Whole-Body Heat Exchange during Heat Acclimation and Its Decay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify how much whole-body heat loss increases during heat acclimation and the decay in these improvements after heat acclimation. METHODS: Ten males underwent a 14-d heat acclimation protocol that consisted of 90 min of cycling in the heat (40°C, 20% relative humidity) at approximately 50% of maximum oxygen consumption. Before (day 0), during (day 7), and at the end (day 14) of the heat acclimation protocol as well as 7 and 14 d after heat acclimation (days 21 and 28), whole-body heat exchange (evaporative and dry) was measured using direct calorimetry during three bouts of 30-min exercise at 300 (Ex1), 350 (Ex2), and 400 W·m (Ex3), each separated by 10 and 20 min of recovery, respectively, at 35°C and 16% relative humidity. Concurrent measurements of metabolic heat production (indirect calorimetry) allowed for the direct calculation of change in body heat content (ΔHb). RESULTS: After accounting for an increase in net dry heat gain, increases in whole-body evaporative heat loss were evident for Ex2 and Ex3 on day 7 (Ex2, 4.9 ± 5.6%; Ex3, 9.0 ± 6.0%; both P ≤ 0.05) and all heat loads on day 14 (Ex1, 7.6 ± 8.3%; Ex2, 7.7 ± 5.5%; Ex3, 11.2 ± 4.6%; all P ≤ 0.05) relative to day 0 (Ex1, 494 ± 27 W; Ex2, 583 ± 21 W; Ex3, 622 ± 36 W). As a result, a lower cumulative ΔHb was measured on day 7 (-18 ± 8%, P ≤ 0.001) and day 14 (-26 ± 10%, P ≤ 0.001) compared with that measured on day 0 (1062 ± 123 kJ). Most of these improvements were retained after 2 wk of nonexposure to the heat. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify how much 14 d of heat acclimation can increase whole-body evaporative heat loss, which can improve by as much as approximately 11%.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".