Nutrients · 2025
Hydration Strategies in Ultra-Endurance Running: A Narrative Review of Programmed Versus Thirst-Driven Approaches.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wierick Shawn C, Perez Rosie I, Zhao Xiujing, McDermott Brendon P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ultra-endurance running (UER) presents unique hydration challenges due to prolonged duration, variable terrain, environmental extremes, and gastrointestinal limitations. Athletes often use either programmed fluid intake (PFI), which prescribes fluid volumes based on estimated sweat rate, or thirst-driven fluid intake (TDFI), which relies on internal cues. This review examines the effectiveness and limitations of each strategy in the context of UER performance and safety.
METHODS: A narrative review was conducted using a targeted selection of peer-reviewed studies. Both laboratory- and field-based research were included to evaluate the physiological rationale, practical feasibility, and outcomes associated with PFI and TDFI. A total of six studies (five field-based ultra-endurance and one laboratory-based endurance protocols) were included for narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Laboratory trials support PFI for preserving plasma volume, reducing cardiovascular strain, and improving performance in prolonged exercise under controlled conditions. However, real-world ultra-endurance events often involve environmental and logistical challenges that limit the applicability of rigid hydration strategies. Field studies demonstrate that TDFI is safe and effective for many experienced athletes, with no increased incidence of exercise-associated hyponatremia or measurable performance impairment, even with moderate body mass loss. Still, TDFI may underperform in individuals with high sweat rates or impaired thirst perception.
CONCLUSIONS: Neither strategy seems universally superior. A hybrid model that integrates individual sweat testing, environmental context, and responsiveness to internal cues may offer the most practical and effective hydration approach in ultra-endurance running. Continued research is needed to validate hydration strategies under field conditions and to inform personalized, performance-oriented guidelines.
METHODS: A narrative review was conducted using a targeted selection of peer-reviewed studies. Both laboratory- and field-based research were included to evaluate the physiological rationale, practical feasibility, and outcomes associated with PFI and TDFI. A total of six studies (five field-based ultra-endurance and one laboratory-based endurance protocols) were included for narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Laboratory trials support PFI for preserving plasma volume, reducing cardiovascular strain, and improving performance in prolonged exercise under controlled conditions. However, real-world ultra-endurance events often involve environmental and logistical challenges that limit the applicability of rigid hydration strategies. Field studies demonstrate that TDFI is safe and effective for many experienced athletes, with no increased incidence of exercise-associated hyponatremia or measurable performance impairment, even with moderate body mass loss. Still, TDFI may underperform in individuals with high sweat rates or impaired thirst perception.
CONCLUSIONS: Neither strategy seems universally superior. A hybrid model that integrates individual sweat testing, environmental context, and responsiveness to internal cues may offer the most practical and effective hydration approach in ultra-endurance running. Continued research is needed to validate hydration strategies under field conditions and to inform personalized, performance-oriented guidelines.