MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766674158 · doi:10.1113/ep086637

Fitness‐related differences in the rate of whole‐body evaporative heat loss in exercising men are heat‐load dependent

2017· article· en· W2766674158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPhysical fitnessAerobic exerciseVO2 maxCalorimetryHeat stressAnimal scienceHeat loadHumidityEnergeticsChemistryMedicinePhysical therapyBiologyThermodynamicsEcologyHeart rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Findings What is the central question of this study? Aerobic fitness modulates heat loss, but the heat‐load threshold at which fitness‐related differences in heat loss occur in young healthy men remains unclear. What is the main finding and its importance? We demonstrate using direct calorimetry that aerobic fitness modulates heat loss in a heat‐load‐dependent manner, with fitness‐related differences occurring between young men who have low and high fitness when the heat load is ∼≥500 W. Although aerobic fitness has been known for some time to modulate heat loss, our findings define the precise heat‐load threshold at which fitness‐related differences occur. The effect of aerobic fitness (defined as rate of peak oxygen consumption) on heat loss during exercise is thought to be related to the level of heat stress. However, it remains unclear at what combined exercise and environmental (net) heat‐load threshold these fitness‐related differences occur. To identify this, we assessed whole‐body heat exchange (dry and evaporative) by direct calorimetry in young (22 ± 3 years) men matched for physical characteristics with low (Low‐fit; 39.8 ± 2.5 ml O 2 kg −1 min −1 ), moderate (Mod‐fit; 50.9 ± 1.2 ml O 2 kg −1 min −1 ) and high aerobic fitness (High‐fit; 62.0 ± 4.4 ml O 2 kg −1 min −1 ; each n = 8), during three 30 min bouts of cycling in dry heat (40°C, 12% relative humidity) at increasing rates of metabolic heat production of 300 (Ex1), 400 (Ex2) and 500 W (Ex3), each followed by a 15 min recovery period. Each group was exposed to a similar net heat load (metabolic plus ∼100 W dry heat gain; P = 0.83) during each exercise bout [∼400 (Ex1), ∼500 (Ex2) and ∼600 W (Ex3); P < 0.01]. Although evaporative heat loss was similar between groups during Ex1 ( P = 0.33), evaporative heat loss was greater in the High‐fit (Ex2, 466 ± 21 W; Ex3, 557 ± 26 W) compared with the Low‐fit group (Ex2, 439 ± 22 W; Ex3, 511 ± 20 W) during Ex2 and Ex3 ( P ≤ 0.03). Conversely, evaporative heat loss for the Mod‐fit group did not differ from either the High‐fit or Low‐fit group during all exercise bouts ( P ≥ 0.09). We demonstrate that aerobic fitness modulates heat loss in a heat‐load‐dependent manner, such that young, highly fit men display greater heat‐loss capacity only at heat loads ∼≥500 W compared with their lesser trained counterparts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it