Jay Ollie, Reardon Francis D, Webb Paul, Ducharme Michel B, Ramsay Tim, Nettlefold Lindsay, Kenny Glen P
Laboratory of Human Bioenergetics and Environmental Physiology, School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2007 Aug;103(2):443-51. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00117.2007. Epub 2007 May 10.
Changes in mean body temperature (DeltaT(b)) estimated by the traditional two-compartment model of "core" and "shell" temperatures and an adjusted two-compartment model incorporating a correction factor were compared with values derived by whole body calorimetry. Sixty participants (31 men, 29 women) cycled at 40% of peak O(2) consumption for 60 or 90 min in the Snellen calorimeter at 24 or 30 degrees C. The core compartment was represented by esophageal, rectal (T(re)), and aural canal temperature, and the shell compartment was represented by a 12-point mean skin temperature (T(sk)). Using T(re) and conventional core-to-shell weightings (X) of 0.66, 0.79, and 0.90, mean DeltaT(b) estimation error (with 95% confidence interval limits in parentheses) for the traditional model was -95.2% (-83.0, -107.3) to -76.6% (-72.8, -80.5) after 10 min and -47.2% (-40.9, -53.5) to -22.6% (-14.5, -30.7) after 90 min. Using T(re), X = 0.80, and a correction factor (X(0)) of 0.40, mean DeltaT(b) estimation error for the adjusted model was +9.5% (+16.9, +2.1) to -0.3% (+11.9, -12.5) after 10 min and +15.0% (+27.2, +2.8) to -13.7% (-4.2, -23.3) after 90 min. Quadratic analyses of calorimetry DeltaT(b) data was subsequently used to derive best-fitting values of X for both models and X(0) for the adjusted model for each measure of core temperature. The most accurate model at any time point or condition only accounted for 20% of the variation observed in DeltaT(b) for the traditional model and 56% for the adjusted model. In conclusion, throughout exercise the estimation of DeltaT(b) using any measure of core temperature together with mean skin temperature irrespective of weighting is inaccurate even with a correction factor customized for the specific conditions.
通过传统的“核心”和“外壳”温度两室模型及纳入校正因子的调整后两室模型估算的平均体温变化(ΔT(b)),与全身量热法得出的值进行了比较。60名参与者(31名男性,29名女性)在Snellen量热计中于24或30摄氏度下,以峰值耗氧量的40%骑行60或90分钟。核心室由食管、直肠(T(re))和耳道温度表示,外壳室由12点平均皮肤温度(T(sk))表示。使用T(re)以及0.66、0.79和0.90的传统核心与外壳权重(X),传统模型的平均ΔT(b)估计误差(括号内为95%置信区间界限)在10分钟后为-95.2%(-83.0,-107.3)至-76.6%(-72.8,-80.5),90分钟后为-47.2%(-40.9,-53.5)至-22.6%(-14.5,-30.7)。使用T(re)、X = 0.80以及校正因子(X(0))0.40,调整后模型的平均ΔT(b)估计误差在10分钟后为+9.5%(+16.9,+2.1)至-0.3%(+11.9,-12.5),90分钟后为+15.0%(+27.2,+2.8)至-13.7%(-4.2,-23.3)。随后对量热法ΔT(b)数据进行二次分析,以得出两种模型的最佳拟合X值以及调整后模型针对每种核心温度测量的X(0)值。在任何时间点或条件下,最准确的模型在传统模型中仅占观察到的ΔT(b)变化的20%,在调整后模型中占56%。总之,在整个运动过程中,无论权重如何,使用任何核心温度测量值与平均皮肤温度来估计ΔT(b)都是不准确的,即使使用针对特定条件定制的校正因子也是如此。