MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026500438 · doi:10.1113/ep088544

Five weeks of heat training increases haemoglobin mass in elite cyclists

2020· article· en· W3026500438 on OpenAlexaff
Bent R. Rønnestad, Håvard Hamarsland, Joar Hansen, Espen Holen, David Montero, Jon Elling Whist, Carsten Lundby

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceMedicineVO2 maxHeat illnessLactate thresholdPhysical therapyBlood lactateChemistryInternal medicineHeart rateBiologyBlood pressureMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Findings What is the central question of this study? Do haemoglobin mass and red blood cell volume increase in elite cyclists training in a hot environment compared to a control group training at normal temperature? What is the main finding and its importance? Five weeks of heat training increases haemoglobin mass in elite cyclists. There are small to intermediate effect sizes for exercise parameters favouring heat training. Abstract In this study we tested the hypothesis that performing 1 h of regular light exercise in a heat chamber (HEAT; 37.8 ± 0.5°C; 65.4 ± 1.8% humidity) 5 times week −1 for a total of 5 weeks increases haemoglobin mass (Hb mass ) and exercise performance in elite cyclists ( = 76.2 ± 7.6 ml min −1 kg −1 ). Twenty‐three male volunteers were assigned to HEAT ( n = 11) or CON ( n = 12; 15.5 ± 0.1°C; 25.1 ± 0.0% humidity) training groups. Hb mass was determined before and after the intervention period in conjunction with an extensive exercise test protocol (conducted at 16–19°C). HEAT increased ( P < 0.05) Hb mass by 42 g from 893 ± 78 to 935 ± 108 g whereas Hb mass remained unchanged (+6 g) in CON. Furthermore, statistical analysis revealed a time–group interaction ( P < 0.05). The greater increase in Hb mass in HEAT, however, did not manifest in a greater increase in (225 ± 274 ml min −1 in HEAT and 161 ± 202 ml min −1 in CON). While HEAT reduced ( P < 0.05) lactate levels during some of the submaximal exercise tests, there was no statistical difference between other performance parameters. There were, however, small to intermediate effect sizes favouring HEAT for lactate threshold power output (2.8 ± 3.9 vs . −0.4 ± 5.1% change, effect size (ES) = 0.34), gross economy in the fatigued state (0.19 ± 0.42 vs . −0.12 ± 0.49%‐point change, ES = 0.52) and 15 min mean power (6.9 ± 8.4 vs . 3.4 ± 5.1% increase, ES = 0.22). This study demonstrates an increase in Hb mass and small to intermediate effect sizes on exercise variables in elite cyclists following a 5‐week heat training intervention.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207