The optimal exercise intensity for the unbiased comparison of thermoregulatory responses between groups unmatched for body size during uncompensable heat stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We sought to identify the appropriate exercise intensity for unbiased comparisons of changes in rectal temperature (ΔT re ) and local sweat rates ( LSR ) between groups unmatched for body size during uncompensable heat stress. Sixteen males vastly different in body morphology were separated into two equal groups [small ( SM ): 65.8 ± 6.2 kg, 1.8 ± 0.1 m 2 ; large ( LG ): 100.0 ± 13.1 kg, 2.3 ± 0.1 m 2 ], but matched for sudomotor thermosensitivity ( SM : 1.3 ± 0.6; LG : 1.1 ± 0.4 mg·cm −2 ·min −1 ·°C −1 ). The maximum potential for evaporation (E max ) for each participant was assessed using an incremental humidity protocol. On separate occasions, participants then completed 60 min of cycling in a 35°C and 70% RH environment at (1) 50% of VO 2max , (2) a heat production (H prod ) of 520 W, (3) H prod relative to mass (6 W·kg −1 ), and (4) H prod relative to mass above E max (3 W·kg −1 >E max ). E max was similar between LG (347 ± 39 W, 154 ± 15 W·m −2 ) and SM (313 ± 63 W, 176 ± 34 W·m −2 , P > 0.12). ΔT re was greater in SM compared to LG at 520 W ( SM : 1.5 ± 0.5; LG 0.8 ± 0.3°C, P < 0.001) and at 50% of VO 2max ( SM : 1.4 ± 0.5; LG 0.9 ± 0.3°C, P < 0.001). However, ΔT re was similar between groups when H prod was either 6 W·kg −1 ( SM : 0.9 ± 0.3; LG 0.9 ± 0.2°C, P = 0.98) and 3 W·kg −1 >E max ( SM : 1.4 ± 0.5; LG 1.3 ± 0.4°C, P = 0.99). LSR was similar between LG and SM irrespective of condition, suggesting maximum LSR was attained ( SM : 1.10 ± 0.23; LG : 1.07 ± 0.35 mg·cm −2 ·min −1 , P = 0.50). In conclusion, systematic differences in ΔT re and LSR between groups unmatched for body size during uncompensable heat stress can be avoided by a fixed H prod in W·kg −1 or W·kg −1 >E max .
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".