Can I train with a cold, and when can I go hard again?
IOC experts: once nose and throat are nearly clear and there is no fever, aches, chest symptom or breathlessness, test 10-20 min at 60-70%; build after clean sessions. Opinion.
The IOC appointed an international group to review acute respiratory illness in athletes; this first part covers acute respiratory infections (colds, flu-like illness and lower respiratory infections), which make up most of it.
The group defines and classifies infections (suspected or confirmed; predominantly upper or lower), summarises epidemiology from commissioned reviews (about 4.9 infections per 1000 athlete days, roughly 1.8 a year per athlete), proposes a symptom-based severity scale (mild, moderate, severe) and sets out management, prevention and return to sport.
Return to sport is treated as a continuum from return to participation (the first session back) to full return at the pre-illness level, decided in four steps adapted from a risk framework used for injuries (StARRT): severity from symptoms; health risk from history, examination and, when indicated, tests; activity risk, first through an exercise challenge test and then by checking after every session; and risk tolerance.
For an asymptomatic or mild infection the athlete or coach runs this alone: a daily symptom checklist at rest, a challenge test at moderate intensity (60-70% of normal exercise intensity, response judged after 10-20 min, symptoms checked again immediately after and 24 h later), and the same checklist after each session before frequency, intensity or duration go up.
Moderate and severe infections go through a doctor, with a supervised laboratory test for severe ones; a severe infection means bed rest until regional and systemic symptoms have resolved. The authors call the challenge test before moderate-to-high-intensity training and the ongoing self-monitoring their two new contributions.
They say plainly that little research supports return-to-sport decisions, that the "neck check" was expert opinion, and that their severity indicators are not validated. Our reading: the most authoritative source on the subject, and an opinion; it contains no stage count, no heart-rate ceilings and no fixed days per stage.
Protocol
Key Results
The four-step return to sport (section 9.3, Tables 6-8; expert consensus)
| Step | Asymptomatic or mild infection | Moderate infection | Severe infection |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Severity from symptoms (Table 4) | Mild: predominantly upper symptoms (blocked or runny nose, sneezing, altered or lost smell or taste, sinus pressure, sore throat, hoarseness), symptom score 0-3 of 10, under 3 days, fewer than 5 symptoms, no systemic signs | Lower respiratory symptoms (cough, difficult or fast breathing, chest pain with breathing or coughing) or regional symptoms (headache, red or watery eyes) without systemic ones; score above 3 to 7; 3-7 days; 5-9 symptoms; few, mild, transient (under 48 h) systemic signs | Systemic symptoms (fever, chills, excessive fatigue, general aches, rash) or signs of other organs (chest pain or tightness, dizziness, palpitations, breathlessness; severe abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea); score above 7; over 7 days or relapsing; more than 10 symptoms |
| 2. Health risk | Athlete or coach completes checklist 1 daily (symptoms at rest, chronic disease risk factors) | Under a doctor; full assessment "can be considered"; CRP and blood count can be considered | Full clinical assessment strongly recommended; wider tests by suspected organ |
| 3. Activity risk | Self- or coach-run field test: 60-70% of normal intensity, judge after 10-20 min; stop and see a doctor on warning symptoms; recheck immediately after and at 24 h; checklist 3 after every session | Self-run or supervised laboratory test, the doctor's choice | Supervised laboratory test (e.g. modified Bruce protocol), exercise ECG recommended |
| 4. Risk tolerance | Final clearance once health and activity risk sit below an acceptable threshold; modifiers include pressure on the athlete, travel, competition timing, masking of symptoms and conflicts of interest | same | same |
Mechanisms
Practical Application
Limitations
How this entry was checked and changed
the rubric's "major consensus / position statement" line (A), graded one step down, as for REF-1071 and REF-776, because its recommendations describe themselves as expert opinion. Not its A+ line ("governing-body consensus built on systematic review"): commissioned systematic reviews supply the incidence and time-loss figures (REF-1234), but the return-to-sport steps, the severity classification and the exercise challenge test are, in the authors' own words, built where "there is little research available", with severity indicators suggested "by expert opinion" and not validated. Read from the full text of the accepted manuscript (University of Pretoria repository), not the typeset version; Figure 2 (the decision flow chart, an image) and the online supplementary tables were not read