logo
Do You Need to Drink Electrolytes?

Do You Need to Drink Electrolytes?

New York Times21-07-2025
There is a large, growing and very competitive market for electrolyte powders, drinks and tablets. In 2024 the electrolyte drink market was valued around $38 billion.
The products are designed to be consumed before, during and after exercise — and manufacturers claim they'll optimize your hydration, health and performance. There are even options to supplement your daily hydration, whether or not you are exercising.
But do you really need to replenish the electrolytes lost in your sweat? And are sports drinks, electrolyte powders and salty supplements actually the best way to do it?
What do electrolytes do?
Electrolytes are minerals — such as sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium — that carry an electrical charge that influences how water moves in your body.
'They help maintain the fluid balance,' explained Dr. Amy West, a sports medicine physician at Northwell Health. They help move fluid into and out of your cells and regulate blood pressure, heart rhythm, muscle and nerve function.
While they're found in supplements and sports drinks, they're also in the foods we eat every day.
'When we talk about potassium, it's in a banana,' said Heidi Skolnik, a nutritionist at the Hospital for Special Surgery. 'When you eat a pretzel, there's sodium on it.'
As you sweat, you lose both fluid and electrolytes and if you lose enough fluid, you can become dehydrated. The volume of blood in your body drops and 'your heart has to pump harder to get the same amount of blood circulating,' Ms. Skolnik said.
Do you really need to replace them?
When you lose an exceptionally large quantity of water and electrolytes, as you might if you're having a serious bout of diarrhea, you need to replace both. In those situations, doctors often recommend a rehydration solution like Pedialyte, which typically has more sodium and potassium than your average sports drink.
But experts say you probably don't need to reach for a sports drink during your regular workouts. Even if those workouts are strenuous or happen in hotter weather, drinking water when you're thirsty is enough to keep you hydrated. The sugar and carbohydrates found in many sports drinks certainly may help competitive athletes maintain their energy, but the electrolytes have little impact.
In the 1990s, standard medical advice recommended sodium-rich drinks for athletes during any exercise that lasted more than an hour. But more recent research has found that even as you lose sodium through sweat and urine, your body maintains the concentration of sodium in your blood. In several small studies athletes didn't tend to report a performance difference between working out with water and electrolyte-infused drinks, even after five hours of running in 86-degree heat.
It's been well-established for at least a decade that electrolytes don't do much for performance, said Ricardo Da Costa, an associate professor in sports dietetics at Monash University in Australia. 'But the marketing strategies from the sports drinks companies are more potent than the researchers.'
'Everybody thinks that they need to replace lost electrolytes right away,' said Tamara Hew-Butler, a sports medicine scientist at Wayne State University. 'You don't. You will make it up generally in your meals.'
Most of the time, you are fine just drinking water when you're thirsty. If you're spending hours outside in the heat for several days and start feeling dehydration symptoms, like lightheadedness, you might reach for a sports drink or supplement, especially if you aren't getting enough electrolytes in your diet, said Robert Kenefick, a professor of biomedical and nutritional sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.
In rare cases, you can have too much fluid but not enough sodium in your blood, a condition called hyponatremia, which can cause nausea, fatigue and, in the most severe cases, seizures or death. It's more likely to happen if you have certain medical conditions such as heart, liver or kidney problems.
For athletes, it can happen if they drink so much fluid before, during and after long workouts that it dilutes the electrolytes in your blood. However, most sports drinks don't contain enough sodium to prevent it, said Dr. Da Costa.
Is There a Downside?
Aside from the cost, experts say there's little downside to consuming electrolyte drinks. As long as you're otherwise healthy, they do not have enough electrolytes to overload your system (called hypernatremia), Dr. Kenefick said. And the sweet taste could motivate you to hydrate.
Like most supplements, however, electrolyte products are not well regulated and can even be contaminated, Dr. Hew-Butler said. In 2015, she and her team found unsafe levels of arsenic in Muscle Milk and Gatorade powders that had been provided to college athletes. The athletes showed no signs of having been harmed by the exposure.
You won't see 'arsenic' on a supplement label, but you should check for the amount of sugar in the drinks, which can be almost as high as some sodas. As you are reading the label, Dr. Kenefick cautioned buyers to be skeptical of what it promises.
'The beverage market is very competitive and everyone's looking for an edge,' he said. 'A lot of the beverages that are out there are using electrolytes as a marketing tool.'
Emma Yasinski is a freelance science journalist whose work has appeared in National Geographic, Undark and more.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Washington Trust earns Exemplary Worksite Health Award for ninth consecutive year
Washington Trust earns Exemplary Worksite Health Award for ninth consecutive year

