Running economy, not aerobic fitness, independently alters thermoregulatory responses during treadmill running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine the independent influence of running economy (RE) and aerobic fitness [maximum oxygen consumption (V̇O 2max)] on thermoregulatory responses during treadmill running by conducting two studies. In study 1, seven high (HI-FIT: 61 ± 5 ml O2 · kg(-1) · min(-1)) and seven low (LO-FIT: 45 ± 4 ml O2 · kg(-1) · min(-1)) V̇O 2max males matched for physical characteristics and RE (HI-FIT: 200 ± 21; LO-FIT: 200 ± 18 ml O2 · kg(-1) · km(-1)) ran for 60 min at 1) 60%V̇O 2max and 2) a fixed metabolic heat production (Hprod) of 640 W. In study 2, seven high (HI-ECO: 189 ± 15.3 ml O2 · kg(-1) · km(-1)) and seven low (LO-ECO: 222 ± 10 ml O2 · kg(-1) · km(-1)) RE males matched for physical characteristics and V̇O 2max (HI-ECO: 60 ± 3; LO-ECO: 61 ± 7 ml O2 · kg(-1) · min(-1)) ran for 60 min at a fixed 1) speed of 10.5 km/h and 2) Hprod of 640 W. Environmental conditions were 25.4 ± 0.8°C, 37 ± 12% RH. In study 1, at Hprod of 640 W, similar changes in esophageal temperature (ΔTes; HI-FIT: 0.63 ± 0.20; LO-FIT: 0.63 ± 0.22°C; P = 0.986) and whole body sweat losses (WBSL; HI-FIT: 498 ± 66; LO-FIT: 497 ± 149 g; P = 0.984) occurred despite different relative intensities (HI-FIT: 55 ± 6; LO-FIT: 39 ± 2% V̇O 2max; P < 0.001). At 60% V̇O 2max, ΔTes (P = 0.029) and WBSL (P = 0.003) were greater in HI-FIT (1.14 ± 0.32°C; 858 ± 130 g) compared with LO-FIT (0.73 ± 0.34°C; 609 ± 123 g), as was Hprod (HI-FIT: 12.6 ± 0.9; LO-FIT: 9.4 ± 1.0 W/kg; P < 0.001) and the evaporative heat balance requirement (Ereq; HI-FIT: 691 ± 74; LO-FIT: 523 ± 65 W; P < 0.001). Similar sweating onset ΔTes and thermosensitivities occurred between V̇O 2max groups. In study 2, at 10.5 km/h, ΔTes (1.16 ± 0.31 vs. 0.78 ± 0.28°C; P = 0.017) and WBSL (835 ± 73 vs. 667 ± 139 g; P = 0.015) were greater in LO-ECO, as was Hprod (13.5 ± 0.6 vs. 11.3 ± 0.8 W/kg; P < 0.001) and Ereq (741 ± 89 vs. 532 ± 130 W; P = 0.007). At Hprod of 640 W, ΔTes (P = 0.910) and WBSL (P = 0.710) were similar between HI-ECO (0.55 ± 0.31°C; 501 ± 88 g) and LO-ECO (0.57 ± 0.16°C; 483 ± 88 g), but running speed was different (HI-ECO: 8.2 ± 0.6; LO-ECO: 7.2 ± 0.4 km/h; P = 0.025). In conclusion, thermoregulatory responses during treadmill running are not altered by V̇O 2max, but by RE because of differences in Hprod and Ereq.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".