I’m running an uncontrolled resistance exercise experiment with several volunteers testing a low tech implementation of the cooling glove based on some research (and now a commercial product) out of stanford.
coleman 1⁄2 gallon jug holding gel packs chilled to 50f(10c) degrees. Gel packs held with both hands for 3-4 minutes in between working sets of squats.
the first study details using vacuum cooling for traditional resistance exercise, the second details using non vacuum cooling compared to vacuum cooling in general heightened core temperature conditions.
Numbers on non vacuum cooling:
by 0.80 +-.3°C n= 12 with cooling only,
and by 1.00 +-.2°C n= 12 with cooling and subatmospheric
pressure Fig. 3a
indicating 80% effectiveness without vacuum.
there is however a cohort issue:
A more detailed analysis revealed that cooling-alone treatment
yielded two discrete Tes response patterns, one resembling that of
cooling with subatmospheric pressure and one resembling that of
no cooling Fig. 3b. In 8 of the 12 subjects, Tes decreased by
1.00.3°C with cooling-alone compared with 1.00.2°C with
cooling and pressure differential and 0.30.2°C with no cooling
control treatment. In these eight subjects, post hoc t-tests revealed that the data from cooling alone were significantly different
from control p= 0.001 but was not significantly different from
the cooling with pressure differential p= 0.53. In 4 of the 12
subjects, Tes decreased by 0.50.2°C with cooling-alone, compared with 0.90.2°C with cooling and a pressure differential
and 0.50.1°C with control treatment. For these four subjects
cooling-alone and control treatments were not different p
= 0.38, while cooling-alone and cooling with a pressure differential trended to be different p= 0.07
The non-vacuum test was single hand. Cooling of both hands looks to be around a 44% increase in effectiveness, which I’m hoping translates to non-vacuum cooling.
! I was under the impression that that vacuum was what made this effective, but difficult to do without professional equipment. If it’s not necessary, that significantly opens this up.
80% effectiveness is not quite right- you would need to subtract off the control cooling first, and I think it’s better to report it as “8 out of 12 did not see a benefit from vacuum cooling over non-vacuum cooling, and 4 out of 12 did not see a benefit from non-vacuum cooling over no cooling,” than the roughly equivalent “2/3rds effectiveness.” That’s really interesting; I wonder if they can directly measure blood flow and see what the underlying difference is. It might be that group A doesn’t alter blood flow in the presence of heat loss (which seems crazy), or that they only do it when it would push their temperature away from optimal.
I’m also curious what the cooling looks like in more benign circumstances. (The second paper had them sitting in a hot room with a ton of insulation, and still they managed to cool down without a heat sink!)
Ancestry plausibly affects how the cooling system is regulated and was uncontrolled for.
WRT the vacuum: Two sets of instructions for DIY implementations with costs around $150 exist on the internet. It would be nice if one could figure out whether one is a non responder without the time and cost of building one though.
I’m running an uncontrolled resistance exercise experiment with several volunteers testing a low tech implementation of the cooling glove based on some research (and now a commercial product) out of stanford.
I’m very interested in the details of your implementation.
coleman 1⁄2 gallon jug holding gel packs chilled to 50f(10c) degrees. Gel packs held with both hands for 3-4 minutes in between working sets of squats.
based on the following papers: http://corecontrolcooling.com/scientific-research/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies/palm-cooling-delays-fatigue-during-high-intensity-bench-press-exercise-2/
http://www.avacore.com/sites/default/files/Grahn_Dillon_Heller_JBE_2009.pdf
the first study details using vacuum cooling for traditional resistance exercise, the second details using non vacuum cooling compared to vacuum cooling in general heightened core temperature conditions.
Numbers on non vacuum cooling:
indicating 80% effectiveness without vacuum.
there is however a cohort issue:
The non-vacuum test was single hand. Cooling of both hands looks to be around a 44% increase in effectiveness, which I’m hoping translates to non-vacuum cooling.
! I was under the impression that that vacuum was what made this effective, but difficult to do without professional equipment. If it’s not necessary, that significantly opens this up.
80% effectiveness is not quite right- you would need to subtract off the control cooling first, and I think it’s better to report it as “8 out of 12 did not see a benefit from vacuum cooling over non-vacuum cooling, and 4 out of 12 did not see a benefit from non-vacuum cooling over no cooling,” than the roughly equivalent “2/3rds effectiveness.” That’s really interesting; I wonder if they can directly measure blood flow and see what the underlying difference is. It might be that group A doesn’t alter blood flow in the presence of heat loss (which seems crazy), or that they only do it when it would push their temperature away from optimal.
I’m also curious what the cooling looks like in more benign circumstances. (The second paper had them sitting in a hot room with a ton of insulation, and still they managed to cool down without a heat sink!)
Ancestry plausibly affects how the cooling system is regulated and was uncontrolled for.
WRT the vacuum: Two sets of instructions for DIY implementations with costs around $150 exist on the internet. It would be nice if one could figure out whether one is a non responder without the time and cost of building one though.