Objective It is purported that exercise-induced dehydration (EID), especially if ≥ 2% bodyweight, impairs endurance performance (EP). Field research shows that athletes can achieve outstanding EP while dehydrated > 2% bodyweight. Using the meta-analytic procedure, this study compared the findings of laboratory-based studies that examined the impact of EID upon EP using either ecologically valid (EV) (time-trial exercise) or non-ecologically valid (NEV) (clamped-intensity exercise) exercise protocols.
Methods EP outcomes were put on the same scale and represent % changes in power output between euhydrated and dehydrated exercise tests. Random-effects model meta-regressions and weighted mean effect summaries, mixed-effects model analogue to the ANOVAs and magnitude-based effect statistics were used to delineate treatment effects.
Main results Fifteen research articles were included, producing 28 effect estimates, representing 122 subjects. Compared with euhydration, EID increased (0.09±2.60%, (p=0.9)) EP under time-trial exercise conditions, whereas it reduced it (1.91±1.53%, (p<0.05)) with NEV exercise protocols. Only with NEV exercise protocols did EID ≥ 2% body weight impair EP (p=0.03).
Conclusions Evidence indicates that (1) EID ≤ 4% bodyweight is very unlikely to impair EP under real-world exercise conditions (time-trial type exercise) and; (2) under situations of fixed-exercise intensity, which may have some relevance for military and occupational settings, EID ≥ 2% bodyweight is associated with a reduction in endurance capacity. The 2% bodyweight loss rule has been established from findings of studies using NEV exercise protocols and does not apply to out-of-doors exercise conditions. Athletes are therefore encouraged to drink according to thirst during exercise.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
▸ References to this paper are available online at http://bjsm.bmj.com