COVID-19 Lockdown: A Global Study Investigating the Effect of Athletes' Sport Classification and Sex on Training Practices.

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.

Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents.

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).

Keeping environmental physiology education up and running during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a need for rapid adaptation of teaching strategies and learning environments. Thus novel approaches, predominantly based on online/virtual platforms are needed to minimize the negative effects of the pandemic on teaching (and learning). Herein we describe our recent web-based symposium series on environmental physiology and ergonomics initiative as an example of such a strategy. We outline the ideas behind this series and its implementation, which could serve as an example of a useful joint interactive virtual educational environment that could be applied to any physiology subspecialty. Based on the feedback received from all stakeholders involved in the process, we strongly believe that such an approach can provide an excellent platform for all educational levels from undergraduate students up to seasoned academics. Importantly, the unrestricted availability (free registration and publication of recordings and student handouts) is an important consideration for the democratization of science and the inclusion of financially less well-supported students and academics.

Altitude and COVID-19: Friend or foe? A narrative review.

Recent reports suggest that high-altitude residence may be beneficial in the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) implicating that traveling to high places or using hypoxic conditioning thus could be favorable as well. Physiological high-altitude characteristics and symptoms of altitude illnesses furthermore seem similar to several pathologies associated with COVID-19. As a consequence, high altitude and hypoxia research and related clinical practices are discussed for potential applications in COVID-19 prevention and treatment. We summarize the currently available evidence on the relationship between altitude/hypoxia conditions and COVID-19 epidemiology and pathophysiology. The potential for treatment strategies used for altitude illnesses is evaluated. Symptomatic overlaps in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 induced ARDS and high altitude illnesses (i.e., hypoxemia, dyspnea…) have been reported but are also common to other pathologies (i.e., heart failure, pulmonary embolism, COPD…). Most treatments of altitude illnesses have limited value and may even be detrimental in COVID-19. Some may be efficient, potentially the corticosteroid dexamethasone. Physiological adaptations to altitude/hypoxia can exert diverse effects, depending on the constitution of the target individual and the hypoxic dose. In healthy individuals, they may optimize oxygen supply and increase mitochondrial, antioxidant, and immune system function. It is highly debated if these physiological responses to hypoxia overlap in many instances with SARS-CoV-2 infection and may exert preventive effects under very specific conditions. The temporal overlap of SARS-CoV-2 infection and exposure to altitude/hypoxia may be detrimental. No evidence-based knowledge is presently available on whether and how altitude/hypoxia may prevent, treat or aggravate COVID-19. The reported lower incidence and mortality of COVID-19 in high-altitude places remain to be confirmed. High-altitude illnesses and COVID-19 pathologies exhibit clear pathophysiological differences. While potentially effective as a prophylactic measure, altitude/hypoxia is likely associated with elevated risks for patients with COVID-19. Altogether, the different points discussed in this review are of possibly some relevance for individuals who aim to reach high-altitude areas. However, due to the ever-changing state of understanding of COVID-19, all points discussed in this review may be out of date at the time of its publication.