Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of lower- vs. upper-body cooling during arm exercise in hot conditions.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004 Mar; 75(3):220-6.AS

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Studies examining cooling strategies and exercise have generally employed lower-body exercise despite the fact that arm exercise is an important mode for many industrial tasks and disabled populations. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of two cooling strategies during arm exercise in the heat.

METHODS

There were eight male subjects (mean +/- SD age 24.5 +/- 4.0 yr, weight 81.0 +/- 7.8 kg, upper-body VO2peak 3.13 +/- 0.50 L x min(-1)) who volunteered for this study. Subjects undertook arm crank exercise for 30 min (50% VO2peak) in a hot environment (40.2 +/- 0.4 degrees C, 38.7 +/- 7.4% RH) on three occasions (no cooling control, CON; lower-body cooling, LC; upper-body cooling, UC).

RESULTS

No differences were observed between trials for oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange rate (RER), or blood lactate. Heart rate (HR) was greatest during CON (151 +/- 11 bpm) when compared with UC and LC (148 +/- 16 and 138 +/- 13 bpm; p < 0.05). Mean skin temperature was warmer during CON (36.3 +/- 0.5 degrees C) when compared with UC (31.2 +/- 1.4 degrees C, p < 0.05), which was warmer than during LC (28.5 +/- 1.3 degrees C, p < 0.05). No differences were observed for rectal or aural temperatures between trials. At the end of exercise, heat storage was hyperthermic (3.04 +/- 0.68 J x g(-1)), thermoneutral (0.18 +/- 1.21 J x g(-1)), and hypothermic (-2.37 +/- 0.81 J x g(-1)) during CON, UC, and LC, respectively (p < 0.05). Perceived exertion was lowest during LC and greatest during CON (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that cooling the lower body during arm exercise in hot conditions is more effective in reducing physiological and thermal strain than cooling the upper body.

Authors+Show Affiliations

School of Science and the Environment, University of Coventry, Coventry, UK. m.price@coventry.ac.ukNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15018289

Citation

Price, Michael J., and Mark I. Mather. "Comparison of Lower- Vs. Upper-body Cooling During Arm Exercise in Hot Conditions." Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, vol. 75, no. 3, 2004, pp. 220-6.
Price MJ, Mather MI. Comparison of lower- vs. upper-body cooling during arm exercise in hot conditions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75(3):220-6.
Price, M. J., & Mather, M. I. (2004). Comparison of lower- vs. upper-body cooling during arm exercise in hot conditions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(3), 220-6.
Price MJ, Mather MI. Comparison of Lower- Vs. Upper-body Cooling During Arm Exercise in Hot Conditions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004;75(3):220-6. PubMed PMID: 15018289.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of lower- vs. upper-body cooling during arm exercise in hot conditions. AU - Price,Michael J, AU - Mather,Mark I, PY - 2004/3/17/pubmed PY - 2004/5/27/medline PY - 2004/3/17/entrez SP - 220 EP - 6 JF - Aviation, space, and environmental medicine JO - Aviat Space Environ Med VL - 75 IS - 3 N2 - INTRODUCTION: Studies examining cooling strategies and exercise have generally employed lower-body exercise despite the fact that arm exercise is an important mode for many industrial tasks and disabled populations. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of two cooling strategies during arm exercise in the heat. METHODS: There were eight male subjects (mean +/- SD age 24.5 +/- 4.0 yr, weight 81.0 +/- 7.8 kg, upper-body VO2peak 3.13 +/- 0.50 L x min(-1)) who volunteered for this study. Subjects undertook arm crank exercise for 30 min (50% VO2peak) in a hot environment (40.2 +/- 0.4 degrees C, 38.7 +/- 7.4% RH) on three occasions (no cooling control, CON; lower-body cooling, LC; upper-body cooling, UC). RESULTS: No differences were observed between trials for oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange rate (RER), or blood lactate. Heart rate (HR) was greatest during CON (151 +/- 11 bpm) when compared with UC and LC (148 +/- 16 and 138 +/- 13 bpm; p < 0.05). Mean skin temperature was warmer during CON (36.3 +/- 0.5 degrees C) when compared with UC (31.2 +/- 1.4 degrees C, p < 0.05), which was warmer than during LC (28.5 +/- 1.3 degrees C, p < 0.05). No differences were observed for rectal or aural temperatures between trials. At the end of exercise, heat storage was hyperthermic (3.04 +/- 0.68 J x g(-1)), thermoneutral (0.18 +/- 1.21 J x g(-1)), and hypothermic (-2.37 +/- 0.81 J x g(-1)) during CON, UC, and LC, respectively (p < 0.05). Perceived exertion was lowest during LC and greatest during CON (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that cooling the lower body during arm exercise in hot conditions is more effective in reducing physiological and thermal strain than cooling the upper body. SN - 0095-6562 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15018289/Comparison_of_lower__vs__upper_body_cooling_during_arm_exercise_in_hot_conditions_ L2 - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/openurl?genre=article&amp;issn=0095-6562&amp;volume=75&amp;issue=3&amp;spage=220&amp;aulast=Price DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -