## 3 Results
There was a significant main effect of condition for the Thermal State (\(p\) < 0.001), where pairwise comparisons revealed that participants rated their thermal state in CON as warmer at the beginning of the performance trial and also at the end (see Table 2). There was no main effect for sex (\(p\) = 0.541), and there was a trend for increased thermal comfort from T1 to T2 (\(p\) = 0.055). S post hoc comparison showed that females had a significantly greater increase in the thermal state in each condition (\(p\) = 0.042, see Table 2) and the delta increase in females in 12 IP (2.5 scale units increase) was significantly greater than the 12 IP change in males (0.5 scale units; see Table 2). Figure 3: Change in MVC from pre (before entry into chamber) to post (1 min after completion of performance trial) for each condition (CON, 6 IP, 12 IP). Female participants are denoted as “\(\Diamond\)” and male participants as “\(\Diamond\)”. * indicates the overall significant interaction between time and condition (\(p\) = 0.002) where the specific post hoc comparisons found that CON increased 6.3% pre-post, which was different from 6 IP (3.5% increase), and with a 3.6% decrease in the 12 IP condition (where males decreased 4.2% and females decreased 3.1%). Values are presented as the mean \(\pm\) SD. There was an overall effect of condition for 1 ZIP SmO\({}_{2}\)VM where 12 IP was lower than both 6 IP (\(p\) = 0.045) and CON (\(p\) = 0.031) conditions. There was an overall decrease in SmO\({}_{2}\)VM from the start to the end of the performance trial (\(p\) = 0.009), with no differences between conditions for the magnitude of this decrease (Figure 4). SmO\({}_{2}\)VM was lowest at the start of the performance trial in the 12 IP condition (35.6 \(\pm\) 7.9) compared to 6 IP (44.0 \(\pm\) 15.5) and CON (44.3 \(\pm\) 13.1), although neither of these comparisons were significant. There was no difference in SmO\({}_{2}\)VM between males and females (\(p\) = 0.997), however, and although females had a greater SmO\({}_{2}\)VM in minute 1 and minute 8 compared to males in each condition, this was not significant (\(p\) = 0.343). There was no overall difference in SmO\({}_{2}\)VL between conditions (\(p\) = 0.546) or change in SmO\({}_{2}\)VL from the beginning to the end of the performance trial (\(p\) = 0.394) (see Figure 4). The 12 IP condition had lower starting SmO\({}_{2}\)VL values (38.6 \(\pm\) 18.4) compared to 6 IP (40.4 \(\pm\) 16.9) and CON (46.0 \(\pm\) 17.6), although neither of these comparisons were significant. Overall, there was no difference in SmO\({}_{2}\)VL between males and females (\(p\) = 0.768), except for 6 IP, where females had significantly greater SmO\({}_{2}\)VL at minute 1 (\(p\) = 0.011). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Measure** & **Condition** & **Time Point** & **Female (n = 8)** & **Male (n = 6)** & **Overall (n = 14)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Heavy Legs Scale} & \multirow{4}{*}{CON} & T1 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\  & & T2 & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.2 * & 5.7 \(\pm\) 2.4 * & 5.5 \(\pm\) 1.9 * \\  & & \(\Delta\) & +1.6 & +2.3 & +1.9 \\  & & T1 & 2.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\  & 6 IP & T2 & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.8 * & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.7 * & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.7 * \\  & & \(\Delta\) & +2.2 & +2.2 & +2.2 \\  & & T1 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.8 \\  & 12 IP & T2 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 2.1 * & 4.8 \(\pm\) 1.7 * & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.9 * \\  & & \(\Delta\) & +2.2 & +1.7 & +1.9 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Cold Discomfort Scale} & \multirow{4}{*}{6 IP} & T1 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 1.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 2.1 \\  & & T2 & 2.9 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 1.2 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 2.3 \\  & & \(\Delta\) & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)0.4 & \(-\)0.5 \\  & & T1 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 2.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3 Overall, there was a difference in the core body temperature between conditions (\(p<0.001\)); specifically, CON was less than 6 IP (\(p=0.012\)).