Maximum Heat Loss Potential Is Lower in Football Linemen During an NCAA Summer Training Camp Because of Lower Self-Generated Air Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum potential for heat loss of football linemen (L) and non-linemen (NL) during a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) summer training camp. It was hypothesized that heat loss potential in L would be lower than NL because of differences in self-generated air flow during position-specific activities. Fourteen NCAA division 1 football players {7 L (mass: 126 ± 6 kg; body surface area [BSA]: 2.51 ± 0.19 m(2)) and 7 NL (mass: 88 ± 13 kg; BSA: 2.09 ± 0.18 m(2))} participated over 6 days in southern Florida (Tdb: 31.2 ± 1.6 °C, T(wb): 27.0 ± 0.7 °C, Tr: 38.4 ± 2.8° C). Simultaneous on-field measurements of self-generated air velocities (v(self)) and mean skin temperatures (Tsk) were performed throughout practice, which included 4 drill categories (special teams, wind sprints, individual drills, and team drills). The resultant net potential for heat loss through convection, radiation, and evaporation (H(total)) was calculated. Values for Tsk were similar between L and NL for all drills (L: 35.4 ± 0.8 °C; NL: 35.4 ± 0.4 °C; p = 0.92). However, v(self) was greater in NL during wind sprints, individual drills, and team drills (p ≤ 0.05). Consequently H(total) was significantly greater in NL for all drills except special teams (p ≤ 0.05). The mean estimated rate of oxygen consumption needed to exceed H(total) was 8.6 ± 1.3 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1) (2.5 ± 0.4 METs) for NL but only 5.6 ± 1.4 ml · kg(-1) · min(-1) (1.6 ± 0.4 METs) for L. A lower heat loss potential occurs in L because of the more static nature of their position-related activities and not because of differences in Tsk. The practical relevance of these findings is that potential interventions that increase convective and evaporative heat loss (i.e., mechanical fans) should specifically target L, particularly while they are participating in static on-field drills and during rest intervals.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".