Abstract
Exercise or work in hot environments increases susceptibility to exertional heat illnesses such as exertional heat stroke (EHS). EHS occurs when body heat gain exceeds body heat dissipation, resulting in rapid body heat storage and potentially life-threatening consequences. EHS poses a dangerous threat for athletes, agriculture workers, and military personnel, as they are often exposed to hot environmental conditions that restrict body heat loss or contribute to body heat gain. Currently, there is limited guidance on return to activity (RTA) after an episode of EHS. While examining biomarkers in the blood is thought to be beneficial for determining RTA, they are not sensitive or specific enough to be a final determining factor as organ damage may persist despite blood biomarkers returning to baseline levels. As such, additional assessment tests to more accurately determine RTA are desired. One method used for determining RTA is the heat tolerance test (HTT, 120 minutes treadmill walking; 40°C, 40% relative humidity). Unfortunately, the HTT provides even less information about EHS recovery since it offers no test sensitivity or specificity even after years of implementation. We provide an overview of the HTT and the controversy of this test with respect to assessment criteria, applicability to tasks involving high metabolic workloads, and the lack of follow-up analyses to determine its accuracy for determining recovery in order to diminish the likelihood of a second EHS occurrence.