Sex Differences in The Accuracy of WUT (Weight, Urine Color, Thirst) Diagrams Assessing Hydration Status

Authors

Jan-Joseph Rolloque, Texas Tech UniversityFollow
Marcos KeefeFollow
Nigel JiwanFollow
Casey AppellFollow
Madison PomroyFollow
HuiYing LukFollow
Yasuki SekiguchiFollow

Abstract

The WUT (Weight, Urine Color, Thirst) Venn diagram is a practical method to assess hydration status using percent body mass loss (%BML), urine color (U_COL), and thirst perception (TP). However, sex differences and the accuracy of WUT diagrams between males and females has not yet been investigated. PURPOSE: To observe sex differences in the accuracy of WUT diagrams assessing hydration status. METHODS: 8 males [M] (age: 21 ± 3; mass: 76.3 ± 15.6 kg) and 5 females [F] (age: 22 ± 2; mass: 60.5 ± 13.6) visited the laboratory twice a day (morning (7:00am-9:00am) and afternoon (2:00pm-4:00pm)) for six days as free-living for the first three consecutive days and euhydrated (urine specific gravity (USG) < 1.020) for the last three consecutive days. During each visit, TP, body mass (BM), USG, U_OSM, U_COL, and plasma osmolality (P_OSM) were collected. Values of USG >1.020, U_OSM >700, and P_OSM >290 indicated dehydration status. TP >5, U_COL >5, and %BML >1% values were used as dehydration thresholds for WUT scores. Total WUT score (0-3) was determined by the total amount of respective dehydration markers identified. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze differences in P_OSM, U_OSM, and USG between the different WUT scores for both sexes. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was used to calculate sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) identifying dehydration or euhydration with WUT scores. RESULTS: For P_OSM, WUT3 (M: 291 ± 5; F: 286 ± 0 mOsmol), WUT2 (289 ± 6; 286 ± 7), WUT1 (286 ± 5; 286 ± 6), and WUT0 (289 ± 5; 285 ± 7) were not different between sexes (p > .05). For USG, WUT3 (1.022 ± .004; 1.020 ± .000), WUT2 (1.019 ± .008; 1.020 ± .007), WUT1 (1.015 ± .006; 1.010 ± .005), and WUT0 (1.010 ± .006; 1.008 ± .006) were not different between sexes (p > .05). For U_OSM, WUT3 (819 ± 147; 744 ± .000 mOsmol), WUT2 (679 ± 244; 788 ± 261), WUT1 (521 ± 266; 461 ± 212), and WUT0 (383 ± 212; 322 ± 203) were not different between sexes (p > .05). For P_OSM, WUT2_SPEC was higher in M (WUT2_Mspec, .860) than F (WUT2_Fsepc, .786) while WUT3, WUT1, and WUT0 were similar between sexes (WUT3_Mspec, .965; WUT3_Fspec, .976; WUT1_Mspec, .526; WUT1_Fspec, .380). For USG, WUT2_SENS was higher in F (WUT2_Fsens, .889) than M (WUT2_Msens, .571) while WUT3, WUT1, and WUT0 were similar between sexes (WUT3_Msens, .238; WUT3_Fsens, .111; WUT1_Msens, .905; WUT1_Fsens, .889). For U_OSM, SPEC and SENS were similar between sexes for each WUT score. CONCLUSION: There are no sex differences in P_OSM, USG, and U_OSM between WUT0-WUT3. However, based on SPEC and SENS, WUT3 and WUT0 can accurately detect hydration status in both sexes. WUT2 might be used to detect hydration status only for females.

Recommended Citation

Rolloque, Jan-Joseph; Keefe, Marcos; Jiwan, Nigel; Appell, Casey; Pomroy, Madison; Luk, HuiYing; and Sekiguchi, Yasuki (2023) "Sex Differences in The Accuracy of WUT (Weight, Urine Color, Thirst) Diagrams Assessing Hydration Status," International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2: Iss. 15, Article 38.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss15/38