PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a hot humid (HH) compared with a hot dry (HD) environment, matched for heat stress, on intermittent-sprint performance. In comparison with HD, HH environments compromise evaporative heat loss and decrease exercise tolerance. It was hypothesized that HH would produce greater physiological strain and reduce intermittent-sprint exercise performance compared with HD. METHOD:Eleven male team-sport players completed thecycling intermittent-sprint protocol (CISP) in 3 conditions, temperate (TEMP; 21.2°C ± 1.3°C, 48.6% ± 8.4% relative humidity [rh]), HH (33.7°C ± 0.5°C, 78.2% ± 2.3% rh), and HD (40.2°C ± 0.2°C, 33.1% ± 4.9% rh), with both heat conditions matched for heat stress. RESULTS: All participants completed the CISP in TEMP, but 3 failed to completed the full protocol of 20 sprints in HH and HD. Peak power output declined in all conditions (P < .05) but was not different between any condition (sprints 1-14 [N = 11]: HH 1073 ± 150 W, HD 1104 ± 127 W, TEMP, 1074± 134; sprints 15-20 [N = 8]: HH 954± 114 W, HD 997 ± 115 W, TEMP 993 ± 94; P > .05). Physiological strain was not significantly different in HH compared with HD, but HH was higher than TEMP (P < .05). CONCLUSION:Intermittent-sprint exercise performance of 40 min duration is impaired, but it is not different in HH and HD environments matched for heat stress despite evidence of a trend toward greater physiological strain in an HH environment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of a hot humid (HH) compared with a hot dry (HD) environment, matched for heat stress, on intermittent-sprint performance. In comparison with HD, HH environments compromise evaporative heat loss and decrease exercise tolerance. It was hypothesized that HH would produce greater physiological strain and reduce intermittent-sprint exercise performance compared with HD. METHOD: Eleven male team-sport players completed the cycling intermittent-sprint protocol (CISP) in 3 conditions, temperate (TEMP; 21.2°C ± 1.3°C, 48.6% ± 8.4% relative humidity [rh]), HH (33.7°C ± 0.5°C, 78.2% ± 2.3% rh), and HD (40.2°C ± 0.2°C, 33.1% ± 4.9% rh), with both heat conditions matched for heat stress. RESULTS: All participants completed the CISP in TEMP, but 3 failed to completed the full protocol of 20 sprints in HH and HD. Peak power output declined in all conditions (P < .05) but was not different between any condition (sprints 1-14 [N = 11]: HH 1073 ± 150 W, HD 1104 ± 127 W, TEMP, 1074± 134; sprints 15-20 [N = 8]: HH 954 ± 114 W, HD 997 ± 115 W, TEMP 993 ± 94; P > .05). Physiological strain was not significantly different in HH compared with HD, but HH was higher than TEMP (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Intermittent-sprint exercise performance of 40 min duration is impaired, but it is not different in HH and HD environments matched for heat stress despite evidence of a trend toward greater physiological strain in an HH environment.
Authors: Carl A James; Ashley G B Willmott; Alan J Richardson; Peter W Watt; Neil S Maxwell Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Paweł Chmura; Marek Konefał; Marcin Andrzejewski; Jakub Kosowski; Andrzej Rokita; Jan Chmura Journal: Int J Biometeorol Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 3.787
Authors: Rodrigo Assunção Oliveira; Ana Paula Rennó Sierra; Marino Benetti; Nabil Ghorayeb; Carlos A Sierra; Maria Augusta Peduti Dal Molin Kiss; Maria Fernanda Cury-Boaventura Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: Oliver R Gibson; Carl A James; Jessica A Mee; Ashley G B Willmott; Gareth Turner; Mark Hayes; Neil S Maxwell Journal: Temperature (Austin) Date: 2019-10-12