Measurement error of self-paced exercise performance in athletic women is not affected by ovulatory status or ambient environment

Does chronic oral contraceptive use detrimentally affect C-reactive protein or iron status for endurance-trained women?

PURPOSE

Chronic use of the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) is reported to increase C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in premenopausal females.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data from two research studies in eumenorrheic (n = 8) and OCP (n = 8) female athletes. Basal CRP and iron parameters were included in the analysis. Sample collection occurred following a standardized exercise and nutritional control for 24 h. Eumenorrheic females were tested in the early-follicular and mid-luteal phases, and the OCP users were tested in quasi-follicular and quasi-luteal phases (both active pill periods).

RESULTS

A main effect for group (p < 0.01) indicated that average CRP concentration was higher in OCP users compared with eumenorrheic females, regardless of the day of measurement within the cycle. Results demonstrate a degree of iron parameters moderation throughout the menstrual cycle that is influenced by basal CRP levels; however, no linear relationship with CRP, serum iron, and ferritin was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Basal CRP values were consistently higher in the OCP group despite participants being in a rested state. These results may indicate a potential risk of cardiovascular disease in prolonged users of the OCP when compared to eumenorrheic female athletes.

Reliability of a 60-min treadmill running protocol in the heat: The journal Temperature toolbox

We determined the reliability of a 60-min treadmill protocol in the heat when spaced >4 weeks apart, longer than the test-retest duration of 1 week found in the literature. Nine unacclimated, trained males (age: 31 ± 8 y; VO2peak: 60 ± 6 ml∙kg-1∙min-1) undertook a 15 min self-paced time-trial pre-loaded with 45 min of running at 70% of individual ventilatory threshold (11.2 ± 0.3 km∙h-1) in 30 ± 1°C (53 ± 5% relative humidity). They repeated this following 40 ± 14 and 76 ± 26 days, with pre-trial standardization of diet and exercise for 48 h. When considering trial 1 as a familiarization, change in core temperature (∆Tcore) during the first 45 min (∆2.0 ± 0.2°C) between trials 2 and 3 yielded bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of -0.10 ± 0.43°C, standard error of measurement (SEM) of 0.13°C and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.75, more reliable than measures of baseline Tcore (36.9 ± 0.2°C; LoA: -0.23 ± 0.90°C; SEM: 0.22°C; ICC: 0.03) and Tcore at 45 min during exercise (38.9 ± 0.4°C; LoA: 0.32 ± 1.12°C; SEM: 0.28°C; ICC: 0.15). The coefficient of variation (CV) between trials 2 and 3 for distance run during the 15 min time-trial was 2.1 ± 2.0% with LoA of 0.001 ± 0.253 km and SEM of 0.037 km. This protocol is reliable spaced ~5 weeks apart when considering the most commonly accepted limit of <5% CV for performance, reinforced by reliability of the ΔTcore being 0.1 ± 0.4°C.

Do E2 and P4 contribute to the explained variance in core temperature response for trained women during exertional heat stress when metabolic rates are very high?

Purpose

Women remain underrepresented in the exercise thermoregulation literature despite their participation in leisure-time and occupational physical activity in heat-stressful environments continuing to increase. Here, we determined the relative contribution of the primary ovarian hormones (estrogen [E₂] and progesterone [P₄]) alongside other morphological (e.g., body mass), physiological (e.g., sweat rates), functional (e.g., aerobic fitness) and environmental (e.g., vapor pressure) factors in explaining the individual variation in core temperature responses for trained women working at very high metabolic rates, specifically peak core temperature (T_peak) and work output (mean power output).

Methods

Thirty-six trained women (32 ± 9 year, 53 ± 9 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹), distinguished by intra-participant (early follicular and mid-luteal phases) or inter-participant (ovulatory vs. anovulatory vs. oral contraceptive pill user) differences in their endogenous E₂ and P₄ concentrations, completed a self-paced 30-min cycling work trial in warm–dry (2.2 ± 0.2 kPa, 34.1 ± 0.2 °C, 41.4 ± 3.4% RH) and/or warm–humid (3.4 ± 0.1 kPa, 30.2 ± 1.2 °C, 79.8 ± 3.7% RH) conditions that yielded 115 separate trials. Stepwise linear regression was used to explain the variance of the dependent variables.

Results

Models were able to account for 60% of the variance in T_peak (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{R }$$\end{document}R¯²: 41% core temperature at the start of work trial, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{R }$$\end{document}R¯²: 15% power output, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{R }$$\end{document}R¯²: 4% [E₂]) and 44% of the variance in mean power output (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{R }$$\end{document}R¯²: 35% peak aerobic power, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{R }$$\end{document}R¯²: 9% perceived exertion).

Conclusion

E₂ contributes a small amount toward the core temperature response in trained women, whereby starting core temperature and peak aerobic power explain the greatest variance in T_peak and work output, respectively.

Seasonal Heat Acclimatisation in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review

Background

Physiological heat adaptations can be induced following various protocols that use either artificially controlled (i.e. acclimation) or naturally occurring (i.e. acclimatisation) environments. During the summer months in seasonal climates, adequate exposure to outdoor environmental heat stress should lead to transient seasonal heat acclimatisation.

Objectives

The aim of the systematic review was to assess the available literature and characterise seasonal heat acclimatisation during the summer months and identify key factors that influence the magnitude of adaptation.

Eligibility Criteria

English language, full-text articles that assessed seasonal heat acclimatisation on the same sample of healthy adults a minimum of 3 months apart were included.

Data Sources

Studies were identified using first- and second-order search terms in the databases MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Scopus and Cochrane, with the last search taking place on 15 July 2021.

Risk of Bias

Studies were independently assessed by two authors for the risk of bias using a modified version of the McMaster critical review form.

Data Extraction

Data for the following outcome variables were extracted: participant age, sex, body mass, height, body fat percentage, maximal oxygen uptake, time spent exercising outdoors (i.e. intensity, duration, environmental conditions), heat response test (i.e. protocol, time between tests), core temperature, skin temperature, heart rate, whole-body sweat loss, whole-body and local sweat rate, sweat sodium concentration, skin blood flow and plasma volume changes.

Results

Twenty-nine studies were included in this systematic review, including 561 participants across eight countries with a mean summer daytime wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) of 24.9 °C (range: 19.5–29.8 °C). Two studies reported a reduction in resting core temperature (0.16 °C; p < 0.05), 11 reported an increased sweat rate (range: 0.03–0.53 L·h⁻¹; p < 0.05), two observed a reduced heart rate during a heat response test (range: 3–8 beats·min⁻¹; p < 0.05), and six noted a reduced sweat sodium concentration (range: − 22 to − 59%; p < 0.05) following summer. The adaptations were associated with a mean summer WBGT of 25.2 °C (range: 19.6–28.7 °C).

Limitations

The available studies primarily focussed on healthy male adults and demonstrated large differences in the reporting of factors that influence the development of seasonal heat acclimatisation, namely, exposure time and duration, exercise task and environmental conditions.

Conclusions

Seasonal heat acclimatisation is induced across various climates in healthy adults. The magnitude of adaptation is dependent on a combination of environmental and physical activity characteristics. Providing environmental conditions are conducive to adaptation, the duration and intensity of outdoor physical activity, along with the timing of exposures, can influence seasonal heat acclimatisation. Future research should ensure the documentation of these factors to allow for a better characterisation of seasonal heat acclimatisation.

PROSPERO Registration

CRD42020201883.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40279-022-01677-0.