Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260831›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2025

The effects of body hydration on perceptual responses during blood flow restriction exercise.

Jenna C McCrone, Christopher Pignanelli, Gavin C Lydiate, Monica M Grigore, Katrin Turetskiy, Alexa A Robertson, Regan E J Parris, Ella M Bisset-Cavallin, Jamie F Burr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jenna C McCroneDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher PignanelliDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Gavin C LydiateDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Monica M GrigoreDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Katrin TuretskiyDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Alexa A RobertsonDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Regan E J ParrisDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Ella M Bisset-CavallinDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Jamie F BurrDepartment of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5449-3352

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training has emerged as a novel modality with clinical potential. However, BFR increases perceived effort and pain, highlighting the need to identify factors influencing perceptual responses to optimize its practical application. Hypohydration similarly increases discomfort during exercise or painful stimuli, but whether this interacts with BFR is unknown. The purpose of the study was to determine if hydration affects the perceptual response to BFR exercise. Of the 34 participants recruited, 17 (7 females) completed two BFR exercise bouts: (1) Hydrated (regular fluid intake) and (2) Hypohydrated (24 h fluid restriction). Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and leg pain were recorded throughout. With hypohydration, urine specific gravity increased (Hydrated = 1.01 ± 0.009, vs. Hypohydrated = 1.025 ± 0.002, p < 0.0001), body mass decreased (-2.3 ± 0.7%, p  < 0.0001), and plasma volume decreased (-7.0 ± 3.4%, p  < 0.0001). Similar RPE and leg pain were reported during BFR exercise (RPE: 10.6 ± 0.9, vs. 11.1 ± 0.9, p = 0.054, leg pain: 3.5 ± 1.1, vs. 3.8 ± 1.2, p = 0.2). Similarly, during the rest periods, there was a minimal effect for RPE (9.1 ± 1, vs. 9.5 ± 1.3, p = 0.1) and leg pain (3.1 ± 1.5, vs. 3.6 ± 1.8, p = 0.09). Preliminary analyses show minimal sex differences in perceptual responses, with hydration status changes unrelated to BFR perception. Thus, hydration status has little impact on perceptual responses to BFR exercise.

Indexed as

Blood Flow Restriction TherapyDehydrationExercisePerceptionAdultFemaleHumansLegMalePhysical ExertionRegional Blood FlowYoung Adultdehydrationdiscomforthypohydrationischemiametabolites

Identifiers

PMID40260831
PMCPMC12012723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.