Search

Purpose: Women remain underrepresented in the exercise thermoregulation literature despite their participation in leisure-time and occupational physical activity in heat-stressful environments continuing to increase. Here, we determined the relative contribution of the primary ovarian hormones (estrogen [E2] and progesterone [P4]) alongside other morphological (e.g., body mass), physiological (e.g., sweat rates), functional (e.g., aerobic fitness) and environmental (e.g., vapor pressure) factors in explaining the individual variation in core temperature responses for trained women working at very high metabolic rates, specifically peak core temperature (Tpeak) and work output (mean power output).Methods: Thirty-six trained women (32 ± 9 year, 53 ± 9 ml·kg-1·min-1), distinguished by intra-participant (early follicular and mid-luteal phases) or inter-participant (ovulatory vs. anovulatory vs. oral contraceptive pill user) differences in their endogenous E2 and P4 concentrations, completed a self-paced 30-min cycling work trial in warm-dry (2.2 ± 0.2 kPa, 34.1 ± 0.2 °C, 41.4 ± 3.4% RH) and/or warm-humid (3.4 ± 0.1 kPa, 30.2 ± 1.2 °C, 79.8 ± 3.7% RH) conditions that yielded 115 separate trials. Stepwise linear regression was used to explain the variance of the dependent variables.Results: Models were able to account for 60% of the variance in Tpeak ([Formula: see text]2: 41% core temperature at the start of work trial, [Formula: see text]2: 15% power output, [Formula: see text]2: 4% [E2]) and 44% of the variance in mean power output ([Formula: see text]2: 35% peak aerobic power, [Formula: see text]2: 9% perceived exertion).Conclusion: E2 contributes a small amount toward the core temperature response in trained women, whereby starting core temperature and peak aerobic power explain the greatest variance in Tpeak and work output, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]