Do E2 and P4 contribute to the explained variance in core temperature response for trained women during exertional heat stress when metabolic rates are very high?
| العنوان: | Do E2 and P4 contribute to the explained variance in core temperature response for trained women during exertional heat stress when metabolic rates are very high? |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Huixin Zheng, Claire E. Badenhorst, Tze-Huan Lei, Ahmad Munir Che Muhamed, Yi-Hung Liao, Naoto Fujii, Narihiko Kondo, Toby Mündel |
| المصدر: | European Journal of Applied Physiology. 122:2201-2212 |
| بيانات النشر: | Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022. |
| سنة النشر: | 2022 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Physiology, Physiology (medical), Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, General Medicine |
| الوصف: | Purpose Women remain underrepresented in the exercise thermoregulation literature despite their participation in leisure-time and occupational physical activity in heat-stressful environments continuing to increase. Here, we determined the relative contribution of the primary ovarian hormones (estrogen [E2] and progesterone [P4]) alongside other morphological (e.g., body mass), physiological (e.g., sweat rates), functional (e.g., aerobic fitness) and environmental (e.g., vapor pressure) factors in explaining the individual variation in core temperature responses for trained women working at very high metabolic rates, specifically peak core temperature (Tpeak) and work output (mean power output). Methods Thirty-six trained women (32 ± 9 year, 53 ± 9 ml·kg−1·min−1), distinguished by intra-participant (early follicular and mid-luteal phases) or inter-participant (ovulatory vs. anovulatory vs. oral contraceptive pill user) differences in their endogenous E2 and P4 concentrations, completed a self-paced 30-min cycling work trial in warm–dry (2.2 ± 0.2 kPa, 34.1 ± 0.2 °C, 41.4 ± 3.4% RH) and/or warm–humid (3.4 ± 0.1 kPa, 30.2 ± 1.2 °C, 79.8 ± 3.7% RH) conditions that yielded 115 separate trials. Stepwise linear regression was used to explain the variance of the dependent variables. Results Models were able to account for 60% of the variance in Tpeak ($$\overline{R }$$ R ¯ 2: 41% core temperature at the start of work trial, $$\overline{R }$$ R ¯ 2: 15% power output, $$\overline{R }$$ R ¯ 2: 4% [E2]) and 44% of the variance in mean power output ($$\overline{R }$$ R ¯ 2: 35% peak aerobic power, $$\overline{R }$$ R ¯ 2: 9% perceived exertion). Conclusion E2 contributes a small amount toward the core temperature response in trained women, whereby starting core temperature and peak aerobic power explain the greatest variance in Tpeak and work output, respectively. |
| تدمد: | 1439-6327 1439-6319 |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::e200d3fbf8c33f78dbcc21bc402ddf66 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-022-04996-2 |
| حقوق: | OPEN |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsair.doi...........e200d3fbf8c33f78dbcc21bc402ddf66 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. | تدمد: | 14396327 14396319 |
|---|