↓ Skip to main content

Measured and perceived indices of fluid balance in professional athletes. The use and impact of hydration assessment strategies

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Sport Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Measured and perceived indices of fluid balance in professional athletes. The use and impact of hydration assessment strategies
Published in
European Journal of Sport Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1080/17461391.2017.1418910
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine athletes perceived and measured indices of fluid balance during training and the influence of hydration strategy use on these parameters. Thirty-three professional rugby union players completed a 120 minute training session in hot conditions (35°C, 40% relative humidity). Pre-training hydration status, sweat loss, fluid intake and changes in body mass (BM) were obtained. The use of hydration assessment techniques and players perceptions of fluid intake and sweat loss were obtained via a questionnaire. The majority of players (78%) used urine colour to determine pre-training hydration status but the use of hydration assessment techniques did not influence pre-training hydration status (1.025 ± 0.005 vs. 1.023 ± 0.013 g.ml-1, P = .811). Players underestimated sweat loss (73 ± 17%) to a greater extent than fluid intake (37 ± 28%) which resulted in players perceiving they were in positive fluid balance (0.5 ± 0.8% BM) rather than the measured negative fluid balance (-1.0 ± 0.7% BM). Forty-eight percent of players used hydration monitoring strategies during exercise but no player used changes in BM to help guide fluid replacement. Players have difficulty perceiving fluid intake and sweat loss during training. However, the use of hydration monitoring techniques did not affect fluid balance before or during training.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 31 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#9,105,600
of 34,170,764 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Sport Science
#1,037
of 2,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,162
of 493,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Sport Science
#35
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,170,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 493,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.