Aoyagi Y, McLellan T M, Shephard R J
Graduate Department of Community Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(2-3):197-206. doi: 10.1007/BF00854979.
Two methods of estimating body heat storage were compared under differing conditions of clothing, training, and acclimation to heat. Six male subjects underwent 8 weeks of physical training [60-80% of maximal aerobic power (VO2max) for 30-45 min.day-1, 3-4 days.week-1 at < 25 degrees C dry bulb (db)] followed by 6 consecutive days of heat acclimation (45-55% VO2max for 60 min.day-1 at 40 degrees C db, 30% relative humidity)]. Nine other male subjects underwent corresponding periods of control observation followed by heat acclimation. Before and after each treatment, subjects walked continuously on a treadmill (1.34 m.s-1, 2% grade) in a climatic chamber (40 degrees C db, 30% relative humidity) for an average of 118 min (range 92-120 min) when wearing normal light combat clothing and for an average of 50 min (range 32-68 min) when wearing protective clothing resistant to nuclear, biological, and chemical agents. The heat storage was determined calorimetrically (by the balance of heat gains and losses) and thermometrically [by the conventional equations, using one or two set(s) of relative weightings for the rectal temperature (Tre) to mean skin temperature (Tsk) of 4:1 and 4:1, 2:1 and 4:1, or 2:1 and 9:1 in thermoneutral and hot environments, respectively]. Tsk was calculated from 12-site measurements, weighted according to the regional distribution of body surface area and the first eigenvectors of principal component analysis. There were only minor differences (< 5%) between the heat storage values calculated by given weighting factors for Tre and Tsk, whether the individual coefficients were derived from estimates of regional surface area or principal component methodologies. When wearing normal clothing, no significant differences were found between the two estimates of heat storage (calorimetry vs thermometry with an invariant relative weighting of 4:1) in any experimental condition, with one specific exception: when wearing protective clothing, thermometry underestimated the heat storage by 24-31%. This under-estimation was attenuated by using two sets of relative weightings of 2:1 and 4:1 or 2:1 and 9:1. The results suggest that when subjects wearing protective clothing are transferred from thermoneutral to hot environments, the accuracy of thermometric estimates of heat storage can be improved by using two sets of weighting factors for Tre and Tsk.
在不同的着装、训练和热适应条件下,对两种估算身体热量储存的方法进行了比较。六名男性受试者进行了8周的体育训练[在<25℃干球温度(db)下,以最大有氧功率(VO2max)的60 - 80%进行30 - 45分钟/天,每周3 - 4天],随后进行6天连续的热适应(在40℃干球温度、30%相对湿度下,以VO2max的45 - 55%进行60分钟/天)。另外九名男性受试者进行了相应时间段的对照观察,随后进行热适应。在每次治疗前后,受试者在气候室(40℃干球温度、30%相对湿度)中,穿着普通轻型战斗服时,在跑步机上持续行走(速度1.34米/秒,坡度2%)平均118分钟(范围92 - 120分钟);穿着防核、生物和化学制剂的防护服时,平均行走50分钟(范围32 - 68分钟)。通过量热法(通过热量得失平衡)和测温法[使用传统方程,在热中性和炎热环境中,分别对直肠温度(Tre)与平均皮肤温度(Tsk)采用一组或两组相对权重4:1、4:1,2:1、4:1或2:1、9:1]来确定热量储存。Tsk由12个部位的测量值计算得出,根据身体表面积的区域分布和主成分分析的第一特征向量进行加权。无论个体系数是从区域表面积估计值还是主成分方法得出,对于Tre和Tsk,给定加权因子计算出的热量储存值之间只有微小差异(<5%)。穿着普通服装时,在任何实验条件下,两种热量储存估算方法(量热法与相对权重固定为4:1的测温法)之间均未发现显著差异,但有一个特殊情况:穿着防护服时,测温法低估热量储存24 - 31%。通过使用两组相对权重2:1、4:1或2:1、9:1,这种低估情况得到了缓解。结果表明,当穿着防护服的受试者从热中性环境转移到炎热环境时,通过对Tre和Tsk使用两组加权因子,可以提高热量储存测温估算的准确性。