Does a Prolonged Work Day in the Heat Impair Heat Loss on the Next Day in Young Men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Heat strain is known to be exacerbated on the second of consecutive work days. We therefore evaluated whether prolonged work in the heat would impair whole-body heat loss capacity on the next day. METHODS: To evaluate this possibility, we assessed changes in whole-body heat exchange and heat storage in eight young (26 ± 4 yr) men during heat stress tests performed on the same day before (day 1) and on the day after (day 2) a prolonged work simulation. Each heat stress test involved three, 30-min bouts of semirecumbent cycling at fixed rates of metabolic heat production (200 W·m (Ex1), 250 W·m (Ex2), and 300 W·m (Ex3)), each separated by 15-min recovery, under hot, dry conditions (40°C, 20% relative humidity). The work simulation (7.5 h) involved three moderate-intensity intermittent work bouts (2 h), each separated by 30-min rest breaks, under similarly hot, dry conditions (38°C, 34% 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 quantified as the temporal summation of heat production and loss. RESULTS: Total heat loss did not differ between days 1 and 2 (P = 0.66) and averaged (mean ± 95% confidence interval) 185 ± 7 W (Ex1), 233 ± 7 W (Ex2), and 261 ± 5 W (Ex3) across test days. Consequently, the change in body heat storage was also similar between days 1 and 2 (P = 0.32), averaging 133 ± 15 kJ (Ex1), 99 ± 16 kJ (Ex2), and 184 ± 15 kJ (Ex3) across test days. CONCLUSIONS: When assessed under controlled laboratory conditions in young men, prolonged work in the heat does not seem to impair whole-body heat loss or exacerbate heat storage on the following day.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".