Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Body Composition and Physical Performance of Elite Female Football Players

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unusual situation in sports. Players were forced to stay at home for an undefined period of time and not allowed to use any training facilities or even exercise outdoors. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on physical performance and body composition in elite female football players. During the confinement period, 19 players (n = 19, M = 27 years; SD = 4.19) volunteered to participate in the present study. Participants were confined during 5 months and performed six remotely guided sessions a week, designed and structured by a certified fitness coach. Pre- and postconfinement period, players were tested for body composition, strength in the squat exercise, vertical jump, 30-m sprint, kicking velocity, and intermittent endurance capacity (Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Level 1). Fat mass and muscle mass remained unaffected after the confinement period, while only body mass showed a significant increase between periods (1.19%; p = .014). In addition, physical performance measures postconfinement showed positive changes in kicking (p < .001; effect size = 1.02), in contrast to a reduction in mean propulsive velocity against 40-kg load and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Level 1 total distance covered (p: .041 and .010, respectively). Present findings indicate that the implementation of home-based training programs during confinement periods could be sufficient stimulus to maintain body composition and physical performance (i.e., strength, vertical jump, and sprint), although they might not be sufficient to maintain intermittent endurance capacity in elite female football players.

COVID-19 and Changes in the Model of Physical Fitness and Body Composition of Young Tennis Players

“…Spyrou et al [17] found no difference in body composition in elite futsal players when assessed twice across a three-month period using skinfold measurements. Body fat and muscle mass also remained unchanged in a group of female soccer players between August 2020 and February 2022 [31]. In our study, we also found no changes in body fat mass and muscle mass in female tennis players.…”

Short-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and return to sport on neuromuscular performance, body composition, and mental health — A case series of well-trained young kayakers

“…Moreover, recent studies have shown that the body composition was not changed in athletes during the COVID-19 detraining period due to maintaining an adequate training stimulus and having well-available training facilities. 20 , 21 , 44 Our results showed that RTS days and T hours were positively correlated ( r = 0.62 to 0.64) with BM, while RTT days were positively correlated ( r = 0.57) with BF after infection ( Table 4 ). These results suggest that athletes performing a general training routine quickly could mitigate the detraining effect on body composition after infection.…”

“…2 ), in certain higher performance athletes the higher loading variations (i.e., >65% 1RM) might be needed to alleviate the negative effects of detraining. 44 , 45 It could be speculated that significant performance decreases (large ESs) may occur if these athletes continue to perform loads that can not provide adequate training stimulus for longer periods. 9 , 45 Moreover, the plyometric and sprinting training was completely lacking during the RTS period, this might lead to possible changes in fiber-type morphology resulting in potential declines in neuromuscular performance.…”

Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on the Body Composition and Physical Performance of Athletes: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

“…The 29 studies selected for systematic review [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ] and the quality of all of the studies analyzed are presented in Table 1 . The details of these studies are presented in Table 2 .…”

“…In summary, the motivation of exclusion was as follows: the number of subjects per group was not clear [ 24 ]; the data of O2peak was reported in other measurement units (meters) [ 31 ]; and no access to data in mean and standard deviation (even after email request) [ 43 , 45 , 46 ]. A total of 24 studies [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 47 ] and 447 athletes were included in this meta-analysis. This study resulted in six forest plots.…”