2015
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2014-0358
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-Report Versus Direct Measurement for Assessment of Fluid Intake During a 70.3-Mile Triathlon

Abstract: SR is the predominant methodology used in field studies assessing hydration, despite little to no data confirming its validity. The results herein suggest that fluid-intake-assessment methodology should be chosen on a case-by-case basis and that caution should be used when interpreting data based on SR.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study was conducted following a cross-sectional design, and the findings were based on self-report; caution must be warranted with the interpretation of the study findings. However, it has been documented that self-reports of this type of variable are valid if they are collected immediately or shortly after an event [ 89 ]. Given the sex-based nature of the present investigation, the unbalanced distribution of female and male runners (58% vs. 42%, respectively) in the total participants and amongst different subgroups might also be considered a limitation affecting the findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study was conducted following a cross-sectional design, and the findings were based on self-report; caution must be warranted with the interpretation of the study findings. However, it has been documented that self-reports of this type of variable are valid if they are collected immediately or shortly after an event [ 89 ]. Given the sex-based nature of the present investigation, the unbalanced distribution of female and male runners (58% vs. 42%, respectively) in the total participants and amongst different subgroups might also be considered a limitation affecting the findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another limitation of the present study could be the impossibility of conducting statistical analysis for inconsistent and incomplete open comments provided by runners, which compelled the authors to report the relevant findings inclusively. However, self-reports for this type of variable are valid if they are collected immediately or shortly after an event [ 66 ]. In this study, the average time between completion of the last event and completion of the questionnaire by the participants was unknown (see the fifth inclusion criteria): self-reports refer to at least one adequate running event completed within the past two years).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Self-reported fluid intake during exercise may have been subject to estimation error. Indirectly assessing fluid volumes has been proposed as a valid methodology when larger sample sizes are investigated [15], although differences between self-reported and direct measurements have been observed in some individuals when using the same survey methodology, and this is a limitation one must consider when reflecting and interpreting the results of this study. Finally, the study protocol was not designed to directly assess participants’ hydration status before and after exercise to determine whether fluid intake was sufficient to compensate for fluid losses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…According to previous literature, self-reporting of hydration strategies has been suggested as a valid methodology when larger sample sizes are investigated [15]. Participants were asked to indicate if they drank from a bottle, the volume of that bottle, the number of bottles, and the percentage of the total volume consumed from the last bottle, following established protocols for fluid volume estimations [15]. If they did not drink from a bottle, they were asked to skip the question since an accurate estimation of sips/fluid volume was not possible.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation