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

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Training During the COVID-19 Lockdown : Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents © The Author(s) 2021 Published version Washif, Jad Adrian; Farooq, Abdulaziz; Krug, Isabel; Pyne, David B.; Verhagen, Evert; Taylor, Lee; Wong, Del P.; Mujika, Iñigo; Cortis, Cristina; Haddad, Monoem; Ahmadian, Omid; Al Jufaili, Mahmood; Al-Horani, Ramzi A.; Al-Mohannadi, Abdulla Saeed; Aloui, Asma; Ammar, Achraf; Arifi, Fitim; Aziz, Abdul Rashid; Batuev, Mikhail; Beaven, Christopher Martyn; Beneke, Ralph; Bici, Arben; Bishnoi, Pallawi; Bogwasi, Lone; Bok, Daniel; Boukhris, Omar; Boullosa, Daniel; Bragazzi, Nicola; Brito, Joao; Palacios Cartagena, Roxana Paola; Chaouachi, Anis; Cheung, Stephen S.; Chtourou, Hamdi; Cosma, Germina; Debevec, Tadej; DeLang, Matthew D.; Dellal, Alexandre; Dönmez, Gürhan; Driss, Tarak; Peña Duque, Juan David; Eirale, Cristiano; Elloumi, Mohamed; Foster, Carl; Franchini, Emerson; Fusco, Andrea; Galy, Olivier; Gastin, Paul B.; Gill, Nicholas; Girard, Olivier; Gregov, Cvita; Halson, Shona; Hammouda, Omar; Hanzlíková, Ivana; Hassanmirzaei, Bahar; Haugen, Thomas; Hébert-Losier, Kim; Muñoz, Helú Hussein; HerreraValenzuela, Tomás; Hettinga, Florentina J.; Holtzhausen, Louis; Hue, Olivier; Dello Iacono, Antonio; Ihalainen, Johanna K.; James, Carl; Janse van Rensburg, Dina C.; Joseph, Saju; Kamoun, Karim; Khaled, Mehdi; Khalladi, Karim; Kim, Kwang Joon; Kok, Lian-Yee; MacMillan, Lewis; Mataruna-Dos-Santos, Leonardo Jose; Matsunaga, Ryo; Memishi, Shpresa; Millet, Grégoire P.; Moussa-Chamari, Imen; Musa Danladi, Ibrahim; Nguyen, Hoang Minh Thuan; Nikolaidis, Pantelis T.; Owen, Adam; Padulo, Johnny; Cayaban Pagaduan, Jeffrey; Perera, Nirmala Panagodage; Pérez-Gómez, Jorge; Pillay, Lervasen; Popa, Arporn; Pudasaini, Avishkar; Rabbani, Alireza; Rahayu, Tandiyo; Romdhani, Mohamed; Salamh, Paul; Sarkar, Abu-Sufian; Schillinger, Andy; Seiler, Stephen; Setyawati, Heny; Shrestha, Navina; Suraya, Fatona; Tabben, Montassar; Trabelsi, Khaled; Urhausen, Axel; Valtonen, Maarit; Weber, Johanna; Whiteley, Rodney; Zrane, Adel; Zerguini, Yacine; Zmijewski, Piotr; Sandbakk, Øyvind; Ben Saad, Helmi; Chamari, Karim Washif, J. A., Farooq, A., Krug, I., Pyne, D. B., Verhagen, E., Taylor, L., Wong, D. P., Mujika, I., Cortis, C., Haddad, M., Ahmadian, O., Al Jufaili, M., Al-Horani, R. A., Al-Mohannadi, A. S., Aloui, A., Ammar, A., Arifi, F., Aziz, A. R., Batuev, M., . . . Chamari, K. (2022). Training During the COVID19 Lockdown : Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices of 12,526 Athletes from 142 Countries and Six Continents. Sports Medicine, 52(4), 933-948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01573-z 2022 Vol.:(0123456789) Sports Medicine https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01573-z ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Training During theCOVID‑19 Lockdown: Knowledge, Beliefs, andPractices of12,526 Athletes from142 Countries andSix Continents JadAdrianWashif1 · AbdulazizFarooq2 · IsabelKrug3 · DavidB.Pyne4 · EvertVerhagen5 · LeeTaylor6,7,8 · DelP.Wong9 · IñigoMujika10,11 · CristinaCortis12 · MonoemHaddad13 · OmidAhmadian14· MahmoodAlJufaili15 · RamziA.Al‑Horani16 · AbdullaSaeedAl‑Mohannadi17 · AsmaAloui18,19 · AchrafAmmar20,21 · FitimArifi22,23 · AbdulRashidAziz24 · MikhailBatuev25 · ChristopherMartynBeaven26 · RalphBeneke27· ArbenBici28· PallawiBishnoi29· LoneBogwasi30,31· DanielBok32 · OmarBoukhris18,33 · DanielBoullosa34,35 · NicolaBragazzi36 · JoaoBrito37 · RoxanaPaolaPalaciosCartagena38· AnisChaouachi39,40· StephenS.Cheung41 · HamdiChtourou18,33 · GerminaCosma42 · TadejDebevec43,44 · MatthewD.DeLang45· AlexandreDellal46,47· GürhanDönmez48 · TarakDriss21 · JuanDavidPeñaDuque49· CristianoEirale50· MohamedElloumi51 · CarlFoster52· EmersonFranchini53 · AndreaFusco12 · OlivierGaly54 · PaulB.Gastin55 · NicholasGill26,56· OlivierGirard57 · CvitaGregov32· ShonaHalson58 · OmarHammouda59,60· IvanaHanzlíková26 · BaharHassanmirzaei61,62 · ThomasHaugen63· KimHébert‑Losier26 · HusseinMuñozHelú64 · TomásHerrera‑Valenzuela65,66 · FlorentinaJ.Hettinga25 · LouisHoltzhausen2,67,68,69 · OlivierHue70· AntonioDelloIacono71 · JohannaK.Ihalainen72 · CarlJames1 · DinaC.JansevanRensburg68,73 · SajuJoseph74· KarimKamoun39· MehdiKhaled75 · KarimKhalladi2 · KwangJoonKim76· Lian‑YeeKok77· LewisMacMillan78 · LeonardoJoseMataruna‑Dos‑Santos79,80,81 · RyoMatsunaga82,83· ShpresaMemishi84· GrégoireP.Millet85 · ImenMoussa‑Chamari13 · DanladiIbrahimMusa86 · HoangMinhThuanNguyen87· PantelisT.Nikolaidis88 · AdamOwen89,90· JohnnyPadulo91 · JeffreyCayabanPagaduan92· NirmalaPanagodagePerera93,94,95 · JorgePérez‑Gómez96 · LervasenPillay68,97 · ArpornPopa98· AvishkarPudasaini99· AlirezaRabbani100 · TandiyoRahayu101 · MohamedRomdhani18 · PaulSalamh102· Abu‑SufianSarkar103· AndySchillinger104· StephenSeiler105 · HenySetyawati101 · NavinaShrestha99,106· FatonaSuraya101 · MontassarTabben2· KhaledTrabelsi33,107 · AxelUrhausen108,109,110· MaaritValtonen111 · JohannaWeber112,113 · RodneyWhiteley2,114 · AdelZrane115,116,117· YacineZerguini118,119· PiotrZmijewski120 · ØyvindSandbakk121 · HelmiBenSaad122,123 · KarimChamari2 Accepted: 23 September 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract 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%], Extended author information available on the last page of the article J.A.Washif et al. 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). Key Points Higher classification athletes have superior knowledge and beliefs/attitudes regarding training, although these were ranked predominately as “moderate,” suggesting that training-related evidence may not penetrate all athletes to a “good” level. During lockdown, most athletes trained alone and focused on general health and well-being rather than with sport or discipline specificity, partly because of a lack of resource such as space, equipment, facilities, and multidisciplinary support teams, with such access favoring higher classification athletes. The challenges athletes experienced during lockdown reduced their motivation, which was amplified by the lack of competition. Athletes/coaches may benefit from arrangements that permit training and competition during lockdown (even if home based). Although higher classification athletes coped better in general, all athletes reported substantial reductions in key training variables, including frequency, duration, intensity, and type. “Remote”-based practices using digitally mediated technology for coaching/training emerged, appeared effective, and were best received by higher classification athletes. Information resources (e.g., easily accessible online seminars and discussions) are necessary for athletes to improve knowledge and beliefs/attitudes. 1 Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compromised the ability of many populations to engage in physical activity and benefit from sport participation [1]. Both recreational and elite competition schedules were decimated by postponements and cancellations, including the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. Athlete training was compromised for numerous reasons, most crucially the periods of recurring local/national lockdowns (including movement restrictions, social distancing, and facility closures). Closures of specialist athlete training facilities were widespread, hindering athlete access to these and their multidisciplinary teams (e.g., coaches, sports science, medical and allied health professionals) [2, 3]. Team or contact sports have been particularly challenged because social distancing prevents physical interaction and much team-based technical and tactical training [4]. In combination, these challenges have compromised the ability of high-performance athletes to conduct their physical, technical, or tactical training [5]. To comply with lockdown restrictions, many creative— often home-based—training solutions were employed in attempts to facilitate appropriate training load, maintain/ progress physical and technical qualities, and minimize injury risk [2, 5–8]. Performing these exercises during lockdown could also boost immunity and anti-inflammatory effects (reduced risk of disease) in response to respiratory pathogens such as seasonal influenza [9]. This pandemic-associated lockdown could have negative physical