↓ Skip to main content

How Does a Delay Between Temperate Running Exercise and Hot-Water Immersion Alter the Acute Thermoregulatory Response and Heat-Load?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Does a Delay Between Temperate Running Exercise and Hot-Water Immersion Alter the Acute Thermoregulatory Response and Heat-Load?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, November 2019
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2019.01381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Storme L. Heathcote, Peter Hassmén, Shi Zhou, Lee Taylor, Christopher J. Stevens

Abstract

Hot-water immersion following exercise in a temperate environment can elicit heat acclimation in endurance-trained individuals. However, a delay between exercise cessation and immersion is likely a common occurrence in practice. Precisely how such a delay potentially alters hot-water immersion mediated acute physiological responses (e.g., total heat-load) remains unexplored. Such data would aid in optimizing prescription of post-exercise hot-water immersion in cool environments, relative to heat acclimation goals. Twelve male recreational runners (mean ± SD; age: 38 ± 13 years, height: 180 ± 7 cm, body mass: 81 ± 13.7 kg, body fat: 13.9 ± 3.5%) completed three separate 40-min treadmill runs (18°C), followed by either a 10 min (10M), 1 h (1H), or 8 h (8H) delay, prior to a 30-min hot-water immersion (39°C), with a randomized crossover design. Core and skin temperatures, heart rate, sweat, and perceptual responses were measured across the trials. Mean core temperature during immersion was significantly lower in 1H (37.39 ± 0.30°C) compared to 10M (37.83 ± 0.24°C; p = 0.0032) and 8H (37.74 ± 0.19°C; p = 0.0140). Mean skin temperature was significantly higher in 8H (32.70 ± 0.41°C) compared to 10M (31.93 ± 0.60°C; p = 0.0042) at the end of the hot-water immersion. Mean and maximal heart rates were also higher during immersion in 10M compared to 1H and 8H (p < 0.05), despite no significant differences in the sweat or perceptual responses. The shortest delay between exercise and immersion (10M) provoked the greatest heat-load during immersion. However, performing the hot-water immersion in the afternoon (8H), which coincided with peak circadian body temperature, provided a larger heat-load stimulus than the 1 h delay (1H).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 15 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 14 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,562,316
of 23,177,498 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,271
of 13,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,373
of 457,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#50
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,177,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 457,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.