Hyperthermia Modifies the Nonthermal Contribution to Postexercise Heat Loss Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the nonthermoregulatory control of cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) and sweating during recovery from exercise-induced hyperthermia as well as possible sex-related differences in these responses. Two hypotheses were tested in this study: 1) active and passive recovery would be more effective in attenuating the fall in mean arterial pressure (MAP) than inactive recovery, but CVC and sweat rate responses would be similar between all recovery modes; and 2) the magnitude of the change in postexercise heat loss and hemodynamic responses between recovery modes would be similar between sexes. METHODS: Nine males and nine females were rendered hyperthermic (esophageal temperature = 39.5 degrees C) by exercise, followed by 60 min of 1) active, 2) inactive, and 3) passive recovery. CVC, sweat rate, and MAP were recorded at baseline, after 2, 5, 12, and 20 min, and at every 10 min until the end of recovery. RESULTS: MAP was elevated above inactive recovery by 6 +/- 2 and 4 +/- 1 mm Hg for active and passive recovery, respectively (P < 0.001). No differences were observed between modes during the initial 10 min of recovery for CVC and 50 min of recovery for sweat rate. However, relative to inactive recovery CVC and sweat rate were subsequently greater by 16.2 +/- 5.8% of CVCpeak and 0.28 +/- 0.04 mg.min.cm, respectively, during active recovery, and by 11.6 +/- 2.9% of CVCpeak and 0.23 +/- 0.03 mg.min.cm, respectively, during passive recovery. CONCLUSION: We conclude that in the presence of a greater thermal drive associated with hyperthermia, the influence of nonthermal input on postexercise heat loss responses is still observed. However, thermal control predominates over nonthermal factors in the first 10 min of recovery for CVC and for up to 50 min postexercise for sweating. Sex did not influence the effect of recovery mode on any variable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".