Search

BACKGROUND: Athletes can face scenarios in which they are confined to bed rest (e.g., due to injury or illness). Existing research in otherwise healthy individuals indicates that those entering bed rest with the greatest physical performance level might experience the greatest performance decrements, which indirectly suggests that athletes might be more susceptible to the detrimental consequences of bed rest than general populations. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the effects of bed rest might help guide the medical care of athletes during and following bed rest. OBJECTIVE: This systematic and narrative review aimed to (1) establish the evidence for the effects of bed rest on physical performance in athletes; (2) discuss potential countermeasures to offset these negative consequences; and (3) identify the time-course of recovery following bed rest to guide return-to-sport rehabilitation. METHODS: This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched (SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE/PubMed) in October of 2022, and studies were included if they were peer-reviewed investigations, written in English, and investigated the effects of horizontal bed rest on changes in physical capacities and qualities in athletes (defined as Tier 3-5 participants). The reporting quality of the research was assessed using a modified version of the Downs & Black checklist. Furthermore, findings from studies that involved participants in Tiers 1-2 were presented and synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Our systematic review of the literature using a rigorous criterion of 'athletes' revealed zero scientific publications. Nevertheless, as a by-product of our search, seven studies were identified that involved apparently healthy individuals who performed specific exercise training prior to bed rest. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence from studies in

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 clas

Ramadan intermittent fasting during the COVID-19 lockdown (RIFL) may present unique demands. We investigated training practices (i.e., training load and training times) of athletes, using pre-defined survey criteria/questions, during the 'first' COVID-19 lockdown, comparing RIFL to lockdown-alone (LD) in Muslim athletes. Specifically, a within-subject, survey-based study saw athletes (n = 5,529; from 110 countries/territories) training practices (comparing RIFL to LD) explored by comparative variables of: sex; age; continent; athlete classification (e.g., world-class); sport classification (e.g., endurance); athlete status (e.g., professional); and level of training knowledge and beliefs/attitudes (ranked as: good/moderate/poor). During RIFL (compared to LD), athlete perceptions (ranges presented given variety of comparative variables) of their training load decreased (46-62%), were maintained (31-48%) or increased (2-13%). Decreases (≥ 5%, p < 0.05) affected more athletes aged 30-39 years than those 18-29 years (60 vs 55%); more national than international athletes (59 vs 51%); more team sports than precision sports (59 vs 46%); more North American than European athletes (62 vs 53%); more semi-professional than professional athletes (60 vs 54%); more athletes who rated their beliefs/attitudes 'good' compared to 'poor' and 'moderate' (61 vs 54 and 53%, respectively); and more athletes with 'moderate' than 'poor' knowledge (58 vs 53%). During RIFL, athletes had different strategies for training times, with 13-29% training twice a day (i.e., afternoon and night), 12-26% at night only, and 18-36% in the afternoon only, with ranges depending on the comparative variables. Training loads and activities were altered negatively during RIFL compared to LD. It would be prudent for decision-makers responsible for RIFL athletes to develop programs to support athletes during such challenges.

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 remot

Objective: To investigate the effect of 1) lockdown duration and 2) training intensity on sleep quality and insomnia symptoms in elite athletes. Methods: 1,454 elite athletes (24.1 ± 6.7 years; 42% female; 41% individual sports) from 40 countries answered a retrospective, cross-sectional, web-based questionnaire relating to their behavioral habits pre- and during- COVID-19 lockdown, including: 1) Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI); 2) Insomnia severity index (ISI); bespoke questions about 3) napping; and 4) training behaviors. The association between dependent (PSQI and ISI) and independent variables (sleep, napping and training behaviors) was determined with multiple regression and is reported as semi-partial correlation coefficient squared (in percentage). Results: 15% of the sample spent < 1 month, 27% spent 1-2 months and 58% spent > 2 months in lockdown. 29% self-reported maintaining the same training intensity during-lockdown whilst 71% reduced training intensity. PSQI (4.1 ± 2.4 to 5.8 ± 3.1; mean difference (MD): 1.7; 95% confidence interval of the difference (95% CI): 1.6-1.9) and ISI (5.1 ± 4.7 to 7.7 ± 6.4; MD: 2.6; 95% CI: 2.3-2.9) scores were higher during-compared to pre-lockdown, associated (all p < 0.001) with longer sleep onset latency (PSQI: 28%; ISI: 23%), later bedtime (PSQI: 13%; ISI: 14%) and later preferred time of day to train (PSQI: 9%; ISI: 5%) during-lockdown. Those who reduced training intensity during-lockdown showed higher PSQI (p < 0.001; MD: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.87-1.63) and ISI (p < 0.001; MD: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.72-3.27) scores compared to those who maintained training intensity. Although PSQI score was not affected by the lockdown duration, ISI score was higher in athletes who spent > 2 months confined compared to those who spent < 1 month (p < 0.001; MD: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.26-2.3). Conclusion: Reducing training intensity during the COVID-19-induced lockdown was associated with lower sleep quality and higher insomnia severity in elite athlet

