Eight weeks of post‐exercise local heating does not improve cognition and plasma brain‐derived neurotrophic factor concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise and heat stress have been reported to independently provide benefits to brain health. We tested the hypothesis that 8 weeks of post-exercise local heating, passive local heating only, or exercise training only improves cognitive performance compared to a control group. Sixty young, healthy participants (n = 30 female, age: 23 [3] years) were randomised into one of four groups: control (CON), aerobic exercise (EX), local heating (HEAT), or combined heat and exercise (HEATEX). Participants completed supervised sessions three times per week for 8 weeks. Exercise sessions were completed at 70-75% of maximum heart rate on a cycle ergometer, and local heating sessions involved hot water immersion (42°C) of the feet (both 45 min duration). The HEATEX group performed both the EX and HEAT components sequentially in the same session (90 min total duration). Cognitive performance was measured at baseline and at the end of the 8-week intervention using the digit symbol substitution task (DSST) and the Stroop test. There was a main effect of time (P < 0.001) where DSST performance improved; however, there was no group effect (P = 0.089) or time by group interaction (P = 0.119). There was no effect of the interventions on Stroop cost (baseline: 90 [SD: 70] ms; post-intervention: 84 [SD: 70] ms; time by condition interaction P = 0.205). Similarly, there were no effects of the interventions on circulating plasma concentrations of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (interaction P = 0.189). Eight weeks of exercise training and/or local heating is not sufficient to improve cognitive performance in young, moderately fit individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".