ABSTRACT
Background Hypo-hydration is a major health concern that affects performance and is associated with increasing morbidity and growing health care costs. There is an emerging interest in optimum hydration and identifying how factors such as ingestion rate and beverage composition affect hydration. This study examined three beverages with varying ingestion rates and measured markers of hydration.
Methods Thirty healthy, active participants between ages 18-45 years were given three different beverages on three separate days. The beverages were of identical volumes (1 Liter), but differed in the rate of ingestion, carbohydrate content and electrolyte content. Beverage 1 (Buoy, San Diego, CA) and water-alone were both consumed at a metered rate of one liter over four hours, whereas Beverage 2 was used as a positive control and consumed at a bolus rate of one liter in 30 minutes.
Findings After six hours Beverage 1 significantly improved markers of hydration compared to water-alone or Beverage 2. Beverage 1 decreased cumulative urine output vs water-alone by 32% (absolute difference -0.33L; CI ± -0.16 to -0.51) and vs Beverage 2 by 26% (absolute difference - 0.26L; CI ± -0.13 to -0.38). Beverage 1 increased the beverage hydration index vs water-alone by 64% (absolute difference +0.64L; CI ± 0.36 to 0.92) and vs Beverage 2 by 48% (absolute difference +0.53L; CI ± 0.30 to 0.76)
Interpretation Beverage 1 is superior to water-alone at improving hydration when ingested at similar rates. Moreover, metered ingestion of Beverage 1 improved hydration compared to a bolus ingestion of Beverage 2, this could be due to the dissimilar ingestion rates and/or beverage composition.
RESEARCH IN CONTEXT Despite the overwhelming number of commercial hydration beverages on the market, there are only a very limited number of studies that address whether these beverages are actually effective at improving hydration. Using PubMed and Google Scholar using the search term “Beverage Hydration Index” with the search date from 2016-2024 (2016 was when the Beverage Hydration Index was established) we found less than 10 articles on this topic that used the beverage hydration index to assess the efficacy of popular beverages and supplements, and none of them have previously evaluated the efficacy of Beverage 1 (Buoy). Additionally, only one other study assessed how that rate of beverage ingestion can influence the beverage hydration index. This current study has found Beverage 1 increased the beverage hydration index vs water-alone by 64% (absolute difference +0.64L; CI ± 0.36 to 0.92). We propose that Beverage 1 increases the beverage hydration index due to its abundance of electrolytes including sodium and chloride, as it does not contain carbohydrates, protein, or artificial sweeteners that are common in other commercial hydration beverages. Identifying beverages that improve hydration compared to water-alone can play an important role in preventing severe hypohydration and dehydration, including renal failure, seizures, arrythmia, and altered mental status. It has been estimated that over half a million hospitalizations per year are due to dehydration with a cost of over 5.5 billion United States dollars(1). Thus, there are both clinical and economic reasons to identify simple, cost-effective methods to promote euhydration.
Competing Interest Statement
The UPMC Department of Medicine, Renal and Electrolyte Division, received financial support from Buoy for a fraction of academic time for authors CB and ER.
Clinical Trial
NCT05768789
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the UPMC Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine. The UPMC Department of Medicine, Renal and Electrolyte Division, received financial support from Buoy for a fraction of academic time for authors CB and ER.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Pittsburgh gave ethical approval for this work (STUDY22090018).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.