Cross Adaptation - Heat and Cold Adaptation to Improve Physiological and Cellular Responses to Hypoxia

To prepare for extremes of heat, cold or low partial pressures of O2, humans can undertake a period of acclimation or acclimatization to induce environment specific adaptations e.g. heat acclimation (HA), cold acclimation (CA), or altitude training. Whilst these strategies are effective, they are not always feasible, due to logistical impracticalities. Cross adaptation is a term used to describe the phenomenon whereby alternative environmental interventions e.g. HA, or CA, may be a beneficial alternative to altitude interventions, providing physiological stress and inducing adaptations observable at altitude. HA can attenuate physiological strain at rest and during moderate intensity exercise at altitude via adaptations allied to improved oxygen delivery to metabolically active tissue, likely following increases in plasma volume and reductions in body temperature. CA appears to improve physiological responses to altitude by attenuating the autonomic response to altitude. While no cross acclimation-derived exercise performance/capacity data have been measured following CA, post-HA improvements in performance underpinned by aerobic metabolism, and therefore dependent on oxygen delivery at altitude, are likely. At a cellular level, heat shock protein responses to altitude are attenuated by prior HA suggesting that an attenuation of the cellular stress response and therefore a reduced disruption to homeostasis at altitude has occurred. This process is known as cross tolerance. The effects of CA on markers of cross tolerance is an area requiring further investigation. Because much of the evidence relating to cross adaptation to altitude has examined the benefits at moderate to high altitudes, future research examining responses at lower altitudes should be conducted given that these environments are more frequently visited by athletes and workers. Mechanistic work to identify the specific physiological and cellular pathways responsible for cross adaptation between heat and altitude, and between cold and altitude, is warranted, as is exploration of benefits across different populations and physical activity profiles

Does living and working in a hot environment induce clinically relevant changes in immune function and voluntary force production capacity?

This study investigated the effect of living (summer vs. winter) and working (morning vs. afternoon) in a hot environment on markers of immune function and forearm strength. Thirty-one healthy male gas field employees were screened before (between 05:30 and 07:00) and after their working day (between 15:30 and 17:00) during both seasons. Body core temperature and physical activity were recorded throughout the working days. The hot condition (i.e. summer) led a higher (p≤0.05) average body core temperature (~37.2 vs. ~37.4 °C) but reduced physical activity (−14.8%) during the work-shift. Our data showed an increase (p≤0.05) in lymphocyte and monocyte counts in the summer. Additionally, work-shift resulted in significant (p≤0.001) changes in leukocytes, lymphocytes and monocytes independently of the environment. Handgrip (p=0.069) and pinch (p=0.077) forces tended to be reduced from pre-to post-work, while only force produced during handgrip manoeuvres was significantly reduced (p≤0.05) during the hot compared to the temperate season. No interactions were observed between the environment and work-shift for any marker of immune function or forearm strength. In summary, working and living in hot conditions impact on markers of immune function and work capacity; however by self-regulating energy expenditure, immune markers remained in a healthy reference range

Heat stress causes substantial labour productivity loss in Australia

Heat stress at the workplace is an occupational health hazard that reduces labour productivity1. Assessment of productivity loss resulting from climate change has so far been based on physiological models of heat exposure1. These models suggest productivity may decrease by 11–27% by 2080 in hot regions such as Asia and the Caribbean2, and globally by up to 20% in hot months by 20503. Using an approach derived from health economics, we describe self-reported estimates of work absenteeism and reductions in work performance caused by heat in Australia during 2013/2014. We found that the annual costs were US$655 per person across a representative sample of 1,726 employed Australians. This represents an annual economic burden of around US$6.2 billion (95% CI: 5.2–7.3 billion) for the Australian workforce. This amounts to 0.33 to 0.47% of Australia’s GDP. Although this was a period when many Australians experienced what is at present considered exceptional heat4, our results suggest that adaptation measures to reduce heat effects should be adopted widely if severe economic impacts from labour productivity loss are to be avoided if heat waves become as frequent as predicted