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Washington Trust earns Exemplary Worksite Health Award for ninth consecutive year

WESTERLY, R.I., Aug. 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- For the ninth year in a row, Washington Trust has been recognized with an Exemplary Worksite Health Award from Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI) and the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) for effective programs encouraging employee health and well-being in a meaningful way. Washington Trust has been included on the winners list for over 15 years. Washington Trust was one of nearly 50 Rhode Island businesses honored by BCBSRI and the Chamber with a Worksite Health Award at a breakfast attended by hundreds of state business leaders. The event celebrated local businesses who have demonstrated a commitment to improving Rhode Islanders' overall health through innovative wellness programs. Washington Trust was honored with an Exemplary Worksite Health Award in recognition of its enduring commitment to employee well-being and a dynamic workplace culture. For more than two decades, Washington Trust has offered a comprehensive well-being program that supports physical, emotional, and financial health and includes incentives such as discounted medical premiums and access to financial planning resources. Washington Trust fosters a collaborative, growth-oriented environment, and promotes inclusivity and engagement through employee resource groups, including Pride, ¡Somos!, Unity, and Ascend. High satisfaction ratings from annual culture surveys underscore Washington Trust's success in cultivating a workplace where individuals thrive both personally and professionally. ABOUT WASHINGTON TRUST®Founded in 1800, Washington Trust is recognized as the oldest community bank in the nation, the largest state-chartered bank headquartered in Rhode Island and one of the Northeast's premier financial services companies. Washington Trust values its role as a community bank and is committed to helping the people, businesses, and organizations of New England improve their financial lives. The Bank offers a wide range of commercial banking, mortgage banking, personal banking and wealth management services through its offices in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts and a full suite of convenient digital tools. Washington Trust is a member of the FDIC and an equal housing lender. Washington Trust is a subsidiary of Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc., a publicly-owned holding company which trades on NASDAQ: WASH. For more information, visit the Bank's website at or the Corporation's website at About BCBSRIBlue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island ( is a non-profit, community-focused health plan established in 1939 to help Rhode Islanders finance their healthcare needs. Today, that purpose is still foundational to our work. We have a vision to improve health and well-being by leading access to high quality, affordable, and equitable care. We are an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Connect with us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. About the Greater Providence Chamber of CommerceThe Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce is Rhode Island's only statewide chamber. The Chamber is the hub of connections for Rhode Island businesses of all sizes, in all industries and in all sectors. For more information, visit follow us on Twitter @Provchamber, and like us on Facebook. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE The Washington Trust Company

States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth
States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth

