Abstract
Euhydration, defined as the state of optimal total body water content, is essential for maintaining proper physiological function across multiple systems and organs. However, there is currently a lack of assessment that can provide a rapid, non-invasive and cost-effective diagnosis of hydration status. PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the commercial accessible hydration sensor in determining hydration status compared to urine and blood indices. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (age: 23 ± 3 yr; body mass: 73.38 ± 17.03 kg; height: 169.90 ± 9.07 cm) completed this study. Twenty participants performed the first experimental design, whereas eight participants performed the second protocol. In the first protocol, participants arrived to the laboratory in a euhydrated state (urine specific gravity [USG] < 1.020) and performed baseline measures (blood sample, urine sample, and hydration device reading). Then, a dehydrating exercise protocol in the heat (33°C, 30% relative humidity) was performed which involved two 30-min cycling sets separated by a small rest period. Following this, a 2-hr rehydration protocol via fluid consumption was carried out. Outcome measures were collected during the rest period of the exercise, and at the 1- and 2-hr timepoints during the rehydration protocol. In the second experimental design, a similar approach to the first protocol was performed. However, the dehydrating exercise involved cycles of running in the heat until ≥ 2% body mass loss (BML) was obtained. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed to calculate sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) of the total score from the hydration device in detecting a dehydrated or euhydrated state compared to urine and blood hydration indices. A hydration device total score > 0 indicated euhydrated, while < 0 indicated dehydrated. When comparing the hydration device to urine and blood indices, the following cut-off points were used to determine dehydration: USG ≥ 1.020, urine osmolality (UOSM) > 700 mOsmol, and plasma osmolality (POSM) > 290 mOsmol. RESULTS: The hydration device total score resulted in low to moderate SENS and SPEC for USG (SENS: 0.656; SPEC: 0.000), UOSM (SENS: 0.667; SPEC: 0.250), and POSM (SENS: 0.679; SPEC: 0.286). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the hydration device is not accurate for determining euhydration or dehydration when compared to typical urine and blood hydration markers.
Recommended Citation
Arrazola, Ciriany; Keefe, Marcos; Dunn, Ryan; Elliott, Kelly B.; and Sekiguchi, Yasuki
(2025)
"Validity of a Hydration Assessment Device for Determination of Hydration Status,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2:
Iss.
17, Article 77.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss17/77
