15° Head-down tilt attenuates the postexercise reduction in cutaneous vascular conductance and sweating and decreases esophageal temperature recovery time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study examined the effect of 15 degrees head-down tilt (HDT) on postexercise heat loss and hemodynamic responses. We tested the hypothesis that recovery from dynamic exercise in the HDT position would attenuate the reduction in the heat loss responses of cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) and sweating relative to upright seated (URS) recovery in association with an augmented hemodynamic response and an increased rate of core temperature decay. Seven male subjects performed the following three experimental protocols: 1) 60 min in the URS posture followed by 60 min in the 15 degrees HDT position; 2) 15 min of cycle ergometry at 75% of their predetermined V(O2 peak) followed by 60 min of recovery in the URS posture; or 3) 15 min of cycle ergometry at 75% of their predetermined V(O2 peak) followed by 60 min of recovery in the 15 degrees HDT position. Mean skin temperature, esophageal temperature (T(es)), skin blood flow, sweat rate, cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR), total peripheral resistance, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded at baseline, end exercise, 2, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 20 min, and every 5 min until end of recovery (60 min). Without preceding exercise, HDT decreased HR and increased SV (P < or = 0.05). During recovery after exercise, a significantly greater MAP, SV, CVC, and sweat rate and a significantly lower HR were found with HDT compared with URS posture (P < or = 0.05). Subsequently, a significantly lower T(es) was observed with HDT after 15 min of recovery onward (P < or = 0.05). At the end of 60 min of recovery, T(es) remained significantly elevated above baseline with URS (P < or = 0.05); however, T(es) returned to baseline with HDT. In conclusion, extended recovery from dynamic exercise in the 15 degrees HDT position attenuates the reduction in CVC and sweating, thereby significantly increasing the rate of T(es) decay compared with recovery in the URS posture.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".