4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Male and female upper body sweat distribution during running measured with technical absorbents

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 245-255

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-007-0636-z

Keywords

sweating; sex; gender; exercise; regional; clothing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Body sweat distribution over the upper body in nine clothed male and female runners of equal fitness while running at 65% VO(2max) and subsequent 15-min rest in a moderate climate (25 degrees C, 53% rh) was investigated using technical absorbent materials to collect the sweat produced. No significant difference in whole body mass loss (male 474 SD 80; female 420 SD 114 g m(-2) h(-1)) nor surface weighted average of all tested zones for exercise (male 636 SD 165; female 565 SD 222 g m(-2) h(-1)) nor rest (male 159 SD 46; female 212 SD 75 g m(-2) h(-1)) were observed. Local sweat rate (LSR) ranges were large and overlapped substantially in most areas. Males showed higher LSR for the mid-front (P < 0.05), sides (P < 0.05), and mid lateral back (P < 0.01) compare to females. Both sexes showed similar sweat distribution patterns over the upper body with some exceptions. Males showed higher relative (local to overall) sweat rates than females for the mid lateral back (P < 0.001), while it was lower for the upper arm (P < 0.001), lateral lower back (P < 0.05), and upper central back (P < 0.05). Sweating in both sexes was highest along the spine, and higher on the back as a whole than the chest as a whole. Upper arm sweat rate was lowest. Males showed a higher ratio of highest to lowest LSR (4.4 vs. 2.8; P < 0.05). The present study has provided more detailed information, based on more subjects, on upper body sweat distribution than previously available, which can be used in clothing design, thermo-physiological modelling, and thermal manikin design.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available