MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108358987 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.27

Importance of Airflow for Physiologic and Ergogenic Effects of Precooling

2014· article· en· W2108358987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirflowMedicineCrossover studyHeart rateConfidence intervalContext (archaeology)Time trialThermistorPhysical therapyEndurance trainingAnesthesiaInternal medicineBlood pressurePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Cooling the body before exercise (precooling) has been studied as an ergogenic aid for many thermal conditions; however, airflow accompanying exercise is seldom reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the physiologic and ergogenic benefits of precooling before endurance exercise may be negated with semirealistic airflow in hot conditions. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Climate-controlled chamber in a research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Ten fit, healthy cyclists. INTERVENTION(S): After a familiarization trial, participants completed 4 randomized, counterbalanced sessions consisting of no precooling versus precooling and no fan airflow versus airflow (~4.8 m/s) during exercise. Precooling was via chest-deep immersion (~24 °C) for 1 hour or until core temperature dropped 0.5 °C. Participants then cycled at 95% ventilatory threshold in a hot environment (temperature = 30 °C, relative humidity = 50%) until volitional exhaustion, core temperature reached >39.5 °C, or heart rate reached >95% of maximum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Thermal strain was assessed via core temperature (esophageal and rectal thermistors) and mean skin temperature (thermistors at 10 sites) and cardiovascular strain via heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion. RESULTS: Endurance time (28 ± 12 minutes without precooling or airflow) increased by 30 ± 23 minutes with airflow (~109%; 95% confidence interval = 12, 45 minutes; P < .001) and by 16 ± 15 minutes with precooling (~61%; 95% confidence interval = 4, 25 minutes; P = .013), but it was not further extended when the strategies were combined (29 ± 21 minutes longer than control). During cycling without precooling or airflow, mean core and skin temperatures were higher than in all other trials. Precooling reduced heart rate by 7-11 beats/min during the first 5 minutes of exercise, but this attenuation ended by 15 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Most laboratory-based precooling studies have (inadvertently) overestimated the extent of the physiologic and ergogenic benefits for typical athlete-endurance situations. Precooling increases work capacity effectively when airflow is restricted but may have little or no benefit when airflow is present.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it