Heat Tolerance and Occupational Heat Exposure Limits in Older Men with and without Type 2 Diabetes or Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To mitigate rises in core temperature >1°C, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends upper limits for heat stress (action limit values [ALV]), defined by wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) and a worker's metabolic rate. However, these limits are based on data from young men and are assumed to be suitable for all workers, irrespective of age or health status. We therefore explored the effect of aging, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and hypertension (HTN) on tolerance to prolonged, moderate-intensity work above and below these limits. METHODS: Core temperature and heart rate were assessed in healthy, heat unacclimatized young (18-30 yr, n = 13) and older (50-70 yr) men (n = 14) and heat unacclimatized older men with T2D (n = 10) or HTN (n = 13) during moderate-intensity (metabolic rate: 200 W·m-2) walking for 180 min (or until termination) in environments above (28°C and 32°C WBGT) and below (16°C and 24°C WBGT) the ALV for continuous work at this intensity (25°C WBGT). RESULTS: Work tolerance in the 32°C WBGT was shorter in men with T2D (median [IQR]; 109 [91-173] min; P = 0.041) and HTN (120 [65-170] min; P = 0.010) compared with healthy older men (180 [133-180] min). However, aging, T2D, and HTN did not significantly influence (i) core temperature or heart rate reserve, irrespective of WBGT; (ii) the probability that core temperature exceeded recommended limits (>1°C) under the ALV; and (iii) work duration before core temperature exceeded recommended limits (>1°C) above the ALV. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that T2D and HTN attenuate tolerance to uncompensable heat stress (32°C WBGT); however, these chronic diseases do not significantly impact thermal and cardiovascular strain, or the validity of ACIGH recommendations during moderate-intensity work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".