The effect of cold ambient temperature and preceding active warm-up on lactate kinetics in female cyclists and triathletes

Independent, additive and interactive effects of acute normobaric hypoxia and cold on submaximal and maximal endurance exercise

PURPOSE

To evaluate the independent and combined effects of hypoxia (FiO2 = 13.5%) and cold (- 20 °C) on physiological and perceptual responses to endurance exercise.

METHODS

14 trained male subjects ( V . O2max: 64 ± 5 mL/kg/min) randomly performed a discontinuous maximal incremental test to exhaustion on a motorized treadmill under four environmental conditions: Normothermic-Normoxia (N), Normothermic-Hypoxia (H), Cold-Normoxia (C) and Cold-Hypoxia (CH). Performance and physiological and perceptual responses throughout exercise were evaluated.

RESULTS

Maximal WorkLoad (WL) and WL at lactate threshold (LT) were reduced in C (- 2.3% and - 3.5%) and H (- 18.0% and - 21.7%) compared to N, with no interactive (p = 0.25 and 0.81) but additive effect in CH (- 21.5% and - 24.6%). Similarly, HRmax and Vemax were reduced in C (- 3.2% and - 14.6%) and H (- 5.0% and - 7%), showing additive effects in CH (- 7.7% and - 16.6%). At LT, additive effect of C (- 2.8%) and H (- 3.8%) on HR reduction in CH (- 5.7%) was maintained, whereas an interactive effect (p = 0.007) of the two stressors combined was noted on Ve (C: - 3.1%, H: + 5.5%, CH: - 10.9%). [La] curve shifted on the left in CH, displaying an interaction effect between the 2 stressors on this parameter. Finally, RPE at LT was exclusively reduced by hypoxia (p < 0.001), whereas TSmax is synergistically reduced by cold and hypoxia (interaction p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

If compared to single stress exposure, exercise performance and physiological and perceptual variables undergo additive or synergistic effects when cold and hypoxia are combined. These results provide new insight into human physiological responses to extreme environments.

Revisiting the 'Whys' and 'Hows' of the Warm-Up: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

The warm-up is considered beneficial for increasing body temperature, stimulating the neuromuscular system and overall preparing the athletes for the demands of training sessions and competitions. Even when warm-up-derived benefits are slight and transient, they may still benefit preparedness for subsequent efforts. However, sports training and competition performance are highly affected by contextual factors (e.g., how is the opponent acting?), and it is not always clear what should be the preferred warm-up modalities, structure and load for each athlete and context. Further, we propose that the warm-up can also be used as a pedagogical and training moment. The warm-up may serve several different (albeit complementary) goals (e.g., rising body temperature, neuromuscular activation, attentional focus) and be performed under a plethora of different structures, modalities, and loads. The current commentary highlights the warm-up period as an opportunity to teach or improve certain skills or physical capacities, and not only as a preparation for the subsequent efforts. Moreover, the (justified) call for individualized warm-ups would benefit from educating athletes about exploring different warm-up tasks and loads, providing a broad foundation for future individualization of the warm-up and for more active, engaged, and well-informed participation of the athletes in deciding their own warm-up practices.