Skip to content

The Addition of Glycerol and Sodium Chloride to a Hyperhydration Protocol Does Not Improve Half-Marathon Time-Trial Performance in Trained Runners in Warm Conditions.

PMID 40139199 (2025): hydration, fluid — Time to exhaustion, Performance in heat, Cramp risk (study note for endurance athletes).

Last updated/Feb 23, 2026, 10:34 PM

Study note • PMID 40139199

The Addition of Glycerol and Sodium Chloride to a Hyperhydration Protocol Does Not Improve Half-Marathon Time-Trial Performance in Trained Runners in Warm Conditions.

International journal of sports physiology and performance2025 • DOI 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0268
Evidence B71/100
Action 1: Default

Low risk + high feasibility for most athletes.

ELI5

In plain language

We examined the effect of glycerol- and sodium-induced hyperhydration on a field-based half-marathon in warm conditions. (randomized trial; n=13 runners).

The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Performance in heat under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: We examined the effect of glycerol- and sodium-induced hyperhydration on a field-based half-marathon in warm conditions.
  • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Performance in heat under the tested conditions.
  • Population: n=13 runners.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 60 minutes • 20 minutes.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: hydration, fluid (vs comparison group).
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 60 minutes • 20 minutes.
  • Outcomes: Time to exhaustion, Performance in heat, Cramp risk.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it helps, and who should skip it

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (n=13 runners) working on hydration.
  • Athletes who can measure Time to exhaustion, Performance in heat, Cramp risk with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should skip

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: randomized trial.
  • Population: n=13 runners.
  • Comparator: comparison group.
  • Outcomes measured: Time to exhaustion, Performance in heat, Cramp risk.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 60 minutes • 20 minutes.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 40139199 (2025) — International journal of sports physiology and performance.

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

HYP increased fluid retention compared with CON by 1189 mL, 95% CI 987-1391 (P < .001), and plasma volume by 9.0%, 95% CI 3.6-14.4 (P = .001).

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations & bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Coaching beta

Get a plan that adapts to your life.

Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.

Keep going

Sources