consequences, including reduced maximal oxygen consumption, endurance capacity, muscular strength, and muscle mass [10]. Mental health can also be adversely affected by the stress or anxiety experienced in isolation Athletes’ Training During COVID-19 Lockdown during lockdown [11]. Limited data regarding altered athlete training practice in response to lockdown have emerged, albeit specific to one country (South Africa) experiencing a high COVID-19 burden [5]. Here, athletes of different classifications (elite and subelite) reported training at altered moderate intensities for reduced session lengths during lockdown [5]. Substantial reductions in weekly training frequency and time were reported among collegiate-level athletes from different sports [12]. More recently, a worldwide study within handball reported reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior, regardless of the athlete’s competitive level [13]. Some general guidelines for physical activity during lockdown have been suggested [14], although these indirectly touched upon exercise without empirical data on athletes’ training practices. Other recommendations were largely generic and likely insufficient for different levels of athletes, such as state and world-class levels [15, 16]. During early phases of the pandemic, “return to sport” considerations were focused on higher-level athletes [3, 17]. These studies provided useful insights related to the safety of training and competition during the pandemic but fell short of evidence-based guidelines for athletes across all competitive levels. Athletes’ experience may be conceptualized as the extent to which they engage in exercise, training, and competition [18]. During lockdown, athletes may be more dependent on themselves, instead of on their coach, which further supports the importance of self-regulation ability (e.g., metacognitively, motivations, and actions) [19]. In this context, self-efficacy may be thought of as a motivational mechanism for self-regulated learners, which refers to a person’s beliefs in their abilities to think and act in ways that progress them towards their learning goals [20]. Additionally, personal beliefs could act as a placebo that impacts on training routines [21]. Among adults, knowledge of both aerobic and muscular types of physical activity recommendations was positively associated with physical fitness variables [22]. Similarly, positive attitudes were associated with being physically active [23], whereas having positive attitudes and beliefs about exercise or being physically active for health predicted physical activity participation [24]. Likewise, athletes’ concerns over reduced fitness and abilities could have influenced their attitudes toward training during lockdown. Based on these premises, an athlete’s ability to successfully react to the training-related challenges of COVID-19 and modify their practice (e.g., training intensity, volume, frequency, and mode) could be influenced by their existing knowledge of and beliefs or attitudes about training. Thus, identifying the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of athletes related to training and training interruptions (including COVID-19), while accounting for athlete classification, their adaptive responses to training (i.e., those with higher self-regulatory skills would train more), and degree of remote coaching and practices, is warranted. Globally derived data from a variety of athletes (world class or otherwise) are required to elucidate the effects of lockdown on their training practices. Such evidence may help policy makers, the athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued COVIDrelated scenario [25]. Understanding how public health measures influence athletes may help better prepare sports medicine and support teams for similar situations in the future. For these reasons, we characterized the athletes’ knowledge and beliefs/attitudes related to training disruptions and practices during the COVID-19 lockdown in a large global sample, including comparisons between athlete classifications (e.g., world-class, national, and state-level athletes). 