Associated Press

time17 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth

Seventeen Democratic officials accused President Donald Trump's administration of unlawfully intimidating health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a lawsuit filed Friday. The complaint comes after a month in which at least eight major hospitals and hospital systems — all in states where the care is allowed under state law — announced they were stopping or restricting the care. The latest announcement came Thursday from UI Health in Chicago. Trump's administration announced in July that it was sending subpoenas to providers and focusing on investigating them for fraud. It later boasted in a news release that hospitals are halting treatments. The Democratic officials say Trump's policies are an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on the treatment for people under 19 — and that's unlawful because there's no federal statute that bans providing the care to minors. The suit was filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus the governor of Pennsylvania, in U.S. District Court in Boston. 'The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Trump and others who oppose the care say that it makes permanent changes that people who receive it could come to regret — and maintain that it's being driven by questionable science. Since 2021, 28 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have adopted policies to ban or restrict gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to enforce those laws. For families with transgender children, the state laws and medical center policy changes have sparked urgent scrambles for treatment. The medical centers are responding to political and legal pressure The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children in teens in the U.S., closed in July. At least seven other major hospitals and health systems have made similar announcements, including Children's National in Washington D.C., UChicago Medicine and Yale New Haven Health. Kaiser Permanente, which operates in California and several other states, said it would pause gender-affirming surgeries for those under 19 as of the end of August, but would continue hormone therapy. Connecticut Children's Medical Center cited 'an increasingly complex and evolving landscape' for winding down care. Other hospitals, including Penn State, had already made similar decisions since Trump returned to office in January. Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an organization that advocates for health care equity for LGBTQ+ people, said the health systems have pulled back the services for legal reasons, not medical ones. 'Not once has a hospital said they are ending care because it is not medically sound,' Sheldon said. Trump's administration has targeted the care in multiple ways Trump devoted a lot of attention to transgender people in his campaign last year as part of a growing pushback from conservatives as transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance on some fronts. Trump criticized gender-affirming care, transgender women in women's sports, and transgender women's use of women's facilities such as restrooms. On his inauguration day in January, Trump signed an executive order defining the sexes as only male and female for government purposes, setting the tone for a cascade of actions that affect transgender people. About a week later, Trump called to stop using federal money, including from Medicaid, for gender-affirming care for those under 19. About half of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of transgender issues, an AP-NORC poll found. But the American Medical Association says that gender is on a spectrum, and the group opposes policies that restrict access to gender-affirming health care. Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It includes counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty, and hormone therapy to produce physical changes, as well as surgery, which is rare for minors. In March, a judge paused enforcement of the ban on government spending for care. The court ruling didn't stop other federal government action In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed government investigators to focus on providers who continue to offer gender-affirming care for transgender youth. 'Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will bring these practices to an end,' she wrote. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report discouraging medical interventions for transgender youth and instead focusing solely on talk therapy. The report questions adolescents' capacity to consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. The administration has not said who wrote the report, which has been deeply criticized by LGBTQ+ advocates. In June, a Justice Department memo called for prioritizing civil investigations of those who provide the treatment. In July, Justice Department announced it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in gender-affirming care for youth, saying they were part of investigations of health care fraud, false statements and other possible wrongdoing. And in a statement last week, the White House celebrated decisions to end gender-affirming care, which it called a 'barbaric, pseudoscientific practice' Families worry about accessing care Kristen Salvatore's 15-year-old child started hormone therapy late last year at Penn State Health. Salvatore said in an interview with The Associated Press before the lawsuit was announced that it was a major factor in reduced signs of anxiety and depression. Last month, the family received official notice from the health system that it would no longer offer the hormones for patients under 19 after July 31, though talk therapy can continue. Salvatore has been struggling to find a place that's not hours away from their Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, home that would provide the hormones and accept Medicaid coverage. 'I'm walking around blind with no guidance, and whatever breadcrumbs I was given are to a dead-end alleyway,' she said. The family has enough testosterone stockpiled to last until January. But if they can't find a new provider by then, Salvatore's child could risk detransitioning, she said.

Americans are still waiting on Trump's pledge of IVF treatment for all
Americans are still waiting on Trump's pledge of IVF treatment for all

CBS News

time17 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Americans are still waiting on Trump's pledge of IVF treatment for all

