Search

New Findings: What is the central question of this study? Does the cold-water immersion (14°C) of profoundly hyperthermic individuals induce reductions in cutaneous and limb blood flow of sufficient magnitude to impair heat loss relative to the size of the thermal gradient? What is the main finding and its importance? The temperate-water cooling (26°C) of profoundly hyperthermic individuals was found to be rapid and reproducible. A vascular mechanism accounted for that outcome, with temperature-dependent differences in cutaneous and limb blood flows observed during cooling. Decisions relating to cooling strategies must be based upon deep-body temperature measurements that have response dynamics consistent with the urgency for cooling., Abstract: Physiologically trivial time differences for cooling the intrathoracic viscera of hyperthermic individuals have been reported between cold- and temperate-water immersion treatments. One explanation for that observation is reduced convective heat delivery to the skin during cold immersion, and this study was designed to test both the validity of that observation, and its underlying hypothesis. Eight healthy men participated in four head-out water immersions: two when normothermic, and two after exercise-induced, moderate-to-profound hyperthermia. Two water temperatures were used within each thermal state: temperate (26°C) and cold (14°C). Tissue temperatures were measured at three deep-body sites (oesophagus, auditory canal and rectum) and eight skin surfaces, with cutaneous vascular responses simultaneously evaluated from both forearms (laser-Doppler flowmetry and venous-occlusion plethysmography). During the cold immersion of normothermic individuals, oesophageal temperature decreased relative to baseline (-0.31°C over 20 min; P < 0.05), whilst rectal temperature increased (0.20°C; P < 0.05). When rendered hyperthermic, oesophageal (-0.75°C) and rectal temperatures decreased (-0.05°C) during the transition period (<8.5 min, mostly in air at 22°C), with the former dropping to 37.5°C only 54 s faster when immersed in cold rather than in temperate water (P < 0.05). Minimal cutaneous vasoconstriction occurred during either normothermic immersion, whereas pronounced constriction was evident during both immersions when subjects were hyperthermic, with the colder water eliciting a greater vascular response (P < 0.05). It was concluded that the rapid intrathoracic cooling of asymptomatic, hyperthermic individuals in temperate water was a reproducible phenomenon, with slower than expected cooling in cold water brought about by stronger cutaneous vasoconstriction that reduced convective heat delivery to the periphery., (© 2018 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2018 The Physiological Society.)

New Findings: What is the central question of this study? Can sex-related differences in cutaneous vascular and sudomotor responses be explained primarily by variations in the ratio between body surface area and mass during compensable exercise that elicits equivalent heat-loss requirements and mean body temperature changes across participants? What is the main finding and its importance? Mass-specific surface area was a significant determinant of vasomotor and sudomotor responses in men and women, explaining 10-48% of the individual thermoeffector variance. Nonetheless, after accounting for changes in mean body temperature and morphological differences, sex explained only 5% of that inter-individual variability. It was concluded that sex differences in thermoeffector function are morphologically dependent, but not sex dependent. Sex is sometimes thought to be an independent modulator of cutaneous vasomotor and sudomotor function during heat exposure. Nevertheless, it was hypothesized that, when assessed during compensable exercise that evoked equal heat-loss requirements across participants, sex differences in those thermoeffectors would be explained by variations in the ratio between body surface area and mass (specific surface area). To evaluate that possibility, vasomotor and sudomotor functions were assessed in 60 individuals (36 men and 24 women) with widely varying (overlapping) specific surface areas (range, 232.3-292.7 and 241.2-303.1 cm 2  kg -1 , respectively). Subjects completed two trials in compensable conditions (28°C, 36% relative humidity) involving rest (20 min) and steady-state cycling (45 min) at fixed, area-specific metabolic heat-production rates (light, ∼135 W m -2 ; moderate, ∼200 W m -2 ). Equivalent heat-loss requirements and mean body temperature changes were evoked across participants. Forearm blood flow and vascular conductance were positively related to specific surface area during light work in men (r = 0.67 and r = 0.66, respectively; both P < 0.05) and during both exercise intensities in women (light, r = 0.57 and r = 0.69; and moderate, r = 0.64 and r = 0.68; all P < 0.05). Whole-body and local sweat rates were negatively related to that ratio (correlation coefficient range, -0.33 to -0.62; all P < 0.05) during both work rates in men and women. Those relationships accounted for 10-48% of inter-individual thermoeffector variance (P < 0.05). Furthermore, after accounting for morphological differences, sex explained no more than 5% of that variability (P < 0.05). It was concluded that, when assessed during compensable exercise, sex differences in thermoeffector function were largely determined morphologically, rather than being sex dependent., (© 2017 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2017 The Physiological Society.)