2 Methods 2.1 Design andParticipants Participants provided informed consent, and the study received ethical approvals from the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC; no. 2056955.1), Qatar University (QU-IRB 1346-EA/20), and the University of Cassino e Lazio Meridionale (10031) in the spirit of the Declaration of Helsinki. Data were collected and processed anonymously and according to the guidelines of the “General Data Protection Regulation” (gdpr-info.eu). Participation was voluntary, and all individuals were permitted to withdraw at any time before completion and submission of the survey. Participant eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) eliteor subelite athletes aged ≥ 18years of either sex with or without disability; (2) athletes experienced at least twoconsecutive weeks of lockdown (March–June 2020); (3) athletes had not missed training for ≤ 7days because of illness/injury within the survey period; and (4) athletes experienced a “medium-to-high” lockdown severity. A medium–high lockdown severity was considered met when one or more of the following criteria were fulfilled: (1) movement was permitted only for essential supplies and groceries, (2) access to public exercise facilities was restricted (i.e., recreational areas such as parks or open spaces were closed or time/capacity limits were imposed), and (3) training facilities at institutions, clubs, colleges, etc. were closed. The a priori sample size estimation was 12,418 (see the supplementary material S1). In total, 13,772 entries were evident upon J.A.Washif et al. survey closure. After exclusions (n = 1246) for duplicates (n = 731), age limit violations (n = 410), and/or unmet lockdown severity criteria (n = 105) were completed, a final sample of data from 12,526 athletes (142 countries/ territories across six continents) was used for subsequent statistical modeling. The sample represented 108 “team” and “individual” sports. 2.2 Protocols andQuestionnaires 2.2.1 Data Collection An online survey was administered and disseminated via Google Forms from 17 May to 5 July 2020. The survey was shared via email and personal/group messaging applications (e.g., WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram) and promoted on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) through the professional networks of the research team (e.g., clubs, federations, and institutions). The English language “master” version of the survey was translated and administered in 34 further languages: Albanian, Arabic, Bangla, Chinese-simplified, Chinese-traditional, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Nepalese, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Sinhala, Slovenian, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, and Vietnamese. The survey questions underwent translation and back-translation, performed by the research team (including at least one native speaker and one topic expert), including pilot completions of the survey by and feedback from native language speaking athletes, resulting in the finalized surveys for all languages. Data from questions with preset answers (i.e., predefined multiple choice) were converted directly into standardized codes/numbers using an automated/customized setting on the Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation; Redmond, WA, USA); all automated responses were checked for veracity. Remaining data (i.e., free-text answers) underwent theme analysis/aggregation (all non-English responses were back-translated to English first), and subsequent themes were re-classified into standardized codes/numbers to facilitate statistical modeling. Test–retest reliability was determined within an English-speaking participant subgroup (n = 129), under the same conditions, twice (separated by 9 ± 4days), with Cronbach’s alpha (0.82–0.97) rated as good to excellent [26]. 