Thermal and Cardiovascular Responses during Exertional Heat Stress after Diphenhydramine Use: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite sparse systematic evidence, current exercise heat safety recommendations suggest that antihistamines blunt sweating and increase the risk for heat-related injury during exertional heat stress. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether diphenhydramine hydrochloride (DPH), a first-generation antihistamine, affects the sweating, core temperature, and heart rate (HR) response during exertional heat stress using a double-blind randomized crossover design. METHODS: On two occasions separated by >48 h, 20 healthy adults (10 females, 23 ± 3 yr, body surface area: 1.9 ± 0.2 m 2 , body mass index: 23.7 ± 2.2 kg·m -2 ) orally consumed either 50 mg of DPH or placebo (PLA), and then rested for 2 h in a climate-controlled room maintained at 30°C and 35% relative humidity (heat index of ~29°C), followed by a 60-min fixed-heat production treadmill walk (6.3 ± 1.0 W·kg -1 ). Whole-body sweat loss, local sweat rate, rectal temperature ( Trec ), and HR were measured. RESULTS: Whole-body sweat loss was not different between conditions (PLA: 406 ± 78 g, DPH: 396 ± 75 g; P = 0.26, treatment effect: -10 g; 95% confidence interval, -28 to 8). No differences were observed for the onset of sweating (PLA: 13.5 ± 2.4 min, DPH: 13.3 ± 2.7 min; P = 0.79) and steady-state local sweat rate (PLA: 0.83 ± 0.26 mg·cm -2 ·min -1 , DPH: 0.82 ± 0.27 mg·cm -2 ·min -1 ; P = 0.99). No difference in baseline Trec was observed (PLA: 37.09°C ± 0.35°C, DPH: 37.13°C ± 0.33°C; P = 0.68), and the 60-min Δ Trec was not different ( P = 0.99) between PLA (0.83°C ± 0.29°C) and DPH (0.81°C ± 0.30°C). HR was similar at baseline (PLA: 86 ± 13 bpm, DPH: 84 ± 11 bpm; P = 0.30) and end-exercise (PLA: 134 ± 28 bpm, DPH: 132 ± 26 bpm; P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Fifty milligrams of DPH does not modify the sweating, core temperature, and HR response during exertional heat stress in young healthy adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".