Postexercise thermal and cardiovascular responses following fast and slow heating exercise protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise-induced hyperthermia can result in significant cardiovascular and thermoregulatory disturbances which can persist for a prolonged period. However, it is unclear if this response differs as a function of the time to reach hyperthermia. Therefore, we compared cardiovascular and thermoregulatory responses of subjects rendered hyperthermic by either a slow heating (SH) or fast heating (FH) exercise protocol performed in the heat (40°C). On separate days, 7 subjects either walked (4 mph, 2% grade, SH) or ran (7.5 mph, 2% grade, FH) on a treadmill until rectal temperature (Tre) increased to 39.5°C. Subjects then rested in the upright seated position in thermoneutral conditions (30°C) until Tre returned to 38.0°C. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were assessed continuously. Change in plasma volume (ΔPV) from baseline rest was measured at end of recovery. The time to reach Tre of 39.5°C was significantly longer during SH (76.5±6.5 min) compared to FH (35.5±3.3 min, p<0.05). However, the time to reach the Tre recovery of 38.0°C was significantly greater during FH compared to SH (82.5±9.2 vs. 56.2±6.5 min, p<0.05). Despite a longer recovery during FH, a similar reduction in MAP (FH:−9.6±1.7 vs. SH: −10.1±3.4 mmHg) was observed at end-recovery which was paralleled by similar elevations in HR (FH:83±2 vs. SH:87±5 bpm). Further, ΔPV was also similar between conditions (FH: −5.1±1.9 vs. SH: −5.8±2.8%) albeit reduced from end-exercise values (FH:9.0±1.1% vs. SH:11.8±1.5%,p<0.05). Different exercise-intensity ramping protocols performed to a similar level of thermal strain influence core temperature recovery time but not the level of cardiovascular strain. Support: Natural Sciences and Research Council of Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".