Funded in part by Danone, Instituto Danone, Danone Institute China
Hydration, Fluid Intake, and Related Urine Biomarkers among Male College Students in Cangzhou, China: A Cross-Sectional Study-Applications for Assessing Fluid Intake and Adequate Water Intake
Zhang N, Du S, Tang Z, Zheng M, Yan R, Zhu Y, Ma G
International journal of environmental research and public health · 36 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Cross-sectional study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Industry funded
- Company
- Danone
- Company
- Instituto Danone
- Company
- Danone Institute China
Based on 3 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2017-05-11 · Int J Environ Res Public Health · vol. 14 · issue 5 · p. 513
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 50 citations · more than 88% of similar papers · 2.4× the field average
- References
- 41 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Thermoregulation and physiological responses · Body Composition Measurement Techniques · Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Keywords
- Fluid intake, Urine, Urine osmolality, Urine specific gravity, Medicine, Urinalysis, Cross-sectional study, Water intake, Body fluid, Physiology, Animal science, Internal medicine, Biology, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, cross-sectional studies, water-electrolyte balance, drinking, eating, osmolar concentration, specific gravity, adolescent, adult, china, male, young adult, biomarkers
7 authors
From CN
- Na ZhangPeking University
- Songming DuChinese Nutrition Society
- Zhenchuang Tang
- Mengqi ZhengChinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention; National Institute for Nutrition and Health
- Ruixia Yan
- Yi-Tang ZhuCangzhou Central Hospital
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to assess the associations between fluid intake and urine biomarkers and to determine daily total fluid intake for assessing hydration status for male college students. A total of 68 male college students aged 18-25 years recruited from Cangzhou, China completed a 7-day cross-sectional study. From day 1 to day 7; all subjects were asked to complete a self-administered 7-day 24-h fluid intake record. The foods eaten by subjects were weighed and 24-h urine was collected for three consecutive days on the last three consecutive days. On the sixth day, urine osmolality, specific gravity (USG), pH, and concentrations of potassium, sodium, and chloride was determined. Subjects were divided into optimal hydration, middle hydration, and hypohydration groups according to their 24-h urine osmolality. Strong relationships were found between daily total fluid intake and 24-h urine biomarkers, especially for 24-h urine volume (r = 0.76; p r = 0.76; p R²) explained by PLS (partial least squares) model with seven urinary biomarkers was 68.9%; two urine biomarkers-24-h urine volume and osmolality-were identified as possible key predictors. The daily total fluid intake for assessing optimal hydration was 2582 mL, while the daily total fluid intake for assessing hypohydration was 2502 mL. Differences in fluid intake and urine biomarkers were found among male college students with different hydration status. A strong relationship existed between urine biomarkers and fluid intake. A PLS model identified that key variables for assessing daily total fluid intake were 24-h urine volume and osmolality. It was feasibility to use total fluid intake to judge hydration status.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.