HA regimens lasting <14 days induce many beneficial physiological and perceptual adaptations to high ambient temperatures, and improve subsequent exercise performance and capacity in the heat; however, the extent of the adaptations is greatest when HA regimens lasting longer than 14 days are adopted. Large methodological differences in the HA literature mean that there is still uncertainty regarding the magnitude and time course of potential adaptation for a number of physiological and perceptual variables.

Purpose:The aim of this systematic literature review was to outline the various preexperimental maximal cycle-test protocols, terminology, and performance indicators currently used to classify subject groups in sportscience research and to construct a classification system for cycling-related research.Methods:A database of 130 subject-group descriptions contains information on preexperimental maximal cycle-protocol designs, terminology of the subject groups, biometrical and physiological data, cycling experience, and parameters. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, 1-way ANOVA, post hoc Bonferroni (P < .05), and trend lines were calculated on height, body mass, relative and absolute maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), and peak power output (PPO).Results:During preexperimental testing, an initial workload of 100 W and a workload increase of 25 W are most frequently used. Three-minute stages provide the most reliable and valid measures of endurance performance. After obtaining data on a subject group, researchers apply various terms to define the group. To solve this complexity, the authors introduced the neutral term performance levels 1 to 5, representing untrained, recreationally trained, trained, well-trained, and professional subject groups, respectively. The most cited parameter in literature to define subject groups is relative VO2max, and therefore no overlap between different performance levels may occur for this principal parameter. Another significant cycling parameter is the absolute PPO. The description of additional physiological information and current and past cycling data is advised.Conclusion:This review clearly shows the need to standardize the procedure for classifying subject groups. Recommendations are formulated concerning preexperimental testing, terminology, and performance indicators.

The purpose of the present study was to determine the separate and combined effects of aerobic fitness, short-term heat acclimation, and hypohydration on tolerance during light exercise while wearing nuclear, biological, and chemical protective clothing in the heat (40 degrees C, 30% relative humidity). Men who were moderately fit [(MF); <50 ml . kg-1 . min-1 maximal O2 consumption; n = 7] and highly fit [(HF); >55 ml . kg-1 . min-1 maximal O2 consumption; n = 8] were tested while they were euhydrated or hypohydrated by approximately 2.5% of body mass through exercise and fluid restriction the day preceding the trials. Tests were conducted before and after 2 wk of daily heat acclimation (1-h treadmill exercise at 40 degrees C, 30% relative humidity, while wearing the nuclear, biological, and chemical protective clothing). Heat acclimation increased sweat rate and decreased skin temperature and rectal temperature (Tre) in HF subjects but had no effect on tolerance time (TT). MF subjects increased sweat rate but did not alter heart rate, Tre, or TT. In both MF and HF groups, hypohydration significantly increased Tre and heart rate and decreased the respiratory exchange ratio and the TT regardless of acclimation state. Overall, the rate of rise of skin temperature was less, while DeltaTre, the rate of rise of Tre, and the TT were greater in HF than in MF subjects. It was concluded that exercise-heat tolerance in this uncompensable heat-stress environment is not influenced by short-term heat acclimation but is significantly improved by long-term aerobic fitness.

It has been suggested that a critically high body core temperature may impair central neuromuscular activation and cause fatigue. We investigated the effects of passive hyperthermia on maximal isometric force production (MVC) and voluntary activation (VA) to determine the relative roles of skin (T(sk)) and body core temperature ( T(c)) on these factors. Twenty-two males [VO(2max)=64.2 (8.9) ml x kg(-1) min(-1), body fat=8.2 (3.9)%] were seated in a knee-extension myograph, then passively heated from 37.4 to 39.4 degrees C rectal temperature (T(re)) and then cooled back to 37.4(o)C using a liquid conditioning garment. Voluntary strength and VA (interpolated twitch) were examined during an isometric 10-s MVC at 0.5 degrees C intervals during both heating and cooling. Passive heating to a T(c) of 39.4(o)C reduced VA by 11 (11)% and MVC by 13 (18)% (P<0.05), but rapid skin cooling, with a concomitant reduction in cardiovascular strain [percentage heart rate reserve decreased from 64 (11)% to 29 (11)%] and psychophysical strain did not restore either of these measures to baseline. Only when cooling lowered T(c) back to normal did VA and MVC return to baseline (P<0.05). We conclude that an elevated T(c) reduces VA during isometric MVC, and neither T(sk) nor cardiovascular or psychophysical strain modulates this response. Results are given as mean (SD) unless otherwise stated.

Exercise is impaired in hot, compared with moderate, conditions. The development of hyperthermia is strongly linked to the impairment and as a result various strategies have been investigated to combat this condition. This meta-analysis focused on the most popular strategy: cooling. Precooling has received the most attention but recently cooling applied during the bout of exercise has been investigated and both were reviewed. We conducted a literature search and retrieved 28 articles which investigated the effect of cooling administered either prior to (n=23) or during (n=5) an exercise test in hot (wet bulb globe temperature >26°C) conditions. Mean and weighted effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated. Overall, precooling has a moderate (d=0.73) effect on subsequent performance but the magnitude of the effect is dependent on the nature of the test. Sprint performance is impaired (d=−0.26) but intermittent performance and prolonged exercise are both improved following cooling (d=0.47 and d=1.91, respectively). Cooling during exercise has a positive effect on performance and capacity (d=0.76). Improvements were observed in studies with and without cooling-induced physiological alterations, and the literature supports the suggestion of a dose–response relationship among cooling, thermal strain and improvements in performance and capacity. In summary, precooling can improve subsequent intermittent and prolonged exercise performance and capacity in a hot environment but sprint performance is impaired. Cooling during exercise also has a positive effect on exercise performance and capacity in a hot environment.