The effect of water temperature on orthostatic tolerance: a randomised crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bolus water drinking, at room temperature, has been shown to improve orthostatic tolerance (OT), probably via sympathetic activation; however, it is not clear whether the temperature of the water bolus modifies the effect on OT or the cardiovascular responses to orthostatic stress. The aim of this study was to assess whether differing water temperature of the water bolus would alter time to presyncope and/or cardiovascular parameters during incremental orthostatic stress. METHODS: Fourteen participants underwent three head-up tilt (HUT) tests with graded lower body negative pressure (LBNP) continued until presyncope. Fifteen minutes prior to each HUT, participants drank a 500 mL bolus of water which was randomised, in single-blind crossover fashion, to either room temperature water (20 °C) (ROOM), ice-cold water (0-3 °C) (COLD) or warm water (45 °C) (WARM). Cardiovascular parameters were monitored continuously. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OT in the COLD (33 ± 3 min; p = 0.3321) and WARM (32 ± 3 min; p = 0.6764) conditions in comparison to the ROOM condition (31 ± 3 min). During the HUT tests, heart rate and cardiac output were significantly reduced (p < 0.0073), with significantly increased systolic blood pressure, stroke volume, cerebral blood flow velocity and total peripheral resistance (p < 0.0054), in the COLD compared to ROOM conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy controls, bolus cold water drinking results in favourable orthostatic cardiovascular responses during HUT/LBNP without significantly altering OT. Using a cold water bolus may result in additional benefits in patients with orthostatic intolerance above those conferred by bolus water at room temperature (by ameliorating orthostatic tachycardia and enhancing vascular resistance responses). Further research in patients with orthostatic intolerance is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".