School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Exp Physiol. 2022 May;107(5):429-440. doi: 10.1113/EP089992. Epub 2022 Mar 16.
What is the central question of this study? What are the profiles of acute physiological and psychophysical strain during and in recovery from different modes of heating, and to what extent do these diminish after repeated exposure? What is the main finding and its importance? Mode of heating affects the strain profiles during heat stress and recovery. Exercise in the heat incurred the greatest cardiovascular strain during heating and recovery. Humid heat was poorly tolerated despite heat strain being no greater than in other heating modes, and tolerance did not improve with multiple exposures.
Heat stress is common and arises endogenously and exogenously. It can be acutely hazardous while also increasingly advocated to drive health and performance-related adaptations. Yet, the nature of strain (deviation in regulated variables) imposed by different heating modes is not well established, despite the potential for important differences. We, therefore, compared three modes of heat stress for thermal, cardiovascular and perceptual strain profiles during exposure and recovery when experienced as a novel stimulus and an accustomed stimulus. In a crossover design, 13 physically active participants (five females) underwent 5 days of 60-min exposures to hot water immersion (40°C), sauna (55°C, 54% relative humidity) and exercise in the heat (40°C, 52% relative humidity), and a thermoneutral water immersion control (36.5°C), each separated by ≥4 weeks. Physiological (thermal, cardiovascular, haemodynamic) and psychophysical strain responses were assessed on days 1 and 5. Sauna evoked the warmest skin (40°C; P < 0.001) but exercise in the heat caused the largest increase in core temperature, sweat rate, heart rate (post hoc comparisons all P < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (P ≤ 0.002), and possibly decrease in diastolic blood pressures (P ≤ 0.130), regardless of day. Thermal sensation and feeling state were more favourable on day 5 than on day 1 (P ≤ 0.021), with all modes of heat being equivalently uncomfortable (P ≥ 0.215). Plasma volume expanded the largest extent during immersions (P < 0.001). The current data highlight that exercising in the heat generates a more complex strain profile, while passive heat stress in humid heat has lower tolerance and more cardiovascular strain than hot water immersion.
本研究的核心问题是什么?不同加热模式下的急性生理和心理应激的特征是什么,以及在重复暴露后,这些应激会在多大程度上减轻?主要发现及其重要性是什么?加热模式会影响热应激和恢复过程中的应激特征。在加热过程中,运动引起的心血管应激最大,而在恢复过程中也是如此。尽管湿热的热应激并不大于其他加热模式,但由于湿热的耐受性较差,且随着多次暴露,耐受性并未提高。
热应激很常见,它可以由内源性和外源性因素引起。在急性情况下,它可能是危险的,而在促进健康和与性能相关的适应方面,它也越来越受到推崇。然而,不同加热模式所施加的应激(调节变量的偏差)性质尚不清楚,尽管存在重要差异。因此,我们比较了三种热应激模式在作为新刺激和习惯刺激时暴露和恢复过程中的热、心血管和知觉应激特征。采用交叉设计,13 名身体活跃的参与者(5 名女性)进行了 5 天 60 分钟的热水浸泡(40°C)、桑拿(55°C,54%相对湿度)和热环境下运动(40°C,52%相对湿度),以及热中性水浸泡对照(36.5°C),每次间隔≥4 周。在第 1 天和第 5 天评估生理(热、心血管、血液动力学)和心理应激反应。桑拿浴使皮肤温度达到最热(40°C;P<0.001),但热环境下运动使核心温度、出汗率、心率(事后比较均 P<0.001)和收缩压(P≤0.002)最大增加,可能使舒张压降低(P≤0.130),无论哪一天。热感觉和感觉状态在第 5 天比第 1 天更舒适(P≤0.021),所有加热模式的不适感相当(P≥0.215)。血浆容量在浸泡时扩张幅度最大(P<0.001)。目前的数据突出表明,在热环境中运动产生了更复杂的应激特征,而在湿热中被动热应激的耐受性较低,心血管应激较大,比热水浸泡更差。