↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of a sports-hydration drink containing high amylose starch with usual hydration practice in Australian rules footballers during intense summer training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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.
Title
Comparison of a sports-hydration drink containing high amylose starch with usual hydration practice in Australian rules footballers during intense summer training
Published in
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, April 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12970-018-0253-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sinead Mary O’Connell, Richard John Woodman, Ian Lewis Brown, David Julian Vincent, Henry Joseph Binder, Balakrishnan Siddartha Ramakrishna, Graeme Paul Young

Abstract

Fluid deficits exceeding 1.6% can lead to physical and cognitive impairment in athletes. Sport drinks used by athletes are often hyper-osmolar but this is known to be suboptimal for rehydration in medical settings and does not utilize colonic absorptive capacity. Colonic absorption can be enhanced by fermentative production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) from substrates such as high amylose maize starch (HAMS). This study therefore compared, in elite Australian Football League (AFL) players at the height of outdoor summer training, a novel dual-action sports oral rehydration strategy that contained HAMS as well as glucose, to their usual rehydration practices (Control). The primary outcome markers of hydration were hematocrit and body weight. A randomized single-blind crossover study was undertaken in thirty-one AFL players; twenty-seven completed the study which was conducted on four days (two days in the Intervention arm and two in Control arm). The Intervention arm was comprised a 50-100 g evening preload of an acetylated HAMS (Ingredion Pty Ltd) followed by consumption of a specially formulated sports oral rehydration solution (SpORS) drink during intense training and recovery. Players followed their usual hydration routine in the Control arm. Quantitative assessments of body weight, hematocrit and urine specific gravity were made at three time-points on each day of training: pre-training, post-training (90 min), and at end of recovery (30-60 min later). GPS tracking monitored player exertion. Across the three time-points, hematocrit was significantly lower and body weight significantly higher in Intervention compared to Control arms (p < 0.02 and p = 0.001 respectively, mixed effects model). Weights were significantly heavier at all three assessment points for Intervention compared to Control arms (Δ = 0.30 ± 0.13, p = 0.02 pre-training; Δ = 0.43 ± 0.14, p = 0.002 post training; and Δ = 0.68 ± 0.14, p < 0.001 for recovery). Between the pre-training and end-of-recovery assessments, the Control arm lost 0.80 kg overall compared with 0.12 kg in the Intervention arm, an 85% lower reduction of bodyweight across the assessment period. The combination of the significantly lower hematocrit and increased body weight in the Intervention arm represents better hydration not only at the end of training as well as following a recovery period but also at its commencement. The magnitude of the benefit seems sufficient to have an impact on performance and further studies to test this possibility are now indicated. Trial is listed on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN 12613001373763 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Master 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 67 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 31 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 72 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 18 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,759,014
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#383
of 887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,852
of 440,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#370
of 851 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 440,728 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 851 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.