OBJECTIVE: In a convenience sample of athletes, we conducted a survey of COVID-19-mediated lockdown (termed 'lockdown' from this point forward) effects on: (i) circadian rhythms; (ii) sleep; (iii) eating; and (iv) training behaviors. METHODS: In total, 3911 athletes [mean age: 25.1 (range 18-61) years, 1764 female (45%), 2427 team-sport (63%) and 1442 elite (37%) athletes] from 49 countries completed a multilingual cross-sectional survey including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Insomnia Severity Index questionnaires, alongside bespoke questions about napping, training, and nutrition behaviors. RESULTS: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (4.3 ± 2.4 to 5.8 ± 3.1) and Insomnia Severity Index (4.8 ± 4.7 to 7.2 ± 6.4) scores increased from pre- to during lockdown (p < 0.001). Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was predominantly influenced by sleep-onset latency (p < 0.001; + 29.8%), sleep efficiency (p < 0.001; - 21.1%), and total sleep time (p < 0.001; - 20.1%), whilst Insomnia Severity Index was affected by sleep-onset latency (p < 0.001; + 21.4%), bedtime (p < 0.001; + 9.4%), and eating after midnight (p < 0.001; + 9.1%). During lockdown, athletes reported fewer training sessions per week (- 29.1%; d = 0.99). Athletes went to bed (+ 75 min; 5.4%; d = 1.14) and woke up (+ 150 min; 34.5%; d = 1.71) later during lockdown with an increased total sleep time (+ 48 min; 10.6%; d = 0.83). Lockdown-mediated circadian disruption had more deleterious effects on the sleep quality of individual-sport athletes compared with team-sport athletes (p < 0.001; d = 0.41), elite compared with non-elite athletes (p = 0.028; d = 0.44) and older compared with younger (p = 0.008; d = 0.46) athletes. CONCLUSIONS: These lockdown-induced behavioral changes reduced sleep quality and increased insomnia in athletes. Data-driven and evidence-based recommendations to counter these include, but are not limited to: (i) early outdoor training; (ii) regular meal scheduling (whilst avoiding meals prior to

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 clas

© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. Physiological and psychological demands during training and competition generate fatigue and reduce an athlete’s sport-specific performance capacity. The magnitude of this decrement depends on several characteristics of the exercise stimulus (eg, type, duration, and intensity), as well as on individual characteristics (eg, fitness, profile, and fatigue resistance). As such, the time required to fully recover is proportional to the level of fatigue, and the consequences of exercise-induced fatigue are manifold. Whatever the purpose of the ensuing exercise session (ie, training or competition), it is crucial to understand the importance of optimizing the period between exercise bouts in order to speed up the regenerative processes and facilitate recovery or set the next stimulus at the optimal time point. This implies having a fairly precise understanding of the fatigue mechanisms that contribute to the performance decrement. Failing to respect an athlete’s recovery needs may lead to an excessive accumulation of fatigue and potentially "nonfunctional overreaching" or to maladaptive training. Although research in this area recently increased, considerations regarding the specific time frames for different physiological mechanisms in relation to exercise-induced fatigue are still missing. Furthermore, recommendations on the timing and dosing of recovery based on these time frames are limited. Therefore, the aim of this article is to describe time courses of recovery in relation to the exercise type and on different physiological levels. This summary supports coaches, athletes, and scientists in their decision-making process by considering the relationship of exercise type, physiology, and recovery.

© 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. The relationship between recovery and fatigue and its impact on performance has attracted the interest of sport science for many years. An adequate balance between stress (training and competition load, other life demands) and recovery is essential for athletes to achieve continuous high-level performance. Research has focused on the examination of physiological and psychological recovery strategies to compensate external and internal training and competition loads. A systematic monitoring of recovery and the subsequent implementation of recovery routines aims at maximizing performance and preventing negative developments such as underrecovery, nonfunctional overreaching, the overtraining syndrome, injuries, or illnesses. Due to the inter- and intraindividual variability of responses to training, competition, and recovery strategies, a diverse set of expertise is required to address the multifaceted phenomena of recovery, performance, and their interactions to transfer knowledge from sport science to sport practice. For this purpose, a symposium on Recovery and Performance was organized at the Technical University Munich Science and Study Center Raitenhaslach (Germany) in September 2016. Various international experts from many disciplines and research areas gathered to discuss and share their knowledge of recovery for performance enhancement in a variety of settings. The results of this meeting are outlined in this consensus statement that provides central definitions, theoretical frameworks, and practical implications as a synopsis of the current knowledge of recovery and performance. While our understanding of the complex relationship between recovery and performance has significantly increased through research, some important issues for future investigations are also elaborated.