Effects of Wearing a Cooling Vest During the Warm-Up on 10-km Run Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether wearing a cooling vest during an active warm-up would improve the 10-km time trial (TT) performance of endurance runners. Seven male runners completed 3 10-km TTs (1 familiarization and 2 experimental) on a treadmill after a 30-minute warm-up. During the warm-up of the experimental TTs, runners wore either a t-shirt (control [C]) or a cooling vest (V), the order of which was randomized. No differences were found between the C and V conditions for the 10-km TT times (2,533 ± 144 and 2,543 ± 149 seconds, respectively) (p = 0.746) or any of the 2-km split times. Heart rate (HR) at the start of the TT equaled 90 ± 17 b·min for C and 94 ± 16 b·min for V. The HR peaked at 184 ± 20 b·min in C and 181 ± 19 b·min in V. At the start of the TT Tc was 37.65 ± .72°C in C and 37.29 ± .73°C in V (p = 0.067). In C, Tc gradually increased until 39.34 ± 0.43°C while in V is reached 39.18 ± 0.72°C (p = 0.621). Although rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and Thermal sensation (TS) increased during both experimental TTs, there were no differences between V and C. Findings suggest wearing a cooling vest during a warm-up does not improve 10-km performance. The use of cooling vests during the warm-up did not produce any physiological (HR and Tc) or psychological (RPE and TS) benefit, perhaps accounting for the lack of improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".