This study investigated the efficacy of ingesting an oral rehydration solution (DD) that has a high electrolyte concentration after exercise on fluid balance and cycling performance in comparison with a sports drink (SD) and water (WA). Nine healthy males aged 24 ± 2 years (mean ± SD), with peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) 55 ± 6 mL·kg−1·min−1 completed three experimental trials in a randomised manner ingesting WA, SD (carbohydrates: 62 g·L−1, sodium: 31 ± 3 mmol·L−1) or DD (carbohydrates: 33 g·L−1, sodium: 60 ± 3 mmol·L−1). On all trials, fluid was ingested during 75 min cycling at 65% VO2 peak (temperature: 30.4 ± 0.3 °C, relative humidity: 76 ± 1%, simulated wind speed: 8.0 ± 0.6 m·s−1) and during 2 h of recovery (temperature: 23.0 ± 1.0 °C, relative humidity: 67 ± 2%), with the total volume equivalent to 150% of sweat loss during the ride. A 45 min pre-load cycling time trial at a 65% VO2 peak followed by a 20 km time trial was conducted after a further 3 h of recovery. Fluid retention was higher with DD (30 ± 15%) than WA (−4 ± 19%; p < 0.001) and SD (10 ± 15%; p = 0.002). Mean ratings of palatability were similar among drinks (WA: 4.25 ± 2.60; SD: 5.61 ± 1.79; DD: 5.40 ± 1.58; p = 0.33). Although time trial performance was similar across all three trials (WA: 2365 ± 321 s; SD: 2252 ± 174 s; DD: 2268 ± 184 s; p = 0.65), the completion time was faster in eight participants with SD and seven participants with DD than with WA. Comparing SD with DD, completion time was reduced in five participants and increased in four participants. DD was more effective at restoring the fluid deficit during recovery from exercise than SD and WA without compromising the drink’s palatability with increased sodium concentration. Most individuals demonstrated better endurance exercise time trial performance with DD and SD than with WA.
Comment on Fan et al. Efficacy of Ingesting an Oral Rehydration Solution after Exercise on Fluid Balance and Endurance Performance. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3826
