Water intake in athletes: Agreement between food records and isotope-dilution methods.

BACKGROUND

Although water intake (WI) is commonly estimated through self-reporting, its inaccuracy is reported. Water turnover (rHO)-derived WI is the reference method; however, it is costly. The study aimed to validate alternative methods for determining WI in a group of athletes.

METHODS

Eighty-two athletes (20.4 ± 5.1 years; 28 females) were included in this cross-sectional validation study. Doubly labelled water (DLW) determined rHO and rHO-derived WI by subtracting metabolic, transcutaneous, and inspired water from rHO (reference). The rHO components were determined by alternative approaches: i) average values of macronutrients instead of individual food records (DLW-derived WI); ii) estimating total energy expenditure (TEE) and rCO through a predictive equation instead of DLW (H-derived WI); iii) estimating rHO by prediction equation (equation-derived WI). Food records were employed to determine WI (food record-derived WI).

RESULTS

Only DLW-derived WI showed no significant differences compared to reference in both sexes (females: 2 mL/day, p = 0.183; males: -4 mL/day, p = 0.118). H-derived WI showed significant but small differences (females: 23 mL/day, p = 0.001; males: 32 mL/day, p < 0.001) while food record-derived WI showed the largest differences (females: -924 mL/day, p < 0.001; males: -1504 mL/day, p < 0.001). DLW-derived and H-derived WI showed good performance [r > 0.987 and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) > 0.993], while food record-derived WI showed poor performance [r < 0.031 and CCC < 0.133)].

CONCLUSION

Although some alternative approaches provide adequate estimates, DLW- and H-derived WI are the only valid methods to determine WI in our sample of competitive athletes. These approaches are less costly and could contribute to the development of WI guidelines for athletes. Food records underestimate WI, but evidence-based recommendations could reduce misrecordings.