Recovery from Heat Training

From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
Jump to navigationJump to search

If you do your heat sessions at a target heart rate, as most people do, then heat training is not simply a harder version of your normal easy session. To hold 140 bpm in a hot chamber you have to pedal or run considerably more slowly than you would in cool conditions, so the session delivers less mechanical work and more thermal work than the temperate equivalent. Some parts of recovery are therefore easier, and some are harder.

This page answers the practical question: after an hour of heat training at your normal aerobic heart rate, what extra recovery do you need, what is cheaper than usual, and how do you decide whether to do tomorrow's hard session? It assumes you have read the safety sections of Heat Acclimation Training, which this page does not duplicate.

Disclosure: this article is the result of multiple iterations of ChatGPT, Claude, and my analysis/review. Any mistakes are mine alone.

Summary

  • Matched heart rate is not matched training stress. In the one trial that did exactly this comparison, holding the same heart rate for 90 minutes at 33c rather than 18c meant 17% less power, 14% less energy expenditure and 19% less carbohydrate burned[1]. The heart rate was the same; almost nothing else was.
  • Expect less muscular cost, not more. Lower power means less force through muscle and tendon, and the limited evidence on muscle damage in the heat is consistent with that rather than against it.
  • Expect more fluid to replace, and more central and autonomic fatigue. Sweat rate roughly doubled in that trial[1], and running in the heat produced greater low-frequency force depression and greater cardiac vagal withdrawal than running in temperate conditions over the following 72 hours[2].
  • A heat session can feel much harder than its power numbers say, and that feeling is the useful signal. Don't use power, pace or training-stress scores to judge how much a heat session cost you.
  • Use the Training Readiness checks you already use, and add hydration and thermal items to them. Don't build a separate heat-specific readiness system.
  • Don't assume a fixed recovery penalty. There is no evidence for a rule such as "add 24 hours after every heat session". Three weeks of heat training matched by heart rate produced the same perceived training load and well-being scores as the same programme in temperate conditions[3].
  • The real risk is cumulative, not acute. Repeated heat sessions can push an otherwise sustainable programme past what you can absorb, and this has happened in a controlled trial[4].

What to expect

This table compares a heat session with a temperate session of the same heart rate and the same duration. Most research compares matched power instead, which gives the opposite answer for several rows, so the confidence ratings are mostly low.

Recovery dimension Likely effect of matched-HR hot exercise Confidence What to monitor
Muscle damage and soreness Lower. Less force through the muscle for the same heart rate. No study has measured this at matched HR, but where the heat condition involved less mechanical work, creatine kinase rose less[5][2] Limited (indirect; no matched-HR data) Soreness and stiffness, as in Training Readiness
Central and neuromuscular fatigue Higher in the hour afterwards, with some measurable traces persisting. Probably not enough to show up as lost strength the next day Limited to moderate (matched-power and matched-speed studies only) How hard the first 10–15 minutes of your next session feels
Glycogen and fuelling Lower. Carbohydrate oxidation fell 19% and total energy expenditure 14% at matched HR[1] Moderate (one direct trial, n=10, cycling) Appetite, energy and mood the next morning
Tendon and mechanical loading Lower, particularly for a cycling session, but not in proportion to the drop in power Limited (extrapolation from biomechanics; no heat-specific research) Morning tendon stiffness
Cardiovascular and autonomic Higher. Equal heart rate does not mean equal cardiac work, and vagal withdrawal persisted longer after running in the heat[2] Moderate during exercise; limited for how long it persists Resting HR and HRV trends, never single days
Hydration Substantially more to replace. Sweat rate roughly doubled at matched HR[1] Strong Morning body mass, urine colour and thirst together
Sleep Possibly slightly worse. Five days of heat training lowered sleep efficiency by about 2% and added about 8 minutes awake after sleep onset[6] Limited (one small crossover, n=8) Your usual sleep tracking, plus how rested you feel

The row that most often surprises people is glycogen. The common claim that exercise in the heat burns more carbohydrate is well supported[7], but it is a matched-power finding. Reduce the power to hold your heart rate and the extra carbohydrate cost disappears, and then some.

