4.1 Article

Ice Cooling Vest on Tolerance for Exercise under Uncompensable Heat Stress

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2011.596043

关键词

core temperature; exposure limits; thermal strain; thermoregulation

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-298159-2009]
  2. University Research Chair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a commercial, personal ice cooling vest on tolerance for exercise in hot (35 degrees C), wet (65% relative humidity) conditions with a nuclear biological chemical suit (NBC). On three separate occasions, 10 male volunteers walked on a treadmill at 3 miles per hour and 2% incline while (a) seminude (denoted CON), (b) dressed with a nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) suit with an ice vest (V) worn under the suit (denoted NBCwV); or (c) dressed with an NBC suit but without an ice vest (V) (denoted NBCwoV). Participants exercised for 120 min or until volitional fatigue, or esophageal temperature reached 39.5 degrees C. Esophageal temperature (T-es), heart rate (HR), thermal sensation, and ratings of perceived exertion were measured. Exercise time was significantly greater in CON compared with both NBCwoV and NBCwV (p < 0.05), whereas T-es, thermal sensation, heart rate, and rate of perceived exertion were lower (p < 0.05). Wearing the ice vest increased exercise time (NBCwoV, 103.6 +/- 7.0 min; NBCwV, 115.9 +/- 4.1 min) and reduced the level of thermal strain, as evidenced by a lower T-es at end-exercise (NBCwoV, 39.03 +/- 0.13 degrees C; NBCwV, 38.74 +/- 0.13 degrees C) and reduced thermal sensation (NBCwoV, 6.4 +/- 0.4; NBCwV, 4.8 +/- 0.6). This was paralleled by a decrease in rate of perceived exertion (NBCwoV, 14.7 +/- 1.6; NBCwV, 12.4 +/- 1.6) (p < 0.05) and heat rate (NBCwoV, 169 +/- 6; NBCwV, 159 +/- 7) (p < 0.05). We show that a commercially available cooling vest can significantly reduce the level of thermal strain during work performed in hot environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据