Effect of electric fan use in isolation or combined with ice slurry/cold water ingestion and lower-leg immersion in young men during intermittent physical activity in hot–humid conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a randomized crossover protocol, 10 young men completed four 180 min exposures (38 °C, 60% relative humidity), alternating between 30 min of walking and 30 min of sitting where fluid or ice slurry were served. Participants underwent four trials: (i) 5 mL·kg body mass−1 of 20 °C water (CON); (ii) 5 mL·kg body mass−1 of 20 °C water + fan at 4 m·s−1 (FAN); (iii) fan + 3 mL·kg body mass−1 of ice slurry + 2 mL·kg body mass−1 of 4 °C water (FAN + ISCW); and (iv) FAN + ISCW + lower-leg immersion in 20 °C water (FAN + ISCW + LLI). Sweat and body mass losses were higher with FAN than CON, FAN + ISCW, and FAN + ISCW + LLI. Mean and peak changes in Δrectal temperature, heart rate, and perceived heat and thirst from baseline were not statistically and practically different between FAN and CON. FAN + ISCW + LLI decreased sweat loss compared with FAN + ISCW and mean and peak changes in Δrectal temperature, heart rate, and perceived thirst compared with CON. FAN + ISCW + LLI also attenuated the changes in Δrectal temperature (peak) and thirst (mean and peak) compared with FAN. In conclusion, FAN slightly exacerbates fluid loss but does not attenuate the changes in Δrectal temperature, heart rate, and perceived heat and thirst during intermittent physical activity in hot–humid conditions. However, coupling ISCW or ISCW + LLI with the use of a fan attenuates the increase in these outcomes compared with no intervention and to a greater extent for rectal temperature and thirst when fan is coupled with ISCW + LLI than when it is used in isolation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".