Assessing recovery

Use the morning check and warm-up check from Training Readiness exactly as they are written there: rate fatigue, heavy legs, soreness, stiffness, motivation, sleep and life stress against your own normal, then let the first 10–15 minutes of the next session have the final say. Heat does not change that framework. It adds a few things worth putting alongside it.

Additions after a heat session

  • Morning body mass, urine colour and thirst, read together. Any one of these on its own is weak. All three pointing the same way means you are very likely dehydrated[8]. This matters more after heat training than after any other session, because the fluid deficit is larger.
  • Whether you still feel hot. Feeling unusually warm hours afterwards, or sleeping hot, suggests the session was more than you have adapted to. Personal hypothesis: I am not aware of research establishing this as a recovery marker.
  • Session-RPE against mechanical work. If a 100-watt hour felt like a hard session, that mismatch is information. Record how the session felt rather than what the power meter said.
  • Sleep after heat sessions specifically. If your sleep is consistently worse on heat-training nights, that is a reason to move the session earlier, not to push on.

What not to use

  • Heart rate relative to power or pace during a heat block. This is a useful readiness signal in stable conditions (see Training Readiness and Heart Rate Drift), but during acclimation the relationship is changing for a reason that has nothing to do with recovery: as you adapt, heart rate falls at any given workload. Interpreting that as "better recovered" is a mistake.
  • Power-based training stress scores. A low-power heat session scores low and may not have been easy.
  • A single morning's HRV. Note also that plasma volume expands with heat training, and plasma volume expansion lowers heart rate and can raise HRV without any improvement in readiness.

The morning after: a simple decision process

These are coaching heuristics consistent with the evidence, not validated rules.

  • Everything normal: train as planned, including hard sessions.
  • One item worse than normal: start the planned session and let the warm-up decide.
  • Two or more items worse, or hydration markers all pointing the same way: make it an easy day, drink and eat normally, and skip today's heat exposure rather than today's running.
  • Still feeling hot, thirsty or flat after an easy day: rest, rehydrate, and leave heat training alone until you feel normal for two consecutive days.
  • Headache, nausea, dark urine with very low output, confusion, or muscle pain out of proportion to what you did: stop and seek medical assessment. See the safety sections of Heat Acclimation Training.

Integrating heat training into your programme

Heat training after a hard session. A low-power heat session adds little mechanical stress, which is the argument for stacking them. But the existing guidance on Heat Acclimation Training already advises against heat training on legs damaged by a hard or downhill session, because muscle-damaging exercise before exercise in the heat increased kidney stress in a small study. That guidance stands and takes priority. Passive heat, such as a post-run hot bath, is the lower-risk way to get a heat stimulus on those days.

Heat training on an easy day. A low-power, high-HR heat session is mechanically easy and systemically not easy. Treat it as occupying your easy day rather than fitting alongside it.

Heat training before a hard workout. The neuromuscular measures that matter for a hard session were back to baseline 24 hours after running to exhaustion in the heat[2], and football players' sprint performance and voluntary activation had fully recovered by 48 hours after a match at 43c[5]. On that evidence, one controlled heat session should not block the next day's quality work. What should block it is how you feel.

Training twice in one day. Hydration is the limiting factor. A chamber session can cost 1–2 litres of sweat, and aiming to replace roughly 100–120% of the body mass lost, with fluids taken alongside food containing sodium, is the consensus recommendation[9]. Do not force fluid in rapidly between sessions; over-drinking carries its own serious risk (see Hyponatremia and The Science Of Hydration).

Regular heat training. This is where the risk actually sits. Five consecutive days of high-intensity heat acclimation impaired cycling capacity in the heat in well-trained athletes, and capacity had not returned to baseline seven days later[4]. That protocol was high-intensity, which the guidance on Heat Acclimation Training already rules out, but it shows that repeated heat exposure can tip athletes into a state they do not quickly recover from. Conversely, three weeks of properly matched low- and moderate-intensity heat training produced no difference in perceived training load or well-being[3]. The dose and the intensity are what separate those two outcomes.

Progressive acclimation. As you adapt, the same chamber produces less strain: heart rate at a given power falls, and power at a given heart rate rises. In the three-week trial, the power gap between the heat and temperate groups in the moderate sessions had closed by the end[3]. The practical consequence is that the "low mechanical cost" of heat training shrinks over a block. A session that was 100 watts in week one may be 140 watts in week six for the same heart rate, and it is no longer the cheap session it was.

