At What Level of Heat Load Are Age-Related Impairments in the Ability to Dissipate Heat Evident in Females?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have reported that older females have impaired heat loss responses during work in the heat compared to young females. However, it remains unclear at what level of heat stress these differences occur. Therefore, we examined whole-body heat loss [evaporative (HE) and dry heat loss, via direct calorimetry] and changes in body heat storage (∆Hb, via direct and indirect calorimetry) in 10 young (23±4 years) and 10 older (58±5 years) females matched for body surface area and aerobic fitness (VO2peak) during three 30-min exercise bouts performed at incremental rates of metabolic heat production of 250 (Ex1), 325 (Ex2) and 400 (Ex3) W in the heat (40°C, 15% relative humidity). Exercise bouts were separated by 15 min of recovery. Since dry heat gain was similar between young and older females during exercise (p=0.52) and recovery (p=0.42), differences in whole-body heat loss were solely due to HE. Our results show that older females had a significantly lower HE at the end of Ex2 (young: 383±34 W; older: 343±39 W, p=0.04) and Ex3 (young: 437±36 W; older: 389±29 W, p=0.008), however no difference was measured at the end of Ex1 (p=0.24). Also, the magnitude of difference in the maximal level of HE achieved between the young and older females became greater with increasing heat loads (Ex1=10.2%, Ex2=11.6% and Ex3=12.4%). Furthermore, a significantly greater ∆Hb was measured for all heat loads for the older females (Ex1: 178±44 kJ; Ex2: 151±38 kJ; Ex3: 216±25 kJ, p=0.002) relative to the younger females (Ex1: 127±35 kJ; Ex2: 96±45 kJ; Ex3: 146±46 kJ). In contrast, no differences in HE or ∆Hb were observed during recovery (p>0.05). We show that older habitually active females have an impaired capacity to dissipate heat compared to young females during exercise-induced heat loads of ≥325 W when performed in the heat.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".