Author(s): ELLIOTT, J., STANLEY, J., MALONEY, P., GIRARD, O., CLARK, B., PÉRIARD, J.D., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA, Country: AUSTRALIA, Abstract-ID: 1759

INTRODUCTION:
Heat training (HT; acclimation and acclimatisation) is considered essential for preparing athletes for competition in hot environments. Although laboratory research has informed evidence-based HT guidelines, little is known about how these guidelines are applied in high‑performance settings. This study described current perceptions, considerations, and prescription approaches of practitioners in high‑performance sport.
METHODS:
Practitioners supporting national- to world-class athletes preparing for competition in hot environments completed an online questionnaire assessing demographics, perceptions, planning considerations, barriers, and HT protocol characteristics. Data is presented as percentages or median (interquartile range [IQR]).
RESULTS:
Fifty-one practitioners responded, primarily sports scientists/physiologists (72%), based in Europe (45%) and Oceania (23%). Most (73%) had ≥5 years’ experience prescribing HT, 69% had experience with both heat acclimation and acclimatisation, and 73% primarily supported endurance‑based athletes in preparation for competition in hot environments (e.g. Triathlon: 29% and Cycling: 24%). Practitioners reported prescribing HT mainly to induce adaptations (31%) and to familiarise athletes with the expected environmental demands (26%). Nearly all practitioners (96%) considered HT of high importance for competition in hot conditions, whereas only 14% considered HT of high importance for cool conditions. The athlete‑ and competition‑based considerations of high importance for HT were training‑cycle phase/load (73%) and expected competition conditions (94%), respectively. The most common barriers were interference with training (27%) and limited athlete/coach buy‑in (18%). Heat acclimation and acclimatisation interventions typically began 3–5 weeks before competition in hot environments (45% and 44% respectively) and lasted 2–4 weeks (60% and 54% respectively). Active heat acclimation was typically prescribed for a minimum of 2 (2–3) weekly exposures to a maximum of 5 (4–6), with sessions lasting from 45 (30–60) to 90 (75–120) min. Active heat acclimatisation sessions were longer, at 60 (40–60) to 120 (90–180) min. For acclimation and acclimatisation, most practitioners reported that weekly training intensity (46% and 49%) and session frequency (70% and 76%) were consistent with normal training, while weekly volume was either maintained (42% and 50%) or decreased slightly (42% and 38%).
CONCLUSION:
Around half of practitioners implemented HT within one month of competition and for ≥2 weeks, consistent with current evidence-based guidelines. Active acclimatisation sessions were typically longer than active acclimation sessions. Further insight is needed from practitioners working with non-endurance athletes due to low representation (27%). HT guidelines for high-performance environments should also consider rigid training structures and athlete/coach engagement, given their influence on implementation.