The hypothesis this page was written to test is that heat training adds cardiovascular and thermoregulatory stimulus without proportionally increasing muscular and mechanical load. On the matched-HR evidence, that hypothesis holds for the mechanical and metabolic side. It does not hold for the autonomic side, and it says nothing about how much of this you can accumulate.

What the research tells us

What is being held constant

This is the single most important thing to check in any study on this topic.

Study What was matched What differed
Charoensap 2023[1] Heart rate and duration Power 17% lower in heat
Maunder 2021[3] Heart rate at ventilatory thresholds, 3-week programme Power lower in heat, narrowing over the block
Goodall 2015[10] Power (296 W) and duration (11.4 min) Core temperature 0.5c higher in heat
Nybo 2013[5] Match format and duration Players covered 7% less distance and 26% less high-intensity running in the heat[11]
Dutra 2026[2] Running speed Duration 53% shorter in heat

Only the first two tell you anything direct about matched-HR heat training. The rest have to be read with their confound in view.

Metabolism: the finding that reverses

Ten endurance-trained male cyclists completed 90 minutes at 95% of the heart rate associated with their first ventilatory threshold, at 18c and at 33c, in a randomised crossover. Mean heart rate did not differ between trials, with every individual within 4 bpm. Power output was 17 ± 11% lower in the heat (P < 0.001, lower in every participant), whole-body energy expenditure 14 ± 8% lower (P < 0.001), and carbohydrate oxidation 19 ± 11% lower (1.48 vs 1.86 g/min, P = 0.002). Fat oxidation did not differ. Rectal temperature was not different between conditions, because metabolic heat production was lower in the heat; estimated muscle temperature was 1.0c higher. Sweat rate was roughly double (1.1 vs 0.6 L/h, P < 0.001) and dehydration greater (1.4 vs 0.9% of body mass). Perceived exertion did not significantly differ[1]. The study reports no funding and no competing interests.

This directly contradicts the general rule that heat increases carbohydrate use, which a 2025 meta-analysis of 51 studies confirms for matched workloads: carbohydrate oxidation and muscle glycogen use were both higher in hot conditions, with glycogen use showing the larger effect[7]. Both are correct. Heat does make a given workload more carbohydrate-dependent; at matched heart rate you are simply not doing that workload. Moderate evidence for the matched-HR direction, from a single small cycling study. There is no direct muscle glycogen measurement at matched heart rate, only whole-body oxidation inferred from gas exchange, and these can diverge.

The authors also note a limitation that matters for anyone mid-block: acclimated athletes produce more power at a given heart rate in the heat, so the gap they measured should narrow with adaptation[1].

Muscle damage

There is no matched-HR study of muscle damage after heat training. The two studies usually cited both involve less work in the heat:

  • After football matches at 43c and 21c, myoglobin rose more than three-fold after both with no difference between conditions and returned to baseline by 24 hours; creatine kinase was elevated after both, but the response in the heat was lower; muscle glycogen depletion was similar and remained depressed beyond 48 hours after both; sprint performance and voluntary activation were impaired similarly and had fully recovered at 48 hours[5]. The authors concluded heat stress does not aggravate the recovery response. But in the same matches, players covered 7% less total distance and 26% less high-intensity running in the heat[11].
  • Running to task failure at a fixed speed, time to failure was 53% shorter in the heat (17.8 vs 42.3 min) and creatine kinase at 24 hours was lower. The between-condition difference in CK correlated strongly with the between-condition difference in duration (r = 0.75), which the authors interpret as the shorter session explaining the smaller CK response[2].

So the honest reading is: when heat reduces the mechanical work done, markers of muscle damage go down roughly in proportion. That is an argument about work, not about heat. It is also exactly the situation matched-HR heat training creates, which is why the practical conclusion still points the same way. Limited evidence. Note that creatine kinase is a poor measure of injury in any case (see Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness).

Central and neuromuscular fatigue

Heat clearly causes central fatigue during and immediately after exercise, and much of it is supraspinal. At matched power and duration, cortical voluntary activation declined more after cycling at 34c than at 18c (8 ± 3% vs 3 ± 2%, P = 0.001), while maximal voluntary force, potentiated twitch force and conventional voluntary activation declined similarly in both[10]. That study measured only immediately after exercise, over an 11-minute trial at matched power, so it says nothing about the next day and nothing about matched-HR sessions.

