The effects of increased endurance training load on biomarkers of heat intolerance during intense exercise in the heat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of increased training (IT) load on plasma concentrations of lipopolysaccharides (LPS), proinflammatory cytokines, and anti-LPS antibodies during exercise in the heat were investigated in 18 male runners, who performed 14 days of normal training (NT) or 14 days of 20% IT load in 2 equal groups. Before (trial 1) and after (trial 2) the training intervention, all subjects ran at 70% maximum oxygen uptake on a treadmill under hot (35 degrees C) and humid (~40%) conditions, until core temperature reached 39.5 degrees C or volitional exhaustion. Venous blood samples were drawn before, after, and 1.5 h after exercise. Plasma LPS concentration after exercise increased by 71% (trial 1, p < 0.05) and 21% (trial 2) in the NT group and by 92% (trial 1, p < 0.01) and 199% (trial 2, p < 0.01) in the IT group. Postintervention plasma LPS concentration was 35% lower before exercise (p < 0.05) and 47% lower during recovery (p < 0.01) in the IT than in the NT group. Anti-LPS IgM concentration during recovery was 35% lower in the IT than in the NT group (p < 0.05). Plasma interleukin (IL)-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha concentration after exercise (IL-6, 3-7 times, p < 0.01, and TNF-alpha, 33%, p < 0.01) and during recovery (IL-6, 2-4 times, p < 0.05, and TNF-alpha, 30%, p < 0.01) were higher than at rest within each group. These data suggest that a short-term tolerable increase in training load may protect against developing endotoxemia during exercise in the heat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".