Search Results

Purpose: To survey elite athletes and practitioners to identify (1) knowledge and application of heat acclimation/acclimatization (HA) interventions, (2) barriers to HA application, and (3) nutritional practices supporting HA. Methods: Elite athletes (n = 55) and practitioners (n = 99) completed an online survey. Mann–Whitney U tests (effect size [ES; r]) assessed differences between ROLE (athletes vs practitioners) and CLIMATE (hot vs temperate). Logistic regression and Pearson chi-square (ES Phi [ϕ]) assessed relationships. Results: Practitioners were more likely to report measuring athletes’ core temperature (training: practitioners 40% [athletes 15%]; P = .001, odds ratio = 4.0, 95% CI, 2%–9%; competition: practitioners 25% [athletes 9%]; P = .020, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI, 1%–10%). Practitioners (55% [15% athletes]) were more likely to perceive rectal as the gold standard core temperature measurement site (P = .013, ϕ = .49, medium ES). Temperate (57% [22% hot]) CLIMATE dwellers ranked active HA effectiveness higher (P < .001, r = .30, medium ES). Practitioners commonly identified athletes’ preference (48%), accessibility, and cost (both 47%) as barriers to HA. Increasing carbohydrate intake when training in the heat was more likely recommended by practitioners (49%) than adopted by athletes (26%; P = .006, 95% CI, 0.1%–1%). Practitioners (56% [28% athletes]) were more likely to plan athletes’ daily fluid strategies, adopting a preplanned approach (P = .001; 95% CI, 0.1%–1%). Conclusions: Practitioners, and to a greater extent athletes, lacked self-reported key HA knowledge (eg, core temperature assessment/monitoring methods) yet demonstrated comparatively more appropriate nutritional practices (eg, hydration).

Purpose: To investigate differences in athletes’ knowledge, beliefs, and training practices during COVID-19 lockdowns with reference to sport classification and sex. This work extends an initial descriptive evaluation focusing on athlete classification. Methods: Athletes (12,526; 66% male; 142 countries) completed an online survey (May–July 2020) assessing knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward training. Sports were classified as team sports (45%), endurance (20%), power/technical (10%), combat (9%), aquatic (6%), recreational (4%), racquet (3%), precision (2%), parasports (1%), and others (1%). Further analysis by sex was performed. Results: During lockdown, athletes practiced body-weight-based exercises routinely (67% females and 64% males), ranging from 50% (precision) to 78% (parasports). More sport-specific technical skills were performed in combat, parasports, and precision (∼50%) than other sports (∼35%). Most athletes (range: 50% [parasports] to 75% [endurance]) performed cardiorespiratory training (trivial sex differences). Compared to prelockdown, perceived training intensity was reduced by 29% to 41%, depending on sport (largest decline: ∼38% in team sports, unaffected by sex). Some athletes (range: 7%–49%) maintained their training intensity for strength, endurance, speed, plyometric, change-of-direction, and technical training. Athletes who previously trained ≥5 sessions per week reduced their volume (range: 18%–28%) during lockdown. The proportion of athletes (81%) training ≥60 min/session reduced by 31% to 43% during lockdown. Males and females had comparable moderate levels of training knowledge (56% vs 58%) and beliefs/attitudes (54% vs 56%). Conclusions: Changes in athletes’ training practices were sport-specific, with few or no sex differences. Team-based sports were generally more susceptible to changes than individual sports. Policy makers should provide athletes with specific training arrangements and educational resources to facilitate remote and/or home-based training during lockdown-type events.