Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).

Purpose: To investigate differences in athletes’ knowledge, beliefs, and training practices during COVID-19 lockdowns with reference to sport classification and sex. This work extends an initial descriptive evaluation focusing on athlete classification. Methods: Athletes (12,526; 66% male; 142 countries) completed an online survey (May–July 2020) assessing knowledge, beliefs, and practices toward training. Sports were classified as team sports (45%), endurance (20%), power/technical (10%), combat (9%), aquatic (6%), recreational (4%), racquet (3%), precision (2%), parasports (1%), and others (1%). Further analysis by sex was performed. Results: During lockdown, athletes practiced body-weight-based exercises routinely (67% females and 64% males), ranging from 50% (precision) to 78% (parasports). More sport-specific technical skills were performed in combat, parasports, and precision (∼50%) than other sports (∼35%). Most athletes (range: 50% [parasports] to 75% [endurance]) performed cardiorespiratory training (trivial sex differences). Compared to prelockdown, perceived training intensity was reduced by 29% to 41%, depending on sport (largest decline: ∼38% in team sports, unaffected by sex). Some athletes (range: 7%–49%) maintained their training intensity for strength, endurance, speed, plyometric, change-of-direction, and technical training. Athletes who previously trained ≥5 sessions per week reduced their volume (range: 18%–28%) during lockdown. The proportion of athletes (81%) training ≥60 min/session reduced by 31% to 43% during lockdown. Males and females had comparable moderate levels of training knowledge (56% vs 58%) and beliefs/attitudes (54% vs 56%). Conclusions: Changes in athletes’ training practices were sport-specific, with few or no sex differences. Team-based sports were generally more susceptible to changes than individual sports. Policy makers should provide athletes with specific training arrangements and educational resources to facilitate remote and/or home-based training during lockdown-type events.

The aim of the study was to investigate the accuracy of the 20 m shuttle run test (20mSRT) for the prescription of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and to examine the appropriate intensity, prescribed by the 20mSRT end-test speed, for the execution of HIIT. Twenty physical education students (age: 22.4 ± 0.8 years, body height: 175.7 ± 8.9 cm, body weight: 73.8 ± 13.4 kg) participated in the study. On two separate occasions the participants were first tested with a maximal incremental exercise test and the 20mSRT. On another two occasions they were required to perform a 10-minute HIIT session comprised of 15-s runs interspersed with 15-s passive recovery. The intensities of the HIIT sessions were either 100% (T100%) or 110% (T110%) of the end-test speed reached in the 20mSRT. Mean oxygen uptake (VO2) (84.4 ± 5.5% vs 77.8 ± 6.9% of VO2max), mean heart rate (HR) (93 ± 2.8% vs 87.6 ± 4.6% of HRmax), blood lactate concentration (12.6 ± 2.1 vs 5.4 ± 2.6 mmol/l), and ratings of perceived exertion (9.5 ± 0.5 vs 6.7 ± 1) were all significantly (p&lt;.01) higher during T110% vs T100%. The percentage of the total exercise time spent ≥ 90% VO2max (37.6 ± 25.3 vs 18.6 ± 18.0%, p&lt;.05) and ≥ 90% HRmax (73.9 ± 17.7% vs 37.5 ± 33.3, p&lt;.001) were also significantly higher during T110%. The mean VO2 and HR coefficient of variation during T110% were 6.5 and 3%, respectively. The cardiorespiratory, metabolic, and perceptual responses to T110% were reflective of the responses typical for HIIT, while T100% induced insufficient physiological stress to enable optimal cardiorespiratory adaptation. Therefore, the intensity of 110% 20mSRT is preferable for inducing the appropriate acute physiological responses and the 20mSRT can be used to accurately prescribe HIIT.

The aim of this study was to provide a retrospective overview of injuries during one basketball season and to analyse injury rates and potential risks among professional male and female basketball players in the First Croatian National league. A hundred and forty-two (89 males and 53 females) of 223 basketball players (64%) sustained an injury during the previous season. Body height, total game exposure and total on-court time per game (p&lt;.05) were the identified risk factors for females, while the number of training hours per week was found to be a risk factor for males (p&lt;.05). The highest proportion of injured players was found among centers for men (74%) and forwards (70%) for women. Forty-three percent of injuries were moderately serious, 31% were minor, and 20% serious injuries. Majority (80%) of all injuries were to the lower extremities and men sustained fewer lower extremity injuries compared to women (IRR=0.88 95% CI=0.6 to 1.3). Ankles were the most prevalent injury site for both men and women followed by the knee. Men sustained significantly fewer knee injuries compared to female athletes (IRR=0.44 95% CI=0.17 to 1.11). The most common injury type was ligament injuries (31%), followed by muscle tears/strains (20%). Game incidence injury rate for males was significantly lower than for females (IRR=0.55, p=0.01 [95% CI=0.34-0.89]). Those athletes who, on average, played more than 20 minutes in games were almost twice more exposed to an injury (OR=2.09, 95%CI=1.17,3.72). This is the first descriptive epidemiological study estimating rates and risks of injuries among the Croatian professional basketball players.

No abstract