首页> 外文期刊>International journal of hyperthermia: The official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group >Two strategies for the acute response to cold exposure but one strategy for the response to heat stress
【24h】

Two strategies for the acute response to cold exposure but one strategy for the response to heat stress

机译:对冷暴露的急性反应的两种策略,对热应激的急性反应的一种策略

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose: The main aim of this study was to compare physiological and psychological reactions to heat stress between people who exhibited fast cooling (FC, n?=?20) or slow cooling (SC; n?=?20) responses to 14?°C cold water immersion. Methods: Forty healthy young men (19–25 years old) were recruited to this study based on their tolerance to cold exposure (FC versus SC). The heat stress was induced using immersion in bath water at 43–44?°C. Motor and cognitive performance, immune variables, markers of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity (i.e. stress hormone concentrations), and autonomic nervous system activity were monitored. Results: In the FC group, time to warm the body from a resting rectal temperature (Tsubre/sub) of 37.1?±?0.2?°C before warming to 39.5?°C was 63.7?±?22.4?min. In the SC group, the time to warm the body from a Tsubre/sub 37.1?±?0.3?°C before warming to 39.5?°C was 67.2?±?13.8?min (p??0.05 between groups). The physiological stress index (PSI) after warming was 8.0?±?0.6 and 8.2?±?1.0 in the FC and SC groups, respectively (p??0.05 between groups). During warming, the changes in subjective indicators of heat stress did not differ significantly between the FC (7.4?±?0.5) and SC (7.1?±?1.1) groups, respectively. Conclusion: The increase in cortisol, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and corticosterone concentrations after passive body heating did not differ between the FC and SC groups. Heat stress did not change indicators of innate and specific immunity in the FC or the SC group. An interesting finding was that heat stress did not affect motor and cognitive function in either group, although central fatigue during 1-min maximal voluntary contraction increased after heat stress in both groups.
机译:目的:本研究的主要目的是比较对14?°表现出快冷(FC,n?=?20)或慢冷(SC; n?=?20)反应的人之间对热应激的生理和心理反应。 C冷水浸泡。方法:根据对冷暴露的耐受性(FC vs SC),招募了40名健康的年轻人(19-25岁)。通过将其浸入43-44°C的浴水中来诱发热应力。监测运动和认知表现,免疫变量,下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺轴活动的标志物(即应激激素浓度)和自主神经系统活动。结果:在FC组中,从静止的直肠温度(T re )加热到39.5°C之前的36.3?±0.2°C的时间为63.7°±22.4。分钟。在SC组中,从T sub 37.1?±?0.3?°C加热到39.5?C之前的时间为67.2?±?13.8?min(p?>?组间0.05)。 FC组和SC组的升温后的生理应激指数(PSI)分别为8.0≤±0.6和8.2≤±1.0(各组之间的p≥0.05)。在变暖期间,FC(7.4?±?0.5)和SC(7.1?±?1.1)组之间主观热应激指标的变化没有显着差异。结论:FC和SC组之间被动加热后皮质醇,肾上腺素,去甲肾上腺素和皮质酮的浓度没有差异。在FC或SC组中,热应激并未改变先天免疫和特异性免疫的指标。一个有趣的发现是,尽管两组都在热应激后1分钟最大自发性收缩过程中出现了中央疲劳,但热应激都没有影响两组的运动和认知功能。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号