HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 103/2/443    most recent 00117.2007v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jay, O. Articles by Kenny, G. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jay, O. Articles by Kenny, G. P.

Estimating changes in mean body temperature for humans during exercise using core and skin temperatures is inaccurate even with a correction factor

¹Laboratory of Human Bioenergetics and Environmental Physiology, School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; ²Yellow Springs, Ohio; ³Defence Research and Development Canada, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; and ⁴Ottawa Health Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Submitted 25 January 2007 ; accepted in final form 7 May 2007

Changes in mean body temperature (_b) estimated by the traditional two-compartment model of "core" and "shell" temperatures and an adjusted two-compartment model incorporating a correction factor were compared with values derived by whole body calorimetry. Sixty participants (31 men, 29 women) cycled at 40% of peak O₂ consumption for 60 or 90 min in the Snellen calorimeter at 24 or 30°C. The core compartment was represented by esophageal, rectal (T_re), and aural canal temperature, and the shell compartment was represented by a 12-point mean skin temperature (_sk). Using T_re and conventional core-to-shell weightings (X) of 0.66, 0.79, and 0.90, mean _b estimation error (with 95% confidence interval limits in parentheses) for the traditional model was –95.2% (–83.0, –107.3) to –76.6% (–72.8, –80.5) after 10 min and –47.2% (–40.9, –53.5) to –22.6% (–14.5, –30.7) after 90 min. Using T_re, X = 0.80, and a correction factor (X₀) of 0.40, mean _b estimation error for the adjusted model was +9.5% (+16.9, +2.1) to –0.3% (+11.9, –12.5) after 10 min and +15.0% (+27.2, +2.8) to –13.7% (–4.2, –23.3) after 90 min. Quadratic analyses of calorimetry _b data was subsequently used to derive best-fitting values of X for both models and X₀ for the adjusted model for each measure of core temperature. The most accurate model at any time point or condition only accounted for 20% of the variation observed in _b for the traditional model and 56% for the adjusted model. In conclusion, throughout exercise the estimation of _b using any measure of core temperature together with mean skin temperature irrespective of weighting is inaccurate even with a correction factor customized for the specific conditions.

body heat storage; calorimetry; heat stress; hyperthermia; thermoregulation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				O. Jay, D. Gagnon, M. B. DuCharme, P. Webb, F. D. Reardon, and G. P. Kenny Human heat balance during postexercise recovery: separating metabolic and nonthermal effects Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2008; 294(5): R1586 - R1592. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]