Exercise-rest cycles do not alter local and whole body heat loss responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that greater core temperatures during intermittent exercise (Ex) are due to attenuated sweating [upper back sweat rate (SR)] and skin blood flow (SkBF) responses. We evaluated the hypothesis that heat loss is not altered during exercise-rest cycles (ER). Ten male participants randomly performed four 120-min trials: 1) 60-min Ex and 60-min recovery (60ER); 2) 3 × 20-min Ex separated by 20-min recoveries (20ER); 3) 6 × 10-min Ex separated by 10-min recoveries (10ER), or 4) 12 × 5-min Ex separated by 5-min recoveries (5ER). Exercise was performed at a workload of 130 W at 35°C. Whole body heat exchange was determined by direct calorimetry. Core temperature, SR (by ventilated capsule), and SkBF (by laser-doppler) were measured continuously. Evaporative heat loss (EHL) progressively increased with each ER, such that it was significantly greater (P ≤ 0.05) at the end of the last compared with the first Ex for 5ER (299 ± 39 vs. 440 ± 41 W), 10ER (425 ± 51 vs. 519 ± 45 W), and 20ER (515 ± 63 vs. 575 ± 74 W). The slope of the EHL response against esophageal temperature significantly increased from the first to the last Ex within the 10ER (376 ± 56 vs. 445 ± 89 W/°C, P ≤ 0.05) and 20ER (535 ± 85 vs. 588 ± 28 W/°C, P ≤ 0.05) conditions, but not during 5ER (296 ± 96 W/°C vs. 278 ± 95 W/°C, P = 0.237). In contrast, the slope of the SkBF response against esophageal temperature did not significantly change from the first to the last Ex (5ER: 51 ± 23 vs. 54 ± 19%/°C, P = 0.848; 10ER: 53 ± 8 vs. 56 ± 21%/°C, P = 0.786; 20ER: 44 ± 20 vs. 50 ± 27%/°C, P = 0.432). Overall, no differences in body heat content and core temperature were observed. These results suggest that altered local and whole body heat loss responses do not explain the previously observed greater core temperatures during intermittent exercise.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".