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).

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 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Norm Activation Model (NAM) are often employed to examine behavioral intention, but the perspective and attribute differences of these two models have been largely neglected. This study applies TPB and NAM to analyze and compare the intention of trail tourists to undertake environmentally responsible behavior (ERB), which may directly affect the sustainability of the trail system and the surrounding areas. A survey research approach was employed, and 452 responses were collected from tourists in three national forest trails in China. Beginners and experienced trail tourists were also categorized in the study for comparison purposes. Structural equation modeling was utilized in data analysis. The results demonstrate that the TPB model and the NAM model, which represent rationality and morality perspective respectively, are both suitable in explaining the intention of trail tourists to undertake ERB. Comparatively, the TPB model’s rationality perspective shows applicability in explaining both beginner and experienced trail tourists’ intention of undertaking ERB, whereas the NAM morality model only applies to experienced trail tourists. The study provides insights into better understanding and promotion recommendations of ERB in national forest trails.

The purpose of this study was to examine user's perceptions of service quality and future intention to use campus recreation fitness center in Universiti Putra Malaysia. Data were collected from 200 students and staff of the university (males = 140, females = 60) who frequently used the campus recreation fitness center. The questionnaire consisted of items based on the Likert-scale Service Quality Assessment Scale (SQAS) developed by Lam, Zhang and Jensen (2005). Behavioral intention is based on three questions modified from Cunningham and Kwon (2003). The results showed that recreation fitness center users are satisfied with the overall staff service quality (m=34.14) and fitness facility service quality (m=34.14), but moderately satisfied with overall facility service quality (m=30.77) and overall program service quality (m=24.44). The findings indicated UPM recreation fitness center users have a high intention (m=4.02) to recommend the recreation center to other people and to renew their membership. The result also shows overall staff service quality (ß = .288 p < .05) and overall facility service quality (ß = .251, p <. 05) contribute significantly towards predicting behavioral intention. This means recreation fitness center users in UPM will continue their membership in the future or suggest other people to become members if they perceived the recreation fitness center as being conveniently located as well as user friendly in terms of safety and parking.