4.4 Article

Saliva indices track hypohydration during 48 h of fluid restriction or combined fluid and energy restriction

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 10, 页码 975-980

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.002

关键词

dehydration; exercise; flow rate; osmolality

资金

  1. Ministry of Defence (Army), UK [AG1a/1261]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate whether unstimulated whole saliva flow rate (UFR) and osmolality (Sosm) track changes in hydration status during 48 h of restricted fluid intake (RF) or combined fluid and energy restriction (RF + RE). Following the 48 h periods, UFR and Sosm were assessed after acute exercise dehydration and rehydration. Design: Thirteen healthy males completed three trials in a randomised order: control (CON) where participants received their estimated energy (12,154 +/- 230 kJ/d: mean +/- S.E.M) and fluid (3912 +/- 140 ml/d) requirements, RF trial where participants received their energy requirements and 193 19 ml/d water to drink (total fluid 960 +/- 15 ml/d) and RF + RE where participants received 1214 25 kJ/d and 962 16 ml/d. After 48 h, participants completed 30 min of maximal exercise followed by rehydration (0-2 h) and refeeding (2-6 h). Results: At 48 h body mass loss exceeded 3% on RF and RF + RE. UFR decreased during 48 h on RF (510 +/- 122 to 169 +/- 37 mu l/min) and RF + RE (452 +/- 92 to 265 +/- 53 mu l/min) and was lower than CON at 48 h (441 +/- 90 mu l/min: P < 0.05). Sosm increased during 48 h on RF (54 +/- 3 to 73 +/- 5 mOsmol/kg) and RF + RE (52 +/- 3 to 68 +/- 5 mOsmol/kg) and was greater than CON at 48 h (52 +/- 2 mOsmol/kg: P < 0.05). Unlike UFR, Sosm identified the additional hypohydration associated with exercise (P < 0.05) and returned to within 0 h values with rehydration. Conclusions: Sosm, and to a lesser extent UFR, track hydration status during a 48 h period of RF or RF + RE and after subsequent exercise and rehydration. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据