trend for naproxen to increase fluid volume and decrease urine volume suggests the start of fluid retention, which should concern individuals at risk for hyponatremia or with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions.