4.5 Article

Evidence for thermoregulatory behavior during self-paced exercise in the heat

Journal

JOURNAL OF THERMAL BIOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 390-396

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2011.07.002

Keywords

Thermal behavior; Exercise intensity; Thermal discomfort; Thermal compensability

Funding

  1. Massey University
  2. New Zealand International Doctoral Research Scholarship (Education New Zealand)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary objective of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that voluntary reductions in exercise intensity in heat improve heat exchange between the body and the environment, and are thus thermoregulatory behaviors. This was accomplished by observing the conscious selection of exercise intensity and the accompanying thermal outcomes of eleven moderately active males when exposed to an uncompensably hot (UNCOMP) and a compensable (COMP) thermal environment. Evidence for thermoregulatory behavior was defined relative to the specific, pre-determined definition. Self-selected exercise intensity (power output) was unanimously reduced in UNCOMP over time and relative to COMP in all the subjects. These voluntary responses were found to modify metabolic heat production over time and therefore heat exchange between the body and the environment. Likewise, the observed reductions in power output were, at least in part, due to a conscious action, that was found to be inversely related to the total body heat storage and thermal discomfort. There was no evidence for thermoregulatory behavior in COMP. These data uniquely indicate that voluntary reductions in exercise intensity improves heat exchange over time, and therefore contributes to the regulation of body temperature. These findings suggest that reductions in exercise intensity in heat are, by definition, thermoregulatory behaviors. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available