Do Older Firefighters Show Long-Term Adaptations to Work in the Heat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older experienced firefighters may show signs of heat adaptation, and thus reduced physiological strain, due to repeated occupational heat stress exposure. The aim was to examine physiological and perceptual strain, and hydration, responses to intermittent exercise in the heat in 12 older Non-Firefighter (Non-FF) and experienced Firefighter (FF) males, pair matched for age (Group mean ± SE: Non-FF = 51.7 ± 1.5, FF = 49.8 ± 1.1 years), VO(2peak) (Non-FF = 39.4 ± 2.2, FF = 40.7 ± 1.8 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)), body surface area (Non-FF = 1.94 ± 0.04, FF = 2.03 ± 0.03 m(2)), and percent body fat (Non-FF = 24.4 ± 2.3, FF = 19.3 ± 1.8%). Rectal (Tre) and mean skin (MT(sk)) temperatures, heart rate (HR), local sweat rate (LSR), hydration indices, and ratings of thermal sensation and perceived exertion were measured during 4 ×15-min (rest 15-min) moderate-to-heavy cycling bouts (400 W heat production) in Dry and Humid heat (35°C, ∼20 and ∼60% relative humidity, respectively). No differences were observed between the Non-FF and FF for T(re), T(re) change, MT(sk), HR,% max HR, LSR, physiological strain index (PhSI), or % plasma volume change. Plasma protein concentration was reduced at baseline for the Non-FF (7.6 ± 0.1 g·100 mL(-1)) than FF (8.0 ± 0.1 g·100 mL(-1)). The Perceptual Strain Index overestimated PhSI for Non-FF and FF in both thermal conditions. At the end of exercise, the Non-FF showed a greater Tre difference between thermal conditions (0.27 ± 0.05°C) compared to the FF (0.10 ± 0.09°C). Although the Non-Firefighters and Firefighters demonstrate similar cardiovascular and hydration responses during moderate-to-heavy intensity exercise within each of the thermal conditions, the attenuated thermal effects between the two heat stress conditions in the Firefighters suggests a protective adaptation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".