Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Efficacy of the FIFA cooling break heat policy during an intermittent treadmill football simulation in hot conditions in trained males
  1. Harry A Brown1,
  2. Samuel Chalmers2,
  3. Thomas H Topham1,
  4. Brad Clark1,
  5. Andrew Jowett3,4,
  6. Tim Meyer5,
  7. Ollie Jay6,
  8. Julien D Périard1
  1. 1 University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  2. 2 University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
  3. 3 Football Federation Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Olympic Park Sports Medicine Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine, Saarland University, Saarbrucken, Germany
  6. 6 Heat and Health Research Incubator, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Julien D Périard; Julien.Periard{at}canberra.edu.au

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) cooling break policy against alternative cooling configurations in attenuating thermal strain during simulated football in the heat.

Methods 12 males (age: 27±6 years, V̇O2peak: 61±7 mL/kg/min) completed five 90 min intermittent treadmill football match simulations in 40°C and 41% relative humidity (32°C wet-bulb globe temperature) with different cooling configurations: regular match without cooling breaks (REG), 3 min breaks without cooling (BRKno-cool), 3 min breaks with cooling (BRKcool: current FIFA policy; chilled fluid ingestion and ice towel across neck and shoulders), 5 min extended half-time without cooling breaks (ExtHTonly) and 3 min cooling breaks with 5 min ExtHT (ExtHTcool). Rectal temperature (Tre), heart rate, whole-body sweat rate (WBSR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded. Data are presented as mean (95% CIs).

Results Final Tre was lower in BRKno-cool (0.20°C (0.01, 0.39), p=0.038), BRKcool (0.39°C (0.21, 0.57), p<0.001) and ExtHTcool (0.40°C (0.22, 0.58), p<0.001) than REG (39.1°C (38.8, 39.3)). Mean Tre was lower in ExtHTcool (38.2°C (38.0, 38.4)) than BRKcool (38.3°C (38.1, 38.5), p=0.018), BRKno-cool and ExtHTonly (38.4°C (38.2, 38.6), p<0.001) and REG (38.5°C (38.3, 38.7), p<0.001). Mean heart rate was lower during BRKcool (6 beats/min (4, 7), p<0.001) and ExtHTcool (7 beats/min (6, 8), p<0.001) compared with REG. WBSR was comparable across trials (p0.07) and RPE was attenuated during BRKcool (0.4 (0.1, 0.7), p=0.004) and ExtHTcool (0.5 (0.2, 0.7), p=0.002), compared with REG.

Conclusion BRKcool and ExtHTcool attenuated thermal, cardiovascular and perceptual strain during a simulated football match in the heat. Additional strategies may be required in field settings or under harsher conditions.

  • Football
  • Sport
  • Sweating
  • Hot Temperature

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @_HarryBrown2, @ollie_jay13, @DrJPeriard

  • Contributors SC, TM, AJ, OJ and JDP were responsible for the conception of the work and the initial securement offunding. THT, BC and JDP designed the protocol. HAB and THT performed data collection. HAB performed data analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. HAB, THT, SC, BC, TM, AJ, OJ and JDP critically revised the manuscript and approved its final form. JDP is guarantor.

  • Funding This research was funded by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.