Aging Impairs Whole-Body Heat Loss in Women under Both Dry and Humid Heat Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether age-related impairments in whole-body heat loss, which are known to exist in dry heat, also occur in humid heat in women. METHODS: To evaluate this possibility, 10 young (25 ± 4 yr) and 10 older (51 ± 7 yr) women matched for body surface area (young, 1.69 ± 0.11; older, 1.76 ± 0.14 m, P = 0.21) and peak oxygen consumption (V˙O2peak) (young, 38.6 ± 4.6; older, 34.8 ± 6.6 mL·kg·min, P = 0.15) performed four 15-min bouts of cycling at a fixed metabolic heat production rate (300 W; equivalent to ~45% V˙O2peak), each separated by a 15-min recovery, in dry (35°C, 20% relative humidity) and humid heat (35°C, 60% relative humidity). Total heat loss (evaporative ± dry heat exchange) and metabolic heat production were measured using direct and indirect calorimetry, respectively. Body heat storage was measured as the temporal summation of heat production and loss. RESULTS: Total heat loss was lower in humid conditions compared with dry conditions during all exercise bouts in both groups (all P < 0.05), resulting in 49% and 39% greater body heat storage in young and older women, respectively (both P < 0.01). Total heat loss was also lower in older women compared with young women during exercise bouts 1, 2 and 3 in dry heat (all P < 0.05) and bouts 1 and 2 in humid heat (both P < 0.05). Consequently, body heat storage was 29% and 16% greater in older women compared with young women in dry and humid conditions, respectively (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ambient humidity reduces heat loss capacity in young and older women. However, older women display impaired heat loss relative to young women in both dry and humid heat, and may therefore be at greater risk of heat-related injury during light-to-moderate activity.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".