Washington — On the campaign trail, Donald Trump made a pledge: Under his leadership, in vitro fertilization would be covered for all women and couples seeking the treatment. "We are going to be paying for that treatment," he said in an interview in August 2024. After taking office, President Trump signed an executive order directing his domestic policy council to make recommendations on IVF policy changes by May. But that deadline has come and gone, and the White House has said little about the issue. Advocates for better IVF coverage are wondering what the holdup is. Mr. Trump, who has called himself the "father of IVF" and claimed to be a "leader on fertilization, IVF," told NBC News, during that 2024 interview, that IVF would be covered for everyone who needs it. "Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment," Mr. Trump, then a candidate, said. He added, "We're going to be paying for that treatment, or we're gonna be mandating that the insurance company pay." Mr. Trump's executive order, signed in February, fell short of his campaign pledge, stating that it would be administration policy "to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable." He directed his assistant for the White House Domestic Policy Council to submit within 90 days "recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment." That deadline would have fallen on May 19. Asked for an update, the White House declined to comment. Cristina Gonzales and her partner, who live in New York City, have been struggling with infertility for about three years. Gonzales, who makes campaign ads for Democrats, is a part of a support group for women over 40 going through IVF. The women represent diverse political and ideological backgrounds, including liberals and those who support Mr. Trump, alike. When then-candidate Trump said IVF would be covered, Gonzales said some in her group "believed completely and wholeheartedly" that he would make coverage free. "They deserve that promise to be kept," Gonzales said. "This struggle of IVF is nonpartisan," she said. "It affects everybody." In February, a Washington Post interview with Trump supporter and fired federal worker Ryleigh Cooper went viral. She said she didn't want to vote for Mr. Trump, but he'd promised to make IVF free. After reading the fact sheet from Mr. Trump's February executive order, she told the Post she said, "'That's bullsh**.'" IVF is a fertility treatment that has broad support; in 2023, over 95,000 babies were born as a result of IVF — about 2.6% of all births in the U.S. — according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. An overwhelming majority of Americans — 86% — think IVF should be legal, according to a March 2024 CBS News/YouGov poll. "Eighty-six percent of Americans support IVF. That is unheard of in almost any issue you could think of in modern times," said Danielle Melfi, CEO of infertility advocacy nonprofit RESOLVE. According to an April 2024 Pew survey, 79% of Democrats and those who lean Democratic say access to IVF is a good thing, as do 63% of Republicans and those who lean Republican. Even among Americans who told Pew abortion should be illegal in most cases, 60% view IVF access positively. And Mr. Trump has introduced other concepts, including a "baby bonus" for babies born in the U.S., to help boost the U.S. birth rate. The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024, with fewer than 1.6 children being born per woman, according to new federal data. The bonus is available to parents who open so-called Trump Accounts, which were introduced in the president's massive domestic policy bill that he signed into law last month. Melfi is optimistic about the momentum the issue has picked up and has made recommendations to the White House, among them, to increase health insurance coverage of all fertility-related treatment, include fertility coverage for veterans and military families, and cover fertility care for all federal employees. Out-of-pocket costs are the biggest barrier to undergoing IVF, Melfi said. Each cycle — and many couples undergo several cycles — costs between $12,000 and $25,000. Very few states require insurance companies to provide coverage for the treatment, so the vast majority of women and couples must pay out of pocket for IVF rounds. "Each state looks a little bit different, which is why action at the federal level would be really meaningful," Melfi said of state laws governing insurance coverage of IVF. IVF is one of multiple infertility treatments available, and is often the last — and most expensive — step women take to become pregnant. In the process, a woman typically administers expensive shots to herself every day to stimulate the growth of multiple eggs at once and regularly goes to a fertility clinic for ultrasounds and blood work to monitor progress. The eggs are retrieved, fertilized outside of the body and ideally, they develop into healthy embryos that can be implanted immediately or frozen for later use. Many find it to be an exhausting process — physically, emotionally and financially. Leading up to her first round of IVF, Gonzales was anxious. What if she and her partner were to spend all this money only for the procedure to not result in pregnancy? "I don't have enough money for this and I feel like there's a lot of pressure on my body — what if it doesn't perform?" she said. For her, an unexpected year-end bonus had provided a way to pay. But otherwise, it might not have been possible. "When you look at health insurance policies, almost none of them cover fertility," Gonzales said. "Even so-called progressive states." Still, IVF provides no guarantees. Gonzales has undergone four rounds of IVF, none of which resulted in a baby, and now, she and her partner are pursuing other paths to parenthood. IVF has ultimately been successful for other women in her IVF support group, and she thinks every person should have the chance to pursue the procedure, regardless of their financial circumstances. "I don't regret it, I would definitely do it all over again," she said. Gonzales hopes the president follows through on his pledge to make sure IVF is covered for those who want and need it. "It would be one of the smartest policies for them to actually make good on this promise," she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store