Water Immersion in the Treatment of Exertional Hyperthermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the effect of differences in body surface area-to-lean body mass ratio (AD/LBM) on core temperature cooling rates during cold water immersion (CWI, 2°C) and temperate water immersion (TWI, 26°C) after exercise-induced hyperthermia. METHODS: Twenty male participants were divided into two groups: high (315.6 ± 7.9 cm·kg, n = 10) and low (275.6 ± 8.6 cm·kg, n = 10) AD/LBM. On two separate occasions, participants ran on a treadmill in the heat (40.0°C, 20% relative humidity) wearing an impermeable rain suit until rectal temperature reached 40.0°C. After exercise, participants were immersed up to the nipples (arms remained out of the water) in either a CWI (2°C) or a TWI (26°C) circulated water bath until rectal temperature returned to 37.5°C. RESULTS: Overall rectal cooling rates were significantly different between experimental groups (high vs low AD/LBM, P = 0.005) and between immersion conditions (CWI vs TWI, P < 0.001). Individuals with a high AD/LBM had an approximately 1.7-fold greater overall rectal cooling rate relative to those with low AD/LBM during both CWI (high: 0.27°C·min ± 0.10°C·min vs low: 0.16°C·min ± 0.10°C·min) and TWI (high: 0.10°C·min ± 0.05°C·min vs low: 0.06°C·min ± 0.02°C·min). Further, the overall rectal cooling rates during CWI were approximately 2.7-fold greater than during TWI for both the high (CWI: 0.27°C·min ± 0.10°C·min vs TWI: 0.10°C·min ± 0.05°C·min) and the low (CWI: 0.16°C·min ± 0.10°C·min vs TWI: 0.06°C·min ± 0.02°C·min) AD/LBM groups. CONCLUSION: We show that individuals with a low AD/LBM have a reduced rectal cooling rate and take longer to cool than those with a high AD/LBM during both CWI and TWI. However, CWI provides the most effective cooling treatment irrespective of physical differences.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".