MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Forearm Cooling Attenuates Increase in Core Body Temperature of Elite Cyclists under Heat Stress

2019· article· en· W2955890708 on OpenAlexaff
Eric T. Hedge, Kathryn Zuj, Alexander G. Stothart, Erica H. Gavel, Len Goodman, Sean D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore temperatureHeat stressCore (optical fiber)EliteForearmHeat illnessStress (linguistics)Materials scienceMedicineAnimal scienceAnatomyComposite materialPhysicsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity results in the generation of heat which is dissipated though thermoregulatory processes, such as the production of sweat. Environmental conditions can inhibit thermoregulation resulting in heat accumulation with eventual impairment in performance. PURPOSE: To determine if continuous inner forearm cooling helps to maintain body core temperature and athletic performance during cycling in a hot and humid environment. METHODS: Preliminary results report on data collected from three competitive triathletes [two male, one female; age: 31 ± 2 years; mean ± standard deviation]. Each performed two cycling sessions at 70 ± 4% of their functional threshold power for up to 45 minutes in an environmentally controlled chamber (temperature: 30°C, humidity: 70%). One trial included continuous inner forearm cooling (FC), while the other was a control trial (NFC). Heart rate (HR) was monitored throughout the test and body core temperature (Tcore) was measured using an ingestible radio capsule. Ratings of perceived exertion and thermal comfort were assessed every 10 minutes throughout exercise. RESULTS: Preliminary data suggest that forearm cooling attenuated the increase in Tcore during exercise (FC: 2.32 ± 0.36°C·hr-1 vs. NFC: 2.85 ± 0.33°C·hr-1), as 89.6 ± 11.7 kJ of heat were removed from the body during the cooling trials. Furthermore, two of the three participants were unable to complete the non-cooling trial due to reaching the temperature threshold for test termination (39.3°C). Similarly, HR appeared to be lower in the FC condition compared to the NFC condition. Participants’ ratings of perceived exertion were similar between conditions; however, participants’ thermal comfort was improved with inner forearm cooling. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data analysis suggests that during cycling in the heat, continuous cooling of the forearms may improve athlete comfort by attenuating the exercise induced increase in core body temperature.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207