2.2.2 Survey Questionnaire The survey was initially developed by the first and senior author and then reviewed by the wider authorship team (e.g., research team), involving > 100 researchers (from > 60 countries). The 59 questions explored athletes’ training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices, including specific questions (intensity, frequency, and session duration) on their training before and during lockdown, within a structure of four sections (see the ESM in conjunction with the following text/section (Sect.) for specific questions in the present study). (a) Athlete details (11 questions): Athlete classification: (1) Olympic Games, world championships, or equivalent (categorized as world class); (2) other international events (international); (3) national; (4) state or province (state); and (5) others (recreational). (b) Athlete knowledge (ten questions). Athletes’ views (what was known) on training disruptions during lockdown and its associated effects were assessed. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree” and 6 = “don’t know”) established (1) general training knowledge (e.g., training volume and intensity required to maintain fitness); and (2) how athletes attempted to continue their training during lockdown and thus how lockdown affected their training. (c) Athletes’ beliefs and attitudes (14 questions): How the athletes perceived training interruptions during lockdown and their implications for training. Specifically, the athletes expressed what they thought or believed and how they behaved optimistically (attitude) towards key issues. The same 5-point Likert scale explored athletes’ perceptions of fitness, mental health and emotion, coaching interaction, desire to train, and motivation. (d) Training practices (ten questions): An array of question styles was used to establish training practices, including (1) selecting one or more predefined answers; (2) comparing related before and during lockdown effects on training practices; (3) yes or no; and (4) sub-questions including a free-text cell to capture nuanced detail. A scoring system was developed where knowledge (Sect. b) had nine scored questions (scoring range: 0–9) and beliefs/ attitudes (Sect. c) had seven scored questions (scoring range: 0–7). Correct (for knowledge) or positive (for beliefs/attitudes) answers (e.g., strongly agree/agree or strongly disagree/disagree with a statement) were scored as “1.” The other answers received a score of “0” (including the statements “neutral” or “don’t know”). The total score was used to rank the level of knowledge and beliefs/attitudes (i.e., ≥ 70% as good, 51 to ˂70% as moderate, and ≤ 50% as poor), as used previously [27, 28] to compare athletes of different classifications. Athletes’ Training During COVID-19 Lockdown 2.3 Statistical Analysis All data were coded and statistical analyses performed using SPSS v. 23 (IBM; Armonk, NY, USA). Data are presented using a variety of appropriate descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and mean ± standard deviation. Knowledge and belief/attitude scores between athlete classifications were modeled using a one-way analysis of variation and effect size (η2) with a Bonferroni analysis post hoc if indicated. The chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables between athlete classifications. Adjusted standardized residuals from the chi-squared tests were interpreted to determine significant associations. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) analysis was used to examine the associations between knowledge and belief/attitude scores, and between knowledge and training variables (frequency, duration, and intensity) and belief/attitude and training variables. Two-tailed alpha was < 0.05. 3 Results 3.1 Demographic Table1 shows the demographic characteristics of athletes. Athletes were predominantly men (66%), aged 18–29years (67%), from 108 sports. Most (83%) had experienced lockdown for 5–12weeks at survey completion, with twothirds (67%) permitted to exercise only at home (Table2). 