ArticleNutrients2025
The Impact of a Commercial Electrolyte Beverage on the Hydration Status of Active Men and Women.
Article in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sodium-Containing Pharmaceutical Products as Contributors to Cardiovascular Risk.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Revisiting the need for innovative oral hydration technologies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Effects of plain water intake before bedtime on sleep and depressive mood among middle-aged Japanese men.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesHypo-hydration is a major health concern that affects performance and is associated with increasing morbidity and growing health care costs. There is an emerging interest in optimizing hydration and identifying how factors such as ingestion rate and beverage composition affect hydration. This study examined three beverages with varying ingestion rates and measured markers of hydration.
methodsThirty healthy, active participants between the ages of 18 and 45 years were given three different beverages on three separate days. The beverages were of identical volumes (1 L), but differed in the rate of ingestion, carbohydrate content and electrolyte content. Beverage 1 and water alone were both consumed at a metered rate of one liter over four hours, whereas Beverage 2 was used as a positive control and was consumed at a bolus rate of one liter in 30 min.
resultsAfter six hours, Beverage 1 significantly improved markers of hydration compared to water alone or Beverage 2. Beverage 1 decreased cumulative urine output vs. water alone by 32% (absolute difference -0.33 L; CI ± -0.16 to -0.51) and vs. Beverage 2 by 26% (absolute difference -0.26 L; CI ± -0.13 to -0.38). Beverage 1 increased the beverage hydration index vs. water alone by 64% (absolute difference +0.64 L; CI ± 0.36 to 0.92) and vs. Beverage 2 by 48% (absolute difference +0.53 L; CI ± 0.30 to 0.76).
conclusionsBeverage 1 is superior to water alone at improving hydration when it is ingested at similar rates. Moreover, metered ingestion of Beverage 1 improved hydration compared to a bolus ingestion of Beverage 2, this could be due to the dissimilar ingestion rates and/or beverage composition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.