Heat Balance and Cumulative Heat Storage during Intermittent Bouts of Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate heat balance during thermal transients caused by successive exercise bouts. Whole-body heat loss (H x L) and changes in body heat content (Delta Hb) were measured using simultaneous direct whole-body and indirect calorimetry. METHODS: Ten participants performed three successive bouts of 30-min cycling (Ex1, Ex2, and Ex3) at a constant rate of heat production of approximately 500 W, each separated by 15-min rest (R1, R2, and R3) at 30 degrees C. RESULTS: Despite identical rates of heat production during exercise, the time constant (tau) of the exponential increase in H x L was greater in Ex1 (tau = 12.3 +/- 2.3 min) relative to both Ex2 (tau = 7.2 +/- 1.6 min) and Ex3 (tau = 7.1 +/- 1.6 min) (P < 0.05). Delta Hb during Ex1 (256 +/- 76 kJ) was greater than during Ex2 (135 +/- 60 kJ) and Ex3 (124 +/- 78 kJ) (P < 0.05). During recovery bouts, heat production was the same, and the tau of the exponential decrease in H L was the same during R1 (tau = 6.5 +/- 1.1 min), R2 (tau = 5.9 +/- 1.3 min), and R3 (tau = 6.0 +/- 1.2 min). Delta Hb during R1 (-82 +/- 48 kJ), R2 (-91 +/- 48 kJ), and R3 (-88 +/- 54 kJ) were the same. The cumulative Delta Hb was consequently greater at the end of Ex2 and Ex3 relative to the end of Ex1 (P < 0.05). Likewise, cumulative Delta Hb was greater at the end of R2 and R3 relative to R1 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The proportional decrease in the amount of heat stored in the successive exercise bouts is the result of an enhanced rate of heat dissipation during exercise and not due to a higher rate of heat loss in the recovery period. Despite a greater thermal drive with repeated exercise, the decline in the rate of total heat loss during successive recovery bouts was the same.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".