A crossover control study of three methods of heat acclimation on the magnitude and kinetics of adaptation

Myths and methodologies: Considerations for evaluating the time course of thermoregulatory adaptation during heat acclimation

Since the early 1900s, repeated heat exposure has been used as a method to induce physiological adaptations that enhance our ability to tolerate heat stress during athletic and occupational pursuits. Much of this work has been dedicated to quantifying the time course of adaptation and identifying the minimum duration of acclimation required to optimise performance or enhance safety. To achieve this, investigators have typically applied classical (constant load) heat acclimation, whereby 60-90 min exercise is performed at the same absolute or relative intensity in a hot environment for 3-24 days, with adaptations evaluated using an identical forcing function test before and after. This approach has provided a foundation from which to develop our understanding of changes in thermoregulatory function, but it has several, frequently overlooked shortcomings, which have resulted in misconceptions concerning the time course of adaptation. It is frequently suggested that most of the thermoregulatory adaptations during heat acclimation occur within a week, but this is an oversimplification and a predictable artefact of the experimental designs used. Consequently, the time course of complete human adaptation to heat remains poorly understood and appears to vary considerably due to numerous individual factors. The purpose of this communication is to highlight the key methodological considerations required when interpreting the existing literature documenting adaptation over time. We also propose potential means by which to improve the way we induce and quantify the magnitude of adaptation to expedite discovery.

The reliability of a portable steam sauna pod for the whole-body passive heating of humans

INTRODUCTION

Passive heating is receiving increasing attention within human performance and health contexts. A low-cost, portable steam sauna pod may offer an additional tool for those seeking to manipulate physiological (cardiovascular, thermoregulatory and sudomotor) and perceptual responses for improving sporting or health profiles. This study aimed to 1) report the different levels of heat stress and determine the pods' inter-unit reliability, and 2) quantify the reliability of physiological and perceptual responses to passive heating.

METHOD

In part 1, five pods were assessed for temperature and relative humidity (RH) every 5 min across 70 min of heating for each of the 9 settings. In part 2, twelve males (age: 24 ± 4 years) completed two 60 min trials of passive heating (3 × 20 min at 44 °C/99% RH, separated by 1 week). Heart rate (HR), rectal (Trectal) and tympanic temperature (Ttympanic) were recorded every 5 min, thermal comfort (Tcomfort) and sensation (Tsensation) every 10 min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) at each break period and sweat rate (SR) after exiting the pod.

RESULTS

In part 1, setting 9 provided the highest temperature (44.3 ± 0.2 °C) and longest time RH remained stable at 99% (51±7 min). Inter-unit reliability data demonstrated agreement between pods for settings 5-9 (intra-class correlation [ICC] >0.9), but not for settings 1-4 (ICC <0.9). In part 2, between-visits, high correlations, and low typical error of measurement (TEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were found for Trectal, HR, MAP, SR, and Tcomfort, but not for Ttympanic or Tsensation. A peak Trectal of 38.09 ± 0.30 °C, HR of 124 ± 15 b min-1 and a sweat loss of 0.73 ± 0.33 L were reported. No between-visit differences (p > 0.05) were observed for Trectal, Ttympanic, Tsensation or Tcomfort, however HR (+3 b.min-1) and MAP (+4 mmHg) were greater in visit 1 vs. 2 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Portable steam sauna pods generate reliable heat stress between-units. The highest setting (44 °C/99% RH) also provides reliable but modest adjustments in physiological and perceptual responses.

Acute physiological and psychophysical responses to different modes of heat stress

New Findings

What is the central question of this study?

What are the profiles of acute physiological and psychophysical strain during and in recovery from different modes of heating, and to what extent do these diminish after repeated exposure?

What is the main finding and its importance?

Mode of heating affects the strain profiles during heat stress and recovery. Exercise in the heat incurred the greatest cardiovascular strain during heating and recovery. Humid heat was poorly tolerated despite heat strain being no greater than in other heating modes, and tolerance did not improve with multiple exposures.

Abstract

Heat stress is common and arises endogenously and exogenously. It can be acutely hazardous while also increasingly advocated to drive health and performance‐related adaptations. Yet, the nature of strain (deviation in regulated variables) imposed by different heating modes is not well established, despite the potential for important differences. We, therefore, compared three modes of heat stress for thermal, cardiovascular and perceptual strain profiles during exposure and recovery when experienced as a novel stimulus and an accustomed stimulus. In a crossover design, 13 physically active participants (five females) underwent 5 days of 60‐min exposures to hot water immersion (40°C), sauna (55°C, 54% relative humidity) and exercise in the heat (40°C, 52% relative humidity), and a thermoneutral water immersion control (36.5°C), each separated by ≥4 weeks. Physiological (thermal, cardiovascular, haemodynamic) and psychophysical strain responses were assessed on days 1 and 5. Sauna evoked the warmest skin (40°C; P < 0.001) but exercise in the heat caused the largest increase in core temperature, sweat rate, heart rate (post hoc comparisons all P < 0.001) and systolic blood pressure (P ≤ 0.002), and possibly decrease in diastolic blood pressures (P ≤ 0.130), regardless of day. Thermal sensation and feeling state were more favourable on day 5 than on day 1 (P ≤ 0.021), with all modes of heat being equivalently uncomfortable (P ≥ 0.215). Plasma volume expanded the largest extent during immersions (P < 0.001). The current data highlight that exercising in the heat generates a more complex strain profile, while passive heat stress in humid heat has lower tolerance and more cardiovascular strain than hot water immersion.