Rating of perceived exertion increases synergistically during prolonged exercise in a combined heat and hypoxic environment

A century of exercise physiology: concepts that ignited the study of human thermoregulation. Part 4: evolution, thermal adaptation and unsupported theories of thermoregulation

This review is the final contribution to a four-part, historical series on human exercise physiology in thermally stressful conditions. The series opened with reminders of the principles governing heat exchange and an overview of our contemporary understanding of thermoregulation (Part 1). We then reviewed the development of physiological measurements (Part 2) used to reveal the autonomic processes at work during heat and cold stresses. Next, we re-examined thermal-stress tolerance and intolerance, and critiqued the indices of thermal stress and strain (Part 3). Herein, we describe the evolutionary steps that endowed humans with a unique potential to tolerate endurance activity in the heat, and we examine how those attributes can be enhanced during thermal adaptation. The first of our ancestors to qualify as an athlete was Homo erectus, who were hairless, sweating specialists with eccrine sweat glands covering almost their entire body surface. Homo sapiens were skilful behavioural thermoregulators, which preserved their resource-wasteful, autonomic thermoeffectors (shivering and sweating) for more stressful encounters. Following emigration, they regularly experienced heat and cold stress, to which they acclimatised and developed less powerful (habituated) effector responses when those stresses were re-encountered. We critique hypotheses that linked thermoregulatory differences to ancestry. By exploring short-term heat and cold acclimation, we reveal sweat hypersecretion and powerful shivering to be protective, transitional stages en route to more complete thermal adaptation (habituation). To conclude this historical series, we examine some of the concepts and hypotheses of thermoregulation during exercise that did not withstand the tests of time.

Perspective: Opportunities and Challenges of Technology Tools in Dietary and Activity Assessment: Bridging Stakeholder Viewpoints

The science and tools of measuring energy intake and output in humans have rapidly advanced in the last decade. Engineered devices such as wearables and sensors, software applications, and Web-based tools are now ubiquitous in both research and consumer environments. The assessment of energy expenditure in particular has progressed from reliance on self-report instruments to advanced technologies requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines, from optics to accelerometry. In contrast, assessing energy intake still heavily relies on self-report mechanisms. Although these tools have improved, moving from paper-based to online reporting, considerable room for refinement remains in existing tools, and great opportunities exist for novel, transformational tools, including those using spectroscopy and chemo-sensing. This report reviews the state of the science, and the opportunities and challenges in existing and emerging technologies, from the perspectives of 3 key stakeholders: researchers, users, and developers. Each stakeholder approaches these tools with unique requirements: researchers are concerned with validity, accuracy, data detail and abundance, and ethical use; users with ease of use and privacy; and developers with high adherence and utilization, intellectual property, licensing rights, and monetization. Cross-cutting concerns include frequent updating and integration of the food and nutrient databases on which assessments rely, improving accessibility and reducing disparities in use, and maintaining reliable technical assistance. These contextual challenges are discussed in terms of opportunities and further steps in the direction of personalized health.

Differences in execution and perception of training sessions as experienced by (semi-) professional cyclists and their coach

This study aimed to investigate whether (semi-)professional cyclists' execution of a training programme differs from the coach's designed training programme. Also, the study sought to ascertain, in instances where the training sessions were indeed executed as designed by the coach, whether the perception of the cyclists differed from the intention of the coach. This study highlights the differences between the coach and the individual cyclist. In total, 747 training sessions were collected from 11 (semi-)professional cyclists. Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) and session Rating of Perceived Exertion (sRPE) were compared with intended RPE (iRPE) and intended sRPE (isRPE), planned by the coach. Pearson's correlation, regression coefficients and Typical Error of Estimate (TEE) were used to identify differences between the executed and planned training sessions. Moderate to large TEEs were noted between executed and intended sRPE, which indicates that cyclists do not always execute the training programme planned by the coach. Furthermore, when the training was executed as planned by the coach, very large correlations but moderate to very large TEEs were noted between cyclists' (s)RPE and the coach's i(s)RPE, with unique individual regression coefficients. This indicates that the relationship between RPE and iRPE is unique to each cyclist. Both the different execution and perception of the training programme by the individual cyclists could cause an impaired training adaptation. Therefore, the coach must pay attention to the perception of training sessions by the individual cyclist. Improved individual management of training load could result in the optimisation of the proposed training programme.Highlights On individual level, (semi-)professional cyclists train differently than planned by the coach, based on duration and sRPE of the training sessionsThe relationship between the RPE of the cyclist and the iRPE of the coach is unique for each cyclistCoaches should be aware that cyclist and coach could interpret the same training differently, resulting in an easier perception of low- and high- intensity training sessions by the cyclists compared to the intention of the coach.