4.5 Article

Effects of marked hyperthermia with and without dehydration on Vo2 kinetics during intense exercise

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 1057-1064

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jappl.2001.90.3.1057

Keywords

maximal heart rate; hydration; core temperature; skin temperature, oxygen uptake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study determined whether marked hyperthermia alone or in combination with dehydration reduces the initial rate of rise in O-2 consumption (Vo(2) on-kinetics) and the maximal rate of O-2 uptake (Vo(2) (max)) during intense cycling exercise. Six endurance-trained male cyclists completed four maximal cycle ergometer exercise tests (402 +/- 4 W) when euhydrated or dehydrated (4% body wt) with normal (starting esophageal temperature, 37.5 +/- 0.2 degrees C; mean skin temperature, similar to 31 degrees C) or elevated (+1 and +6 degrees C, respectively) thermal strain. In the euhydrated and normal condition, subjects reached Vo(2 max) (4.7 +/- 0.2 l/min) in 228 +/- 34 s, with a mean response time of 42 +/- 2 s, and fatigued after 353 +/- 39 s. Hyperthermia alone or in combination with dehydration reduced mean response time (17-23%), Vo(2 max) (16%), and performance time (51-53%) (all P < 0.01) but did not alter the absolute response time (i.e., the time to reach 63% response in the control trial, 3.2 +/- 0.1 l/min, 42 s). Reduction in Vo(2) (max) was accompanied by proportional decline in O-2 pulse and significantly elevated maximal heart rate (195 vs. 190 beats/min for hyperthermia vs. normal). Preventing hyperthermia in dehydrated subjects restored Vo(2) (max) and performance time by 65 and 50%, respectively. These results demonstrate that impaired high-intensity exercise performance with marked skin and internal body hyperthermia alone or in combination with dehydration is not associated with a diminished rate of rise in Vo(2) but decreased Vo(2) (max).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available