Neither Short-term Sprint nor Endurance Training Enhances Thermal Response to Exercise in a Hot Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improvements in fitness from a brief period of physical training may elicit sufficient physiological adaptations to decrease thermal strain during exercise in the heat. This study tested heat adaptation from short-term endurance (ET) and sprint-interval (SIT) training in moderately fit individuals. The ET group (n = 8) cycled at 65% [Formula: see text] for 8 sessions (4 sessions each at 60 and 90 min, respectively) over two weeks, while the SIT group (n = 8) performed repeated 30-s Wingate sprints (resistance 7.5% body mass; 4 sessions each of 4 and 5 sprints, respectively). [Formula: see text] and heat stress testing (HST; 60 min cycling at 65% [Formula: see text] at 35ºC, 40% relative humidity) were performed pre- and post-training. [Formula: see text]increased by 11% (p = 0.025) and 14% (p = 0.020) for the ET and SIT groups post-training, respectively. Thermal stress was similar pre- and post-training, with no significant difference in the rate of whole-body metabolic heat production (p = 0.106) for either group post-training. Cardiovascular improvement was evident with both ET and SIT, with a significant mean decrease (p = 0.014) in HR for both groups (ET: 146 ± 15 beats·min(-1)pre vs. 142 ± 12 beats·min(-1)post; SIT: 149 ± 15 beats·min(-1)pre vs. 146 ± 12 beats·min(-1)post) during the HST post-training. However, mean sweat loss (p = 0.248) and the rise in core temperature (p = 0. 260) did not change significantly comparing pre- and post-training HST. While short-term ET and SIT both induced significant improvements in aerobic fitness and decreased cardiovascular strain, neither elicited improved thermal responses during exercise in the heat and do not replace heat acclimatization.
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".