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.

The COVID-19 lockdown challenged the training options of athletes worldwide, including players from the most popular sport globally, football/soccer. Purpose: The authors explored the training practices of football players worldwide during the COVID-19 lockdown. Methods: Football players (N = 2482, 30% professional, 22% semipro, and 48% amateur) completed an online survey (May–July 2020) on their training practices before versus during lockdown (March–June 2020). Questions were related to training frequency and session duration, as well as training knowledge and attitudes. Results: Before lockdown, more professional (87%) than semipro (67%) and amateur (65%) players trained ≥5 sessions/wk, but this proportion decreased during the lockdown to 55%, 35%, and 42%, respectively. Players (80%–87%) trained ≥60 minutes before lockdown, but this proportion decreased to 45% in professionals, 43% in amateurs, and 36% in semipros during lockdown. At home, more than two-thirds of players had training space (73%) and equipment (66%) for cardiorespiratory training, while availability of equipment for technical and strength training was <50% during lockdown. Interactions between coach/trainer and player were more frequent (ie, daily) among professional (27%) than amateur (11%) and semipro (17%) players. Training load monitoring, albeit limited, was mostly performed by fitness coaches, more so with professionals (35%) than amateurs (13%) and semipros (17%). The players’ training knowledge and attitudes/beliefs toward training were relatively modest (50%–59%). Conclusion: COVID-19 lockdown negatively affected training practices of football players worldwide, especially amateurs and semipros, for example, in training frequency, duration, intensity, technical, recovery, and other fitness training and coaching-related aspects. During lockdown-like situations, players should be monitored closely and provided appropriate support to facilitate their training.

No abstract

Background: The outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to an enforced quarantine period and limited training and match activities for athletes. Purpose: To report the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the occurrence of injury in Japanese male professional soccer players. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: In total, 21 clubs in the 2019 season and 28 clubs in the 2020 season from the Japan Professional Football League were prospectively followed, and 16 clubs in 2019 and 24 clubs in 2020 were analyzed in this study. Individual training, match exposure, and time-loss injuries were recorded using an electronic data capture system. The influence of COVID-19–related suspension during the 2020 season was retrospectively investigated via comparisons with the 2019 season. Results: Total activity time included 114,001 hours in training and 16,339 hours in matches in 2019 and 170,798 hours in training and 25,411 hours in matches in 2020. The mean training interruption period caused by COVID-19 in 2020 was 39.9 days (range, 3-65 days), and the mean game-interruption period was 70.1 days (range, 58-79 days). The total number of injuries was 1495 in 2019 and 1701 in 2020. The overall injury incidence per 1000 hours of exposure was 5.7 in 2019 and 5.8 in 2020. The overall injury burden per 1000 hours of exposure was 155.5 days in 2019 and 130.2 days in 2020. The muscle injury incidence was highest in May 2020, immediately after the suspension period. Conclusion: The overall injury incidence did not differ between 2019 and 2020. However, muscle injury incidence notably increased in the 2 months after the COVID-19 pandemic suspension period.