The recovery time course comes from the more recent running study. Maximal voluntary force, voluntary activation, contractile function and all heart rate variability measures were reduced 15–60 minutes after exercise and had returned to baseline by 24 hours in both conditions. Averaged across the 72-hour monitoring period, two things were worse after the heat condition: low-frequency force depression (the Db10/Db100 ratio, –9.2% vs –0.5%, P = 0.02) and high-frequency HRV power (–22.1% vs –16.8%, P = 0.02)[2]. The title of that paper is easy to misread: it does not mean recovery took 72 hours. It means a condition effect was detectable across the whole window while the time-course analysis showed return to baseline at 24 hours.

Low-frequency force depression is worth understanding because it fits the common experience. It does not reduce maximal force, but it raises the central drive and perceived effort needed to produce a given submaximal force. That is a physiological basis for the pattern of feeling unusually tired without being sore or weak. Whether it transfers to matched-HR heat training is untested, and the heat condition in that study was far more severe thermally than a controlled heat session. Limited evidence.

One related finding is relevant to what you do afterwards: when voluntary activation was reduced by passive hyperthermia, cooling the skin did not restore it, but lowering core temperature back to normal did[12]. Getting your core temperature down after a session is more than comfort.

Cardiovascular and autonomic recovery

An equal heart rate does not mean equal cardiac output or equal cardiac work. During heat stress, cardiac output rises with much of it going to the skin, and the rise is driven mainly by heart rate — a point already covered under heat training as cross-training on Heat Acclimation Training.

For recovery specifically, the evidence is thin and mixed:

  • Greater vagal withdrawal persisted across 72 hours after running in the heat, though it was back to baseline at 24 hours on the time-course analysis[2].
  • In the three-week matched-HR training study, there were no significant differences in absolute HRV between the heat and temperate groups. Day-to-day HRV variability was higher in the heat group (29% vs 39% overall, p = 0.20; 23% vs 39% in week two, p = 0.08) but did not reach significance, which the authors interpreted cautiously as a possible greater physiological stress response[3].
  • After 90 minutes of exercise in the heat, plasma volume 24 hours later had increased 7%, versus 5% in temperate conditions, a difference that was not statistically reliable; adding dehydration produced a further 4% expansion that was[13]. This is an adaptation, but it also means a lower resting heart rate the next morning for reasons unrelated to recovery.

Limited evidence that heat training imposes a meaningfully greater or longer-lasting autonomic recovery cost at matched heart rate. Note also the general warning from Training Readiness: favourable HRV and heart rate numbers do not guarantee recovery, and can accompany accumulating fatigue.

Hydration

This is the one dimension where the answer is unambiguous. Matched-HR heat training roughly doubled sweat rate[1], and chamber sessions in the published heat-suit protocols produced fluid losses of 1.6–1.7 litres[14].

The consensus guidance is to replace fluid alongside food rather than by forcing drink: if rapid replenishment is genuinely needed, 150% of body mass losses within an hour, but for most athletes replacing 100–120% of losses with fluids taken with food, including salty food, is the realistic target[9]. Recovery regimens should include sodium and carbohydrate. There is a real danger on the other side: over-drinking is the main cause of exercise-associated hyponatraemia, and the consensus recommendation is to drink palatable fluids when thirsty rather than to a schedule[15]. That consensus conference was funded by CrossFit Inc, though no CrossFit members participated in developing the guidelines.

For deciding whether you are rehydrated before the next session, no single marker works well. Body mass changes under 1% of your normal, with pale urine and no particular thirst, is reasonable evidence that you are. All three pointing the other way means you very likely are not[8]. Morning, post-void, before eating or drinking, is the measurement that means something.

Sleep

Eight recreationally trained males completed five consecutive days of 60 minutes of cycling at 50% of peak power at 34.9c and at 22.2c in a randomised crossover with at least 31 days between blocks. Heat training impaired sleep efficiency by about 2.1% on average and there was weaker evidence of about 8 extra minutes awake after sleep onset. Sleep duration, sleep latency and subjective sleep quality did not differ. Daily sedentary time was about 35 minutes longer during the heat block[6]. The study reports no specific funding and no conflicts of interest.

