Randomized controlled trial2024

Utility of Body Weight, Urine Color, and Thirst Perception (WUT) in Determining Hydration in Young Adults

Adams WM, Anderson T, Zaplatosch ME, Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW, Yates BA, Morrissey-Basler MC, Casa DJ, Wideman L

Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 4 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

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
Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2024-07-04 · Med Sci Sports Exerc · vol. 56 · issue 12 · pp. 2404–2412
Publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Cited
4 citations · more than 73% of similar papers · 0.9× the field average
References
34 works
Access
Paywalled
Research areas
Thermoregulation and physiological responses · Body Composition Measurement Techniques · Electrolyte and hormonal disorders
Keywords
Thirst, Body weight, Urine, Psychology, Perception, Medicine, Internal medicine, Neuroscience
MeSH
body water, urine, humans, dehydration, body weight, thirst, perception, osmolar concentration, specific gravity, color, adolescent, adult, female, male, young adult, organism hydration status

9 authors

From GB, US

  • William M. AdamsLoughborough University; English Institute of Sport; University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Loughborough College; United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee
  • Travis AndersonUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro; United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee
  • Mitchell E. ZaplatoschUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro; Kennesaw State University
  • Samuel N. Cheuvront
  • Robert William Kenefick
  • Brandon A. YatesHarvard University

Abstract

Objective

The primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the weight, urine, and thirst (WUT) framework in predicting dehydration after a body water manipulation protocol, while concurrently determining the individual and interactive contributions of the model components.

Methods

The total study sample was 93 participants (female, n = 47), recruited from two institutions. Phase 1 involved collecting daily hydration measures from free-living participants (study 1, 58 participants for 3 d; study 2, 35 participants for 7 d). Phase 2 entailed a 2-h passive heating protocol, where participants from study 2 were randomly assigned to one of three groups that manipulated total body water over 24 h using passive heating and fluid restriction. During each phase, participants provided urine samples, underwent body mass measurements, and completed questionnaires pertaining to thirst perception. Morning and 24-h urine samples were assessed for color, osmolality, and specific gravity. Differences between intervention groups, based on the probability of hydration status, were examined (ANOVA), and ridge regression analysis assessed the relative importance of variables within the WUT model.

Results

The study revealed significant differences among the intervention groups for predicted probability of dehydration, as determined by changes in body mass ( P = 0.001), urine color ( P = 0.044), and thirst perception ( P < 0.001). Binomial ridge regression indicated that changes in body mass (58%) and thirst perception (26%) were the most influential predictors of dehydration.

Conclusions

These data support use of an enhanced version of the WUT model, underscoring the significance of changes in body mass and thirst perception in the assessment of hydration status.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.