| Title |
Half-marathon running performance is not improved by a rate of fluid intake above that dictated by thirst sensation in trained distance runners
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-013-2730-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tommy Dion, Félix A. Savoie, Audrey Asselin, Carolanne Gariepy, Eric D. B. Goulet |
| Abstract |
It has been demonstrated that exercise-induced dehydration (EID) does not impair, and ad libitum drinking optimizes, cycling time-trial (TT) performance. However, the idea that EID ≥ 2 % bodyweight (BW) impairs endurance performance is well ingrained. No study has tested the impact of EID upon running TT performance. We compared the effects of thirst-driven (TD) vs. programmed fluid intake (PFI) aimed at maintaining EID-associated BW loss <2 % on half-marathon performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 24 | 27% |
| United States | 9 | 10% |
| Spain | 7 | 8% |
| South Africa | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 51 | 57% |
| Scientists | 20 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 20% |
| Unknown | 40 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 66 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 49 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2022.
All research outputs
#611,175
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#169
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,040
of 220,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 220,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.