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).

The aim of this study was two-fold: (i) to describe the training/match ratios of different external load measures during a full professional soccer season while analyzing the variations between different types of weeks (three, four and five training sessions/week) and (ii) to investigate the relationship between weekly accumulated training loads and the match demands of the same week. Twenty-seven professional soccer players (24.9 ± 3.5 years old) were monitored daily using a 10-Hz global positioning system with a 100-Hz accelerometer. Total distance (TD), running distance (RD), high-speed running (HSR), sprinting distance (SD), player load (PL), number of high accelerations (ACC), and number of high decelerations (DEC) were recorded during training sessions and matches. An individual training/match ratio (TMr) was calculated for each external load measure. Weeks with five training sessions (5dW) presented meaningfully greater TMr than weeks with four (4dW) or three (3dW) training sessions. Additionally, TDratio (TDr) was significantly greater in 5dW than in 3dW (mean differences dif: 1.23 arbitray units A.U.) and 4dW (dif: 0.80 A.U.); HSRr was significantly greater in 5dW than in 3dW (dif: 0.90 A.U.) and 4dW (dif: 0.68 A.U.); and SDr was significantly greater in 5dW than in 3dW (dif: 0.77 A.U.) and 4dW (dif: 0.90 A.U.). Correlations between the weekly training loads and the match demands of the same week were small for PL (r = 0.250 [0.13;0.36]), ACC (r = 0.292 [0.17;0.40]) and DEC (r = 0.236 [0.11;0.35]). This study reveals that ratios of above 1 were observed for specific measures (e.g., HSR, SD). It was also observed that training sessions are not adjusted according to weekly variations in match demands.

This study compared the relative physical demands of official matches and sided games (medium and large) in professional soccer players by means of a global positioning system. Twenty-three professional male soccer players (24.63[Formula: see text]2.84 years old; 180.94[Formula: see text]6.49 cm; 77.19[Formula: see text]6.46 kg; 52.99[Formula: see text]5.01 VO) participated in the study. Total distance, running distance, sprinting distance, number of sprints, and acceleration sum were quantified per minute to compare the different games. Running distance in full match was greater than in 5vs5+GK (d = 2.303, moderate effect), 6vs6+GK (d = 1.719, moderate effect) and 9vs9+GK (d = 1.084, minimum effect) sided games. Greater values for sprinting distance were found in the full match compared to 5vs5+GK (d = 3.673, strong effect), 6vs6+GK (d = 2.606, moderate effect) and 9vs9+GK (d = 1.903, moderate effect) sided games. However, the load was greater in the 5vs5+GK game compared to the 6vs6+GK (d = 1.323, moderate effect) and 9vs9+GK (d = 1.030, minimum effect) games and the full match (d = 1.478, moderate effect). This study revealed that medium-sided games are not appropriate for simulating the sprinting conditions of official full matches. However, medium-sided games are more intense than full matches in that accelerations are made more often in medium-sided games.

The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between performance of the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (Yo-YoIR1) and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and to compare the sensitivity of both tests to training. Fourteen young soccer players performed both tests before and after an 8-wk training intervention, which included 6 sessions/wk: 2 resistance training sessions, 2 high-intensity interval training sessions after technical training (4 sets of 3:30 min of generic running and small-sided games [4v4] during the first and second 4-wk periods, respectively [90-95% maximal HR], interspersed with 3 min at 60-70% maximal HR), and 2 tactical-only training sessions. There was a large correlation between 30-15IFT and Yo-YoIR1 (r = .75, 90% confidence limits [CL] 0.57;0.86). While within-test percentage changes suggested a greater sensitivity to training for the Yo-YoIR1 (+35%, 90%CL 24;45) than for the 30-15IFT (+7%; 4;10), these changes were similarly rated as almost certain (with chances for greater/similar/lower values after training of 100/0/0 for both tests) and moderate, ie, standardized difference, ES = +1.2 90%CL (0.9;1.5) for Yo-YoIR1 and ES = +1.1 (0.7;1.5) for 30-15IFT. The difference in the change between the 2 tests was clearly trivial (0/100/0, ES = -0.1, 90%CL -0.1;-0.1). Both tests might evaluate slightly different physical capacities, but their sensitivity to training is almost certainly similar. These results also highlight the importance of using standardized differences instead of percentage changes in performance to assess the actual training effect of an intervention.

Middle-aged individuals may not respond in a similar manner as younger individuals. The study's objective was to examine the effect of static (SS) and dynamic stretching (DS) in young and middle-aged men on subsequent performance. Ten young (22 ± 1.4 years) and 8 middle-aged men (46.3 ± 6.5 years) participated in 3 conditions consisting of SS (4 × 30 s for right and left quadriceps, hamstrings, and plantar flexors), DS (8 × 30 s of bilateral butt kicks, walking lunges, and plantar flexors) and control. Dependent variables included sit and reach, hip extension flexibility, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, drop jump (DJ) height, static balance, reaction (RT) and movement time (MT). Measurements were taken pre-intervention, post- and 10 min post-intervention. A 3-way repeated measurement ANOVA revealed that the younger men had higher jump heights, faster RT and MT, and greater flexibility than the middle-aged men. DS significantly enhanced DJ (p = 0.04) and CMJ (p = 0.006) height compared with SS and control conditions. SS (p < 0.0001) and DS (p = 0.004) post-intervention sit and reach scores were significantly greater than pre-intervention scores. There were no significant differences between the SS and DS sit and reach scores. CMJ heights were impaired (p = 0.04) by SS. Conversely, DS post-intervention jump heights were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than SS post-, control post-, and control 10 min post-intervention. SS-induced impairments and DS-induced enhancements of CMJ height were not affected by age. DS provided similar improvements in sit and reach scores as SS. DS is recommended as the most appropriate stretching routine prior to work or athletic performance for younger and middle-aged men.