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).

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 bedtime and caffeine in the evening) with appropriate composition; (iii) regular bedtimes and wake-up times; and (iv) avoidance of long and/or late naps. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40279-021-01601-y.

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.

ObjectiveInsufficient sleep duration and quality has negative effects on athletic performance, injury susceptibility and athlete development. This study aimed to assess the sleep characteristics of professional Qatar Stars League (QSL) soccer players.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, QSL players (n=111; 23.7±4.8 years) completed three questionnaires to screen sleep disorders: (1) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), (2) Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and (3) Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Poor sleep quality was defined as PSQI≥5, excessive daytime sleepiness was defined by ESS>8 and insomnia was defined as ISI≥11.ResultsThe prevalence of poor sleep quality (PSQI≥5) was 68.5%, with subthreshold insomnia (ISI≥11) 27.0% and daytime sleepiness 22.5% (ESS>8). Sleep quality was positively associated with insomnia (r=0.42, p<0.001) and daytime sleepiness (r=0.23, p=0.018). Age, anthropometry, body composition and ethnicity were not associated with any of the reported sleep quality parameters.ConclusionThe prevalence of poor sleep quality (68.5%) reported should concern practitioners. Increasing awareness of the importance of sleep relative to athletic performance, recovery, injury and illness appears prudent. Further, regular qualitative/quantitative sleep monitoring may help target subsequent evidence-informed interventions to improve sleep in those demonstrating undesirable sleep traits.

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 &lt; 1 month, 27% spent 1–2 months and 58% spent &gt; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001; MD: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.87–1.63) and ISI (p &lt; 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 &gt; 2 months confined compared to those who spent &lt; 1 month (p &lt; 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 athletes. Lockdown duration had further disrupting effects on elite athletes’ sleep behavior. These findings could be of relevance in future lockdown or lockdown-like situations (e.g., prolonged illness, injury, and quarantine after international travel).