↓ 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, September 2018
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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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, September 2018
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 ).

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 22 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 23 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 26 34%

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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#901,555
of 13,657,732 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#292
of 687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,905
of 266,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,657,732 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 266,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.