Intermittent sprint performance in the heat is not altered by augmenting thermal perception via L-menthol or capsaicin mouth rinses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooling sensations elicited by mouth rinsing with L-menthol have been reported as ergogenic. Presently, responses to L-menthol mouth rinsing during intermittent sprint performance (ISP) in the heat are unknown and the impact of increased thermal perception on ISP via capsaicin has also not been quantified. This experiment aimed to identify whether eliciting cooling/warming sensations via L-menthol/capsaicin would alter ISP in the heat. Fourteen participants (mass = 72 ± 9 kg, $$\dot {V}{{\text{O}}_{2{\text{peak}}}}$$ = 3.30 ± 0.90 L min−1), undertook four experimental trials, involving 40 min of ISP in hot conditions (40.2 ± 0.6 °C, 42 ± 2% R.H.) with mouth rinsing (25 mL, 6 s) at the protocol onset, and every 10 min thereafter. Cooling (0.01% L-menthol; MEN), warming (0.2% capsaicin; CAP), placebo (0.3 sham-CHO; PLA), and control (water; CON) mouth rinses were utilized. Performance was quantified via power (PP) and work done (WD) during sprints. Heart rate (HR), core (Trec) and skin (Tskin) temperature, perceived exertion (RPE), thermal sensation (Tsens), and comfort (Tcom) were measured at 10 min intervals. Sweat rate (whole-body sweat rate) was calculated from ∆mass. PP reduced over time (P < 0.05); however, no change was observed between trials for PP or WD (P > 0.05). Tcom increased over time and was lower in MEN (2.7 ± 1.1; P < 0.05) with no difference between CAP (3.1 ± 1.2), PLA (3.2 ± 1.3) and CON (3.1 ± 1.3). RPE, Tsens HR, Trec, and Tskin increased over time (P < 0.05) with no between trial differences (P > 0.05). Despite improved thermal comfort via L-menthol, ISP did not improve. Capsaicin did not alter thermal perception or ISP. The reduction in ISP over time in hot conditions is not influenced by thermal perception.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".