Introduction: Exposure to cold environments affects human performance and physiological function. Major medical organizations recommend rectal temperature (TREC) to evaluate core body temperature (TcORE) during exercise in the cold; however, other field expedient devices claim to measure TCORE. The purpose of this study was to determine if field expedient devices provide valid measures of TcRE during rest and exercise in the cold.
Methods: Participants included 13 men and 12 women (age = 24 +/- 3 yr, height = 170.7 +/- 10.6 cm, mass = 73.4 +/- 16.7 kg, body fat = 18 +/- 7%) who reported being healthy and at least recreationally active. During 150 min of cold exposure, subjects sequentially rested for 30 min, cycled for 90 min (heart rate = 120-140 bpm), and rested for an additional 30 min. Investigators compared aural (T(AUR)), expensive axillary (T(AXLe)), inexpensive axillary (T(AXLi)), forehead (T(FOR)), gastrointestinal (T(GI)), expensive oral (T(ORLe)), inexpensive oral (T(ORLi)), and temporal (T(TEM)) temperatures to T(REc) every 15 min. Researchers used mean difference between each device and T(REC) (i.e., mean bias) as the primary criterion for validity.
Results: T(AUR), T(AXLe), T(AXLi), T(FOR), TORLe, T(ORLi), and TTEM provided significantly lower measures compared to T(REC) and fell below our validity criterion. T(GI) significantly exceeded T(REC) at three of eleven time points, but no significant difference existed between mean T(REC) and T(GI) across time. Only T(GI) achieved our validity criterion and compared favorably to T(REC).
Conclusion: T(GI) offers a valid measurement with which to assess T(CORE) during rest and exercise in the cold; athletic trainers, mountain rescuers, and military medical personnel should avoid other field expedient devices in similar conditions.