Search

Badminton is a racket sport, with fast and explosive movements and mental skills employed to anticipate the opponent's movements. The COVID-19 pandemic, led to social restriction in Brazil and sport event cancellations, subsequently, sports training was banned. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the impact of long-period detraining due to COVID-19 social restriction (8 months and 1-year) on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, nutritional behavior, and profile of mood states in badminton athletes and to verify if the athletes who returned to their regular training 4 months earlier than athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1-year would improve these variables.Twenty-three young badminton athletes were analyzed: retrained group (14 athletes who stopped their daily training routine for 8 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic plus 4 months of retraining), and detrained group (9 athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic but performed home-based training). We evaluated body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional behavior, and mood states profiles.Retrained athletes showed lower body fat (- 24.1% vs. + 20.8%,Young badminton athletes who returned to their regular daily training 4 months earlier than athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1-year due to COVID-19 social restriction decreased fat mass and increased fat-free mass. There were no significant differences between groups for cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional behavior, and profile of mood state response.

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise ad libitum energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE vs MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (p = 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval - CI: -0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (p = 0.08; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (p = 0.97; 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE; p = 0.28; 95% CI: -1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate ad libitum energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake.