Assessment of the Omius™ cooling headband effectiveness during a 70-min submaximal running effort followed by a 5-km time-trial in hot/humid conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise performed under hot/humid conditions can hinder endurance performance. The Omius™ headband (OH) is purported to reduce the perception of heat and improve performance. We examined the impact of OH on selected thermal and cardiovascular functions, subjective perceptions and running performance. Using a randomized crossover protocol, 10 trained male athletes (28 ± 4 years) completed two trials (OH and sham headband (SH), 35.0 ± 0.3 °C, 56 ± 3% relative humidity) comprising 70 min of running (60% V˙ O2max) followed by a 5-km running time-trial (TT). Heart rate, perceived exertion and whole-body thermal comfort did not significantly differ between conditions during the submaximal running effort and TT. Rectal temperature was higher with OH (0.11 ± 0.16 °C, p = 0.052) than SH prior to the submaximal running effort, however, no significant differences were observed between conditions regarding the changes in rectal temperature from baseline during the submaximal running effort and TT. Forehead temperature was significantly lower with OH than SH during the submaximal running effort, but no significant differences were observed at the end of the TT. Scores of perceived forehead thermal comfort was only significantly lower with OH than SH during the submaximal running effort. TT performance did not significantly differ between OH (19.8 ± 1.2 min) and SH (20.2 ± 1.0 min). In conclusion, OH improves forehead thermal comfort and reduces forehead temperature but not rectal temperature, heart rate and perceived exertion during, nor 5-km TT performance following, 70 min of submaximal running in the heat.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".