Effects Of Short-term Heat Exposure On Time Trial Performance In Moderate Hypoxia With Trained Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a 5-day training protocol in the heat on physiological acclimation, perceptual responses, and 16 km time-trial performance in moderate hypoxia. METHODS: Twelve well-trained, healthy male participants (age = 27 ± 8 years; VO2peak = 66.52 ± 4.94 ml·kg-1·min-1) were randomly assigned to a hot (HOT; 40°C, 35% RH) or control (CON; 18°C, 35% RH) group, and completed five consecutive days of cycling for 60 min at 50% VO2peak. Participants completed a 16 km time-trial in hypoxia (FiO2 = 0.165; SpO2 = 86.00 ± 2.64), pre- (TT1) and post-training (TT2), to determine if heat training enhanced hypoxic cycling performance. Rectal core temperature (Tre), heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion were assessed through the training protocol. RESULTS: Time to completion from TT1 (HOT = 1637 ± 110 s, CON = 1684 ± 117 s) to TT2 (HOT = 1617 ± 118 s, CON = 1671 ± 109 s) was reduced (p = 0.029); however, there was no interaction between groups (p = 0.599). There was no difference in mean (p = 0.443) or peak heart rate (p = 0.651) between TT1 and TT2 across both groups. Training resulted in a reduction in resting heart rate (Day 1: HOT = 61 ± 14 beats·min-1, CON = 72 ± 4 beats·min-1 vs. Day 5: HOT = 58 ± 11 beats·min-1 CON = 66 ± 6 beats·min-1; p = 0.049) and rating of perceived exertion (Day 1: HOT = 4 ± 1, CON = 3 ± 2 vs Day 5: HOT = 3 ± 1, CON = 2 ± 1; p = 0.001); however, there was no interaction between the groups. There was no significant difference in Tre (p = 0.836), mean exercising Tre (p = 0.127), or peak exercising Tre (p = 0.152) responses between Day 1 and Day 5 of the training protocol. CONCLUSION: This study found that the 5-day training protocol improved time-trial performance in hypoxia; however, there was no perceptual, physiological or performance benefits associated with training in the heat compared to normoxic conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".