The effects are small and the sample is tiny. Notably, the extra strain in the heat condition was mostly cardiovascular rather than thermal: heart rate was 13 bpm higher but rectal temperature only 0.17c higher on day one, and participants spent barely more time above 38.5c than in the control condition. It is therefore not a good model of a proper isothermic heat session. All sessions were at the same time of day, so it says nothing about session timing.

For timing, the general evidence is more useful: evening exercise does not harm sleep in healthy adults, with the exception of vigorous exercise ending within an hour of bedtime[16]. A heat session is not vigorous in the mechanical sense, but it does leave you with an elevated body temperature, which is the plausible mechanism. Personal hypothesis: finishing a heat session at least two to three hours before bed, and actively cooling afterwards, is a sensible precaution. I found no research testing it. The observations in the Personal Thoughts section of Heat Acclimation Training are consistent with this but are personal experience, not evidence.

Tendon and mechanical loading

No research has examined tendon loading during or after heat training. What follows is an extrapolation from running and cycling biomechanics and should be treated as such.

Running more slowly reduces peak tendon force. Across speeds from 3.3 to 5.6 m/s in high-performing endurance runners, peak Achilles tendon force rose 19.5% and its loading rate 57.3%, and cumulative Achilles loading was greater at the faster speeds[17]. But cumulative load per kilometre does not behave simply: cumulative load measures fall with running speed, while measures that weight for damage either rise or do not change[18]. Slower running means lower peak tendon force, but not proportionally less cumulative tendon loading over a given duration, because you take more steps.

Cycling is the clearer case. Pedalling is largely concentric with no impact and no stretch-shortening cycle, which is why it is the standard low-impact cross-training option for runners. A low-power chamber session on a bike plausibly offers close to the best available ratio of cardiovascular and thermal stimulus to tendon loading. That is an argument from first principles, not from data. Personal hypothesis.

Two cautions. Reduced cycling power does not translate linearly into reduced tendon force, because tendon load depends on cleat position, saddle height and cadence as much as on power. And exercising in a hot environment is not the same as locally heating a tendon; nothing here suggests heat treats or repairs an injured tendon. For that, see Recovering from Tendon Injuries in Runners.

Unresolved questions

  • No matched-HR recovery study exists. Every recovery outcome in this article comes from matched-power, matched-speed or match-play designs and is extrapolated.
  • No muscle glycogen measurement at matched heart rate. The reduction in carbohydrate use is inferred from whole-body gas exchange.
  • No data on repeated matched-HR sessions and cumulative fatigue, which is the question that actually matters for a six-week block.
  • Almost all of it is men. Charoensap (n=10), Maunder (n=17), Goodall (n=7), Osborne (n=8) and Nybo (n=17) were all male; Dutra included two women in twelve.
  • Nothing on older athletes, who tolerate heat less well.
  • Whether low-frequency force depression after heat training matters in practice is untested.

