Tiarna Stothers, Travis Dylan Gibbons, Kate Nicole Thomas, Emma Jones, Holly Ann Campbell, James David Cotter
{"title":"No evidence of higher peak heat tolerance in the afternoon or with opportunity for thermal behaviour during low-intensity work in uncompensable heat.","authors":"Tiarna Stothers, Travis Dylan Gibbons, Kate Nicole Thomas, Emma Jones, Holly Ann Campbell, James David Cotter","doi":"10.1113/EP092803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Heat tolerance is known to be limited by high brain temperature, but most findings pertain to strenuous exercise following artificially altered baseline temperature or with limited opportunity for behaviour. Therefore, we investigated the hypotheses that thermal perceptions, hyperventilation and cerebrovascular responses would be exacerbated in: (1) the afternoon relative to morning; and (2) the absence of opportunity for behavioural thermoregulation. Thirteen habitually active participants (seven females) cycled at 25% peak power wearing a water-perfused suit (∼48°C) until volitional tolerance on three occasions, once in the morning (AM) and twice in the afternoon (PM), with or without access to face fanning with mist (∼1.7 m/s). Heating took ∼2 h. Core temperature (T<sub>c</sub>) was 0.35°C lower in AM at baseline (95% confidence interval: -0.55°C, -0.16°C; P < 0.001, Hedges' g = 1.673) but not at tolerance (39.10°C ± 0.71°C vs. 39.11°C ± 0.50°C; P = 0.947, g = 0.024), hence the rise was greater (95% confidence interval: 0.00°C, 0.80°C; P = 0.047, g = 0.651). The fan did not confer higher T<sub>c</sub> tolerance (95% confidence interval: -0.44°C, 0.24°C; P = 0.764, g = 0.050). The modelled T<sub>c</sub> thresholds for heat discomfort and hyperventilation were ∼0.23°C lower in AM, but sensitivities did not differ reliably or with fan availability (P ≥ 0.098). Internal carotid artery flow was similar across time of day (P = 0.904) and showed little effect of heating. Changes in estimated intracranial pressure did not differ reliably between conditions. In conclusion, thermal reserve was smaller in PM by virtue of higher baseline, and psychophysical, ventilatory and cerebrovascular responses were not reliably different. For most individuals, an opportunity for behaviour did not improve discomfort, hyperventilation or tolerance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12092,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Physiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13577609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1113/EP092803","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Heat tolerance is known to be limited by high brain temperature, but most findings pertain to strenuous exercise following artificially altered baseline temperature or with limited opportunity for behaviour. Therefore, we investigated the hypotheses that thermal perceptions, hyperventilation and cerebrovascular responses would be exacerbated in: (1) the afternoon relative to morning; and (2) the absence of opportunity for behavioural thermoregulation. Thirteen habitually active participants (seven females) cycled at 25% peak power wearing a water-perfused suit (∼48°C) until volitional tolerance on three occasions, once in the morning (AM) and twice in the afternoon (PM), with or without access to face fanning with mist (∼1.7 m/s). Heating took ∼2 h. Core temperature (Tc) was 0.35°C lower in AM at baseline (95% confidence interval: -0.55°C, -0.16°C; P < 0.001, Hedges' g = 1.673) but not at tolerance (39.10°C ± 0.71°C vs. 39.11°C ± 0.50°C; P = 0.947, g = 0.024), hence the rise was greater (95% confidence interval: 0.00°C, 0.80°C; P = 0.047, g = 0.651). The fan did not confer higher Tc tolerance (95% confidence interval: -0.44°C, 0.24°C; P = 0.764, g = 0.050). The modelled Tc thresholds for heat discomfort and hyperventilation were ∼0.23°C lower in AM, but sensitivities did not differ reliably or with fan availability (P ≥ 0.098). Internal carotid artery flow was similar across time of day (P = 0.904) and showed little effect of heating. Changes in estimated intracranial pressure did not differ reliably between conditions. In conclusion, thermal reserve was smaller in PM by virtue of higher baseline, and psychophysical, ventilatory and cerebrovascular responses were not reliably different. For most individuals, an opportunity for behaviour did not improve discomfort, hyperventilation or tolerance.
期刊介绍:
Experimental Physiology publishes research papers that report novel insights into homeostatic and adaptive responses in health, as well as those that further our understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in disease. We encourage papers that embrace the journal’s orientation of translation and integration, including studies of the adaptive responses to exercise, acute and chronic environmental stressors, growth and aging, and diseases where integrative homeostatic mechanisms play a key role in the response to and evolution of the disease process. Examples of such diseases include hypertension, heart failure, hypoxic lung disease, endocrine and neurological disorders. We are also keen to publish research that has a translational aspect or clinical application. Comparative physiology work that can be applied to aid the understanding human physiology is also encouraged.
Manuscripts that report the use of bioinformatic, genomic, molecular, proteomic and cellular techniques to provide novel insights into integrative physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms are welcomed.