Search

Background: Whether static and dynamic balances can be impaired with increasing core temperature in female participants remains unknown., Purpose: We tested the hypothesis that static and dynamic balances can be further impaired with systematic increases of core temperature by Δ1 °C and Δ 2 °C using whole-body passive heating., Method: Eighteen female participants underwent a control trial (Con) and two progressive passive heating trials with Δ 1 °C and Δ 2 °C increase of oral temperature (T Oral ) using 45 °C water bath. In each trial, we assessed static balance with both eye open and closed and assessed dynamic balance using obstacle crossing at 10 %, 20 % and 30 % of the participant's leg length., Results: Static balance was not different between Con and Δ1 °C but was different between Δ1 °C and Δ 2 °C in an eye closed condition. Furthermore, Δ 2 °C greatly impaired both static and dynamic balances when compared to Con. The joint angles and toe clearance increased while leading heel-obstacle distance decreased during crossing obstacles at the height of 20 % and 30 % leg length with leading limbs in the Δ2 °C compared to Δ 1 °C and Con (All P < 0.05). However, no differences in joint kinematics and toe clearance with trailing limbs were observed (All P > 0.05)., Conclusion: In female participants, static and dynamic balances only became impaired when T Oral increased 2 °C from baseline., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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 [E 2 ] and progesterone [P 4 ]) 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 (T peak ) 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 E 2 and P 4 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 T peak ([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% [E 2 ]) 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: E 2 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 T peak and work output, respectively., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Seasonal acclimatization from winter to summer is known to enhance thermoeffector responses in hot-dry environments during exercise whereas its impact on sweat evaporation and core temperature (T core ) responses in hot-humid environments remains unknown. We, therefore, sought to determine whether seasonal acclimatization is able to modulate whole body sweat rate (WBSR), evaporated sweat rate, sweating efficiency, and thermoregulatory function during cycling exercise in a hot-humid environment (32°C, 75% RH). We also determined whether the increase in air velocity could enhance evaporated sweat rate and sweating efficiency before and after seasonal acclimatization. Twelve males cycled for 1 h at 40% V̇o 2max in winter (preacclimatization) and repeated the trial again in summer (after acclimatization). For the last 20 min of cycling at a steady-state of T core , air velocity increased from 0.2 (0.04) m/s to 1.1 (0.02) m/s by using an electric fan located in front of the participant. Seasonal acclimatization enhanced WBSR, unevaporated sweat rate, local sweat rate and mean skin temperature compared with preacclimatization state (all P < 0.05) whereas sweating efficiency was lower ( P < 0.01) until 55 min of exercise. T core and evaporated sweat rate were unaltered by acclimatization status (all P > 0.70). In conclusion, seasonal acclimatization enhances thermoeffector responses but does not attenuate T core during exercise in a hot-humid environment. Furthermore, increasing air velocity enhances evaporated sweat rate and sweating efficiency irrespective of acclimated state. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Seasonal acclimatization to humid heat enhances eccrine sweat gland function and thus results in a higher local and whole body sweat rate but does not attenuate T core during exercise in a hot-humid environment. Sweating efficiency is lower after seasonal acclimatization to humid heat compared with preacclimatization with and without the increase of air velocity. However, having a lower sweating efficiency does not mitigate the T core response during exercise in a hot-humid environment.

The combination of high humidity and ambient temperature of the 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympic Game will undoubtfully result in greater physiological strains and thereby downregulates the endurance performance of athletes. Although many research studies have highlighted that the thermoregulatory strain is greater when the environment is hot and humid, no review articles have addressed the thermoregulatory and performance differences between dry and humid heat and such lack of consensuses in this area will lead to increase the risk of heat-related injuries as well as suboptimal preparation. Furthermore, specific strategies to counteract this stressful environment has not been outlined in the current literature. Therefore, the purposes of this review are: 1) to provide a clear evidence that humid heat is more stressful than dry heat for both male and female athletes and therefore the preparation for the Tokyo Summer Olympic should be environmental specific instead of a one size fits all approach; 2) to highlight why female athletes may be facing a disadvantage when performing a prolonged endurance event under high humidity environment and 3) to highlight the potential interventional strategies to reduce thermal strain in hot-humid environment. The summaries of this review are: both male and female should be aware of the environmental condition in Tokyo as humid heat is more stressful than dry heat; Short-term heat acclimation may not elicit proper thermoregulatory adaptations in hot-humid environment; cold water immersion with proper hydration and some potential per-cooling modalities may be beneficial for both male and female athletes in hot-humid environment., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Recent studies have determined that ambient humidity plays a more important role in aerobic performance than dry-bulb temperature does in warm environments; however, no studies have kept humidity constant and independently manipulated temperature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of dry-bulb temperature, when vapor pressure was matched, on the thermoregulatory, perceptual and performance responses to a 30-min cycling work trial., Methods: Fourteen trained male cyclists (age: 32 ± 12 year; height: 178 ± 6 cm; mass: 76 ± 9 kg; [Formula: see text]: 59 ± 9 mL kg -1  min -1 ; body surface area: 1.93 ± 0.12 m 2 ; peak power output: 393 ± 53 W) volunteered, and underwent 1 exercise bout in moderate heat (MOD: 34.9 ± 0.2 °C, 50.1 ± 1.1% relative humidity) and 1 in mild heat (MILD: 29.2 ± 0.2 °C, 69.4 ± 0.9% relative humidity) matched for vapor pressure (2.8 ± 0.1 kPa), with trials counterbalanced., Results: Despite a higher weighted mean skin temperature during MOD (36.3 ± 0.5 vs. 34.5 ± 0.6 °C, p < 0.01), none of rectal temperature (38.0 ± 0.3 vs. 37.9 ± 0.4 °C, p = 0.30), local sweat rate (1.0 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.4 mg cm -2  min -1 , p = 0.28), cutaneous blood flow (283 ± 116 vs. 287 ± 105 PU, p = 0.90), mean power output (206 ± 37 vs. 205 ± 41 W, p = 0.87) or total work completed (371 ± 64 vs. 369 ± 70 kJ, p = 0.77) showed any difference between environments during the work trial. However, all perceptual measures (perceived exertion, thermal discomfort, thermal sensation, skin wettedness, pleasantness, all p < 0.05) were affected detrimentally during MOD compared to MILD., Conclusion: In a warm and compensable environment, dry-bulb temperature did not influence high-intensity cycling performance when vapor pressure was maintained, whilst the perceptual responses were affected.