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).

BackgroundWithin the structure of the skeletal muscle, there are fascicles of muscular fibers that are made up of serially distributed contractile elements. These elements are controlled by the nervous system, control which results in obtaining the muscular strength required for movement and its control. This study presents the neuromuscular assessment using tensiomyography method (TMG).MethodsWe studied two groups of soccer junior players, group 1 (experimental group) and group 2 (control group), each containing 15 soccer players; we have considered two situations of muscle training: the combination between the isometric-concentric contraction for group 1 and the concentric contraction for group 2. TMG is the electrical stimulation of the muscle group and the recording of the muscle parameters resulting after the isometric contraction: time contraction (Tc) and displacement (Dm) at rectus femoris muscle (RF), pointing out two moments T1 and T2.ResultsTc decreasing and the Dm increasing involve a good response following the muscle training. For group 1, the Tc evolution is 22.54 ms/22.45 ms (T1/T2) for the right RF and 22.65 ms/22.26 ms for the left RF, while for group 2 results in a Tc evolution of 24.33 ms/28.57 ms (T1/T2) for the right RF and 25.74 ms/28.61 ms for the left RF. Dm for group 1, results in a 6.57 mm/6.85 mm (T1/T2) for the right RF and 6.92 mm/7.06 mm for the left RF, while for group 2, the Dm evolution shows 7.45 mm/5.83 mm (T1/T) for the right RF and 7.41 mm/6.26 mm for the left RF. Also, the evaluation on motor test indicated better results on T2 for the experimental group. Summarizing the results of Student t-test, we found significant differences between the averages of the two groups in all parameters (p < 0.001), the experimental group registering better results than the control one.ConclusionsIt is possible to develop muscle training which can be monitored through TMG.

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.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze athletes’ quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study involved 249 athletes between 15 and 35 of age, M = 21.22, SD = 5.12. The sample was composed of eight Olympic Games medalists, three European medalists, 67 international medalists, and 63 national medalists. The instruments used were: (1) COVID-19 Anxiety Scale, (2) Athlete Quality of Life Scale, (3) Impact of Pandemic on Athletes Questionnaire, and (4) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP Anxiety, Depression, and Vulnerability Scales). The results indicate significant differences in COVID-19 anxiety depending on the sport practiced, F (9239) = 3.81, p < 0.01, showing that there were significant differences between sports. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic mediates the relationship between trait anxiety and the athletes’ quality of life. The percentage of mediation was 33.9%, and the indirect effect was −0.11, CI 95% (−0.18, −0.03), Z = −2.82, p < 0.01. Trait anxiety has an increasing effect on the intensity of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, 0.23, CI 95% (.10, 0.35), Z = 3.56, p < 0.01, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has a decreasing effect on quality of life, −0.47, CI 95% (−0.67, −0.27), Z = −4.62, p < 0.01. Gender and age did not moderate the relationship between the negative impact of COVID-19 and athletes’ quality of life. The results of the study highlighted the impact that social isolation and quarantine have on athletes’ affective well-being.