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Charoensap T, Kilding AE, Maunder E. Carbohydrate, but not fat, oxidation is reduced during moderate-intensity exercise performed in 33 vs. 18 °C at matched heart rates. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2023, 123(9):2073–2085. doi:10.1007/s00421-023-05225-0 (The authors state no sources of funding were used and declare no competing interests.)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Dutra YM, Mendonça PT, Lopes JPF, Esco MR, de Souza Malta E, de Poli RAB, Zagatto AM. Running in the heat reduces time to task failure, attenuates biomarkers of muscle microtrauma, and exacerbates low-frequency force depression and cardiac vagal withdrawal over 72-h post-exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2026, 126(10):5675–5690. doi:10.1007/s00421-026-06367-7 (Funded by Brazilian public research agencies CAPES, FAPESP, FAPESB and CNPq; the authors declare no competing interests.)
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Maunder E, Plews DJ, Wallis GA, Brick MJ, Leigh WB, Chang WL, Watkins CM, Kilding AE. Temperate performance and metabolic adaptations following endurance training performed under environmental heat stress. Physiological Reports, 2021, 9(9):e14849. doi:10.14814/phy2.14849 (Supported by an Education New Zealand International Doctoral Research Scholarship; the authors declare no competing interests.)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Reeve T, Gordon R, Laursen PB, Lee JKW, Tyler CJ. Impairment of cycling capacity in the heat in well-trained endurance athletes after high-intensity short-term heat acclimation. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2019, 14(8):1058–1065. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0537
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Nybo L, Girard O, Mohr M, Knez W, Voss S, Racinais S. Markers of muscle damage and performance recovery after exercise in the heat. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2013, 45(5):860–868. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827ded04 PMID:23247710
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Osborne JO, Minett GM, Stewart IB, Trost S, Drovandi C, Costello JT, Pavey TG, Borg DN. Evidence that heat acclimation training may alter sleep and incidental activity. European Journal of Sport Science, 2023, 23(8):1731–1740. doi:10.1080/17461391.2022.2124386 (The authors report no specific funding and no conflicts of interest.)
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Mougin L, Macrae HZ, Taylor L, James LJ, Mears SA. The effect of heat stress and dehydration on carbohydrate use during endurance exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 2025, 55(11):2825–2847. doi:10.1007/s40279-025-02294-3
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Cheuvront SN, Kenefick RW. Am I drinking enough? Yes, no, and maybe. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2016, 35(2):185–192. doi:10.1080/07315724.2015.1067872
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Racinais S, Alonso JM, Coutts AJ, Flouris AD, Girard O, González-Alonso J, Hausswirth C, Jay O, Lee JKW, Mitchell N, Nassis GP, Nybo L, Pluim BM, Roelands B, Sawka MN, Wingo J, Périard JD. Consensus recommendations on training and competing in the heat. Sports Medicine, 2015, 45(7):925–938. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0343-6 PMID:26002286 (Arose from a conference held at Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha.)
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Goodall S, Charlton K, Hignett C, Prichard J, Barwood M, Howatson G, Thomas K. Augmented supraspinal fatigue following constant-load cycling in the heat. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2015, 25(Suppl 1):164–172. doi:10.1111/sms.12370
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Mohr M, Nybo L, Grantham J, Racinais S. Physiological responses and physical performance during football in the heat. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(6):e39202. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039202 (Reports the activity data from the same matches as Nybo et al. 2013.)
  12. ↑ Morrison S, Sleivert GG, Cheung SS. Passive hyperthermia reduces voluntary activation and isometric force production. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 2004, 91(5–6):729–736. doi:10.1007/s00421-004-1063-z
  13. ↑ Akerman AP, Lucas SJE, Katare R, Cotter JD. Heat and dehydration additively enhance cardiovascular outcomes following orthostatically-stressful calisthenics exercise. Frontiers in Physiology, 2017, 8:756. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00756
  14. ↑ Rønnestad BR, Lid OM, Hansen J, Hamarsland H, Mølmen KS, Nygaard H, Ellefsen S, Hammarström D, Lundby C. Heat suit training increases hemoglobin mass in elite cross-country skiers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2022, 32(10):1089–1098. doi:10.1111/sms.14205 (The authors report no external financial support and no conflicts of interest.)
  15. ↑ Hew-Butler T, Rosner MH, Fowkes-Godek S, et al. Statement of the 3rd International Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia Consensus Development Conference, Carlsbad, California, 2015. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015, 49(22):1432–1446. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095004 (The conference and participants' travel, hotel and meal expenses were funded by CrossFit Inc; the panel states no CrossFit members participated in developing the guidelines.)
  16. ↑ Stutz J, Eiholzer R, Spengler CM. Effects of evening exercise on sleep in healthy participants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 2019, 49(2):269–287. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-1015-0
  17. ↑ Starbuck C, Bramah C, Herrington L, Jones R. The effect of speed on Achilles tendon forces and patellofemoral joint stresses in high-performing endurance runners. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2021, 31(8):1657–1665. doi:10.1111/sms.13972 (The authors report no specific funding.)
  18. ↑ Firminger CR, Asmussen MJ, Cigoja S, Fletcher JR, Nigg BM, Edwards WB. Cumulative metrics of tendon load and damage vary discordantly with running speed. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2020, 52(7):1549–1556. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002287
Retrieved from "https://fellrnr.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Recovery_from_Heat_Training&oldid=12686"