Heat Exchange in Young and Older Men during Constant- and Variable-Intensity Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current occupational heat stress guidelines rely on time-weighted averaging to quantify the metabolic demands of variable-intensity work. However, variable-intensity work may be associated with impairments in whole-body total heat loss (dry + evaporative heat loss), especially in older workers, which exacerbate heat strain relative to constant-intensity work eliciting the same time-weighted average metabolic rate. We, therefore, used direct calorimetry to evaluate whether variable-intensity work would cause decrements in the average rate of whole-body total heat loss that augment body heat storage and core temperature compared with constant-intensity work in young and older men. METHODS: Eight young (19-31 yr) and eight older (54-65 yr) men completed four trials involving 90 min of work (cycling) eliciting an average metabolic heat production of ~200 W·m in dry-heat (40°C, 20% relative humidity). One trial involved constant-intensity work (CON), whereas the others involved 10-min cycles of variable-intensity work: 5-min low-intensity and 5-min high-intensity (VAR 5:5), 6-min low-intensity and 4-min very high-intensity (VAR 6:4), and 7-min low- and 3-min very, very high-intensity (VAR 7:3). Metabolic heat production, total heat loss, body heat storage (heat production minus total heat loss), and core (rectal) temperature were measured throughout. RESULTS: When averaged over each 90-min work period, metabolic heat production, total heat loss, and heat storage were similar between groups and conditions (all P ≥ 0.152). Peak core temperature (average of final 10 min) was also similar between groups and conditions (both P ≥ 0.111). CONCLUSIONS: Whole-body total heat loss, heat storage, and core temperature were not significantly influenced by the partitioning of work intensity in young or older men, indicating that time-weighted averaging appears to be appropriate for quantifying the metabolic demands of variable-intensity work to assess occupational heat stress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".