Heat Adaptation and Nutrition Practices: Athlete and Practitioner Knowledge and Use

Alabdulwahed, S; Galán-López, N; Hill, T; James, LJ; Chrismas, BCR; Racinais, S; Stellingwerff, T; Leal, DV; Hausen, M; Chamari, K; Fullagar, HHK; Esh, C; Taylor, L

Heat Adaptation and Nutrition Practices: Athlete and Practitioner Knowledge and Use

Alabdulwahed, S Galán-López, N Hill, T James, LJ Chrismas, BCR Racinais, S Stellingwerff, T Leal, DV Hausen, M Chamari, K Fullagar, HHK Esh, C Taylor, L

Permalink

Publisher:: Human Kinetics
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, pp. 1-14
Issue Date:: 2022

In Progress

	Filename	Description	Size
	Heat-acclimation-questionnaire-IJSPP-2022.pdf	Accepted version	2 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is being processed and is not currently available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Alabdulwahed, S
dc.contributor.author	Galán-López, N
dc.contributor.author	Hill, T
dc.contributor.author	James, LJ
dc.contributor.author	Chrismas, BCR
dc.contributor.author	Racinais, S
dc.contributor.author	Stellingwerff, T
dc.contributor.author	Leal, DV
dc.contributor.author	Hausen, M
dc.contributor.author	Chamari, K
dc.contributor.author	Fullagar, HHK
dc.contributor.author	Esh, C
dc.contributor.author	Taylor, L
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-26T23:12:19Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-26T23:12:19Z
dc.date.issued	2022
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, pp. 1-14
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0265
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0273
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155593
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p><jats:italic><jats:bold>Purpose</jats:bold>:</jats:italic> 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. <jats:italic><jats:bold>Methods</jats:bold>:</jats:italic> Elite athletes (n = 55) and practitioners (n = 99) completed an online survey. Mann–Whitney <jats:italic>U</jats:italic> tests (effect size [ES; <jats:italic>r</jats:italic>]) assessed differences between ROLE (athletes vs practitioners) and CLIMATE (hot vs temperate). Logistic regression and Pearson chi-square (ES Phi [<jats:italic>ϕ</jats:italic>]) assessed relationships. <jats:italic><jats:bold>Results</jats:bold>:</jats:italic> Practitioners were more likely to report measuring athletes’ core temperature (training: practitioners 40% [athletes 15%]; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .001, odds ratio = 4.0, 95% CI, 2%–9%; competition: practitioners 25% [athletes 9%]; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .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 (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .013, <jats:italic>ϕ</jats:italic> = .49, <jats:italic>medium</jats:italic> ES). Temperate (57% [22% hot]) CLIMATE dwellers ranked active HA effectiveness higher (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < .001, <jats:italic>r</jats:italic> = .30, <jats:italic>medium</jats:italic> 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%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .006, 95% CI, 0.1%–1%). Practitioners (56% [28% athletes]) were more likely to plan athletes’ daily fluid strategies, adopting a preplanned approach (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .001; 95% CI, 0.1%–1%). <jats:italic><jats:bold>Conclusions</jats:bold>:</jats:italic> 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).</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Human Kinetics
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1123/ijspp.2021-0462
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subject	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 1116 Medical Physiology, 1701 Psychology
dc.subject.classification	Sport Sciences
dc.title	Heat Adaptation and Nutrition Practices: Athlete and Practitioner Knowledge and Use
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences
utslib.for	1116 Medical Physiology
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	in_progress	*
dc.date.updated	2022-03-26T23:12:18Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

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).

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155593