Training and recovery practices to maintain performance across a competition: Elite coach and practitioner perspectives

To investigate current practices and perspectives of elite coaches and practitioners on training and recovery practices to maintain performance across competitions requiring multiple performances within or on consecutive days, thirty-six participants (12 coaches, 24 practitioners) supporting Olympic or World Championship-standard athletes completed a mixed-methods online survey. Questions addressed training and recovery practice use, perceived efficacy, barriers to implementation, and future research needs. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, while open-ended responses were analysed using inductive content analysis. Respondents worked across 18 sports with cycling (all disciplines, n = 11), athletics (all disciplines, n = 8) and swimming (all distances, n = 5) most represented. All respondents (100%) employed event-specific training and periodised programmes, perceived as highly effective in maintaining performance across a competition (≥95%). Match simulations (94%), strength/resistance training (94%), and high-intensity interval training (92%) were also widely implemented and perceived effective (≥92%). During within-day competition, nutrition and fluid intake were universally implemented (100%) and perceived highly effective (97%), whereas contrast bathing (27%), muscle stimulation (7%), and heat application (7%) showed minimal use and low perceived benefit (≤20%). For consecutive-day competition, nutrition and fluid intake remained universal (100%), with high perceived effectiveness (100%), while sleep-related practices were used by 77% and rated 90% effective. Barriers to implementation included logistical constraints, limited resources, and uncertainty of scientific evidence. Elite coaches and practitioners adopt a range of established training and recovery practices to maintain competition performance, yet their application appears shaped by logistical constraints and athlete belief rather than empirical validation.