Body heat storage during physical activity is lower with hot fluid ingestion under conditions that permit full evaporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess whether, under conditions permitting full evaporation, body heat storage during physical activity measured by partitional calorimetry would be lower with warm relative to cold fluid ingestion because of a disproportionate increase in evaporative heat loss potential relative to internal heat transfer with the ingested fluid. METHODS: Nine males cycled at 50% VO(2max) for 75 min at 23.6 ± 0.6 °C and 23 ± 11% RH while consuming water of either 1.5 °C, 10 °C, 37 °C or 50 °C in four 3.2 mL kg(-1) boluses. The water was administered 5 min before and 15, 30 and 45 min following the onset of exercise. RESULTS: No differences in metabolic heat production, sensible or respiratory heat losses (all P > 0.05) were observed between fluid temperatures. However, while the increased internal heat loss with cold fluid ingestion was paralleled by similar reductions in evaporative heat loss potential at the skin (E(sk) ) with 10 °C (P = 0.08) and 1.5 °C (P = 0.55) fluid, the increased heat load with warm (50 °C) fluid ingestion was accompanied by a significantly greater E(sk) (P = 0.04). The resultant calorimetric heat storage was lower with 50 °C water ingestion in comparison to 1.5 °C, 10 °C and 37 °C (all P < 0.05). In contrast, heat storage derived conventionally using thermometry yielded higher values following 50 °C fluid ingestion compared to 1.5 °C (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Under conditions permitting full sweat evaporation, body heat storage is lower with warm water ingestion, likely because of disproportionate modulations in sweat output arising from warm-sensitive thermosensors in the esophagus/stomach. Local temperature changes of the rectum following fluid ingestion exacerbate the previously identified error of thermometric heat storage estimations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".