The influence of upper-body pre-cooling on repeated sprint performance in moderate ambient temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined the effects of upper-body pre-cooling before intermittent sprinting exercise in a moderate environment. Seven male and three female trained cyclists (age 26.8+/-5.5 years, body mass 68.5+/-9.5 kg, height 1.76+/-0.13 m, V O2peak 59.0+/-11.4 mL. kg(-1). min(-1); mean+/-s) performed 30 min of cycling at 50% V O2peak interspersed with a 10-s Wingate cycling sprint test at 5 min intervals. The exercise was performed in a room controlled at 22 degrees C and 40% relative humidity. In the control session, the participants rested for 30 min before exercise. In the pre-cooling session, the participants wore the upper segment of a liquid conditioning garment circulating 5 degrees C coolant until rectal temperature decreased by 0.5 degrees C. Rectal temperature at the start of exercise was significantly lower in the pre-cooling (36.5+/-0.3 degrees C) than in the control condition (37.0+/-0.5 degrees C), but this difference was reduced to a non-significant 0.4 degrees C throughout exercise. Mean skin temperature was significantly lower in the pre-cooling (30.7+/-2.3 degrees C) than in the control condition (32.5+/-1.6 degrees C) throughout exercise. Heart rate during submaximal exercise was similar between the two conditions, although peak heart rate after the Wingate sprints was significantly lower in the pre-cooling condition. With pre-cooling, mean peak power (909+/-161 W) and mean overall power output (797+/-154 W) were similar to those in the control condition (peak 921+/-163 W, mean 806+/-156 W), with no differences in the subjective ratings of perceived exertion. These results suggest that upper-body pre-cooling does not provide any benefit to intermittent sprinting exercise in a moderate environment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".