Fan Cooling Improves Submaximal Exercise Capacity in an Indoor Thermoneutral Environment.

Purpose: We compared physiological and perceptual responses to submaximal, moderate-vigorous, heart rate-based cycle ergometry with and without a fan. Methods: Sixteen recreationally active adults (25 ± 3 years; 8 men and 8 women) participated in the study. After an initial visit to assess cardiorespiratory fitness, each participant performed two 40-min training sessions on a cycle ergometer, either with or without a fan (~4 m/s), while workload was continually adjusted to elicit and maintain 70% of heart rate reserve. Workload, oxygen cost, and respiratory exchange ratio were monitored throughout, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and thermal sensation were recorded every 5 min. Blood lactate was recorded pre-, mid-, and post-sessions and nude body mass was obtained pre-post. Results: Greater (p < .01) mean workload (+15%) and oxygen consumption (+9%) yielded significantly greater (p < .01) energy expenditure with fan cooling (344 ± 124 kcals) compared to without fan cooling (302 ± 103 kcals). Thermal sensation, but not RPE (p = .09), was lower (p < .01) with fan cooling (3.8 ± 0.7) compared to without fan cooling (5.5 ± 0.8), and body mass loss was attenuated (p < .05) with fan cooling (-0.4 ± 0.2 kg) compared to the non-fan trial (-0.6 ± 0.3 kg). Significantly higher (p < .05) blood lactate values were observed in Fan (3.0 ± 1.9 mmol/l) vs. No Fan (2.5 ± 1.4 mmol/l) trials. Conclusions: Fan cooling during submaximal, moderate-vigorous intensity cycle ergometry significantly enhanced work capacity and energy expenditure without increasing perceived exertion. These data highlight the utility of fan cooling as a means to increase the effectiveness of indoor, heart rate-based cycle training.

Body fatness, body core temperature, and heat loss during moderate-intensity exercise.

PURPOSE: This study examined the influence of body fatness on body core temperature and heat loss responses during moderate-intensity exercise. METHODS: Nine men with lower body fat and eight men with higher body fat, matched for aerobic fitness, completed 1 h of recumbent cycling at the same absolute intensity in a warm environment (30 degrees C, 40% RH). Percent body fat was measured by hydrostatic weighing, using oxygen dilution to determine residual volume. Esophageal temperature (T(es)), mean skin temperature (T(sk)), and local sweat rate (m(sw)) were measured at rest and continuously during exercise while forearm blood flow (FBF) was measured at rest and every 10 min during exercise. RESULTS: The lower body fat and higher body fat groups were successfully matched for aerobic fitness, removing the influence of body fatness, given that V/O2(peak) was 50.72 +/- 7.34 and 50.43 +/- 5.01 ml x kg LBM(-1) x min(-1), respectively. When compared to lower body fat individuals, % body fat, body surface area (A(D)), and body mass were higher and A(D)/ mass was lower in higher body fat individuals. T(es), T(sk), FBF, m(sw), and the slope of m(sw):T(es) were not different between groups. Metabolic heat production was similar between the lower body fat (299.7 +/- 40.5 W x m(-2)) and higher body fat (288.1 +/- 30.6 W x m(-2)) subjects, respectively. Dry and evaporative heat loss, as well as heat storage during exercise, were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is no effect of body fatness on body core temperature or heat loss responses during moderate-intensity exercise in a warm environment.

Limb-specific training affects exercise hyperemia but not sympathetic vasoconstriction.

This study used cross-sectional and longitudinal training research designs to determine if (a) exercise hyperemia is enhanced in exercise-trained forearms and (b) sympathetic vasoconstriction of the trained forearm is attenuated (sympatholysis) during handgrip exercise. In the cross-sectional comparison, 10 rock climbers, 10 runners, 10 controls participated while the longitudinal training study examined vascular responsiveness in six untrained men before and after 6 weeks of handgrip training. Mean blood velocity, brachial artery diameter, heart rate, and systemic blood pressure were measured at rest, during a cold pressor test (CPT), dynamic handgrip exercise at 30% MVC with and without CPT, and during reactive hyperemia. During the resting CPT, forearm blood flow (FBF) decreased less (P < 0.05) in runners than in climbers, the decline being -6.30 + 30.05 and -34.3 + 20.54 during the last minute, respectively. During handgrip exercise, FBF and vascular conductance (VC) increased more (P < 0.05) in climbers than in runners and controls, the latter reaching 3.98 + 1.11, 2.22 + 0.88, and 2.75 + 1.06 ml min(-1) mmHg(-1), respectively. When a CPT was added during handgrip exercise, the reduction in FBF and VC was not different between the groups. Handgrip training increased (P < 0.05) forearm volume (5 + 3%) and MVC (25 + 29%), but did not affect FBF or VC during a CPT, with or without exercise. These data suggest that arm-trained athletes have greater exercise hyperemia. However, this training effect is not explained by sympatholysis and is not evident after 6 weeks of handgrip training in previously untrained subjects.