3.2 Knowledge andBeliefs/Attitudes The results for questions related to knowledge (S2) and beliefs/attitudes (S3)used for the summed scores (interpretive thresholds [e.g., moderate] described previously) are presented in the ESM. Summed knowledge and belief/ attitude scores related to training interruptions were 57 and 55%, respectively (considered moderate), with generally higher scores in higher classification athletes (p < 0.05) (Table3). Athlete classification was positively associated with knowledge (p < 0.05), except for “training frequency” (p = 0.073) (S4,question 4 [Q4]). Athletes (particularly national athletes) “agreed” (39%) or “strongly agreed” (29%) that lockdown limited training and potentially reduced fitness (Q1), but athletes “disagreed” (37%) or “strongly disagreed” (25%; particularly “world-class” athletes [p < 0.05]) that “normal” training was possible during lockdown (Q7), seeS4. Many athletes (60%, with the highest among worldclass athletes) considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient. Additionally, knowledge was positively correlated with beliefs/attitudes (r = 0.41), but there was little association Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants (n = 12,526) Characteristics Number (%) Sex Male 8265 (66) Female 4229 (34) Other 32 (0) Age category, years 18–29 8419 (67) 30–39 2431 (19) 40–49 1078 (9) 50–59 468 (4)  ≥ 60 121 (1) Missing 9 (−) Continent Asia 4777 (38) Europe 4305 (34) Africa 1375 (11) South America 973 (8) North America 907 (7) Oceania 189 (2) Athlete’s status Amateur 6453 (51) Semiprofessional 2765 (22) Professional 3222 (26) Other 86 (1) Main sports Soccer 2696 (22) Athletics 1306 (10) Cycling 679 (5) Volleyball 602 (5) Basketball 522 (4) Triathlon 503 (4) Handball 403 (3) Rugby 365 (3) Swimming 348 (3) Judo 313 (3) Taekwondo 254 (2) Hockey 210 (2) Futsal 198 (2) Karate 165 (1) Baseball/Softball 159 (1) Netball 145 (1) Rowing 130 (1) Bodybuilding 130 (1) Cricket 124 (1) Fencing 121 (1) Other sports 3153 (25) Sports experience, years ≤ 3 1476 (12) 4–9 4191 (34) 10–19 5055 (41) ≥ 20 1645 (13) J.A.Washif et al. with training frequency (r = − 0.03), duration (r = − 0.06), or intensity (r = − 0.08). Similarly, belief/attitude scores were not related to self-reported training frequency (r = 0.05), duration (r = − 0.002), or intensity (r = − 0.01). 3.3 Training Practices Most questions were positively related to athlete classification (p < 0.05). During lockdown, 83% of athletes aimed to maintain or develop general fitness and health, generally (80%) training alone (particularly world-class athletes [p < 0.05]). Many athletes (65%), especially world-class athletes (p < 0.05) used bodyweight-based exercises with limited or repurposed equipment/items. Only < 40% managed to perform specific training (e.g., long endurance and interval training) at an intensity similar to that before lockdown (more so in higher classification athletes) (Table4). Compared with before lockdown, training frequency was reduced from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer during lockdown (Fig.1a), with ~ 70% (before lockdown) to ~ 42% (during lockdown) of athletes training for five or more sessions per week. A longer (≥ 60min) to shorter (< 60min during lockdown) training duration per session was evident (Fig.1b), although more world-class and international athletes trained for at least 90-min periods before and during lockdown. Proportions of athletes who trained ≥ 60min per session were higher (~ 84%) before than during (~ 46%) lockdown. Training intensity was reduced (~ 38%) on average, with state athletes reporting lower training intensity (p < 0.05) than other athlete classifications (Fig.2). Access to space and equipment (to facilitate technical, cardiovascular, and strength training) was related to athlete classification (p < 0.001), aside from strength training space/equipment (p = 0.018) (Fig.3). 4 Discussion These data represent the first global study reporting the knowledge and beliefs/attitudes of athletes (classified from Olympic to recreational level) regarding training disruptions and their practices during COVID-19 lockdown (March–June 2020). During lockdown, most athletes trained alone at their own homes, focusing on bodyweight-based and/or cardiovascular training promoting general fitness and health maintenance. Higher classification athletes were better able to maintain (e.g., resource access, including equipment and space) their pre-lockdown training specificity (e.g., Table 1 (continued) Characteristics Number (%) Missing 159 (−) Athlete classification World class 1674 (13) International 2565 (21) National 4482 (36) State 3038 (24) Recreational 763 (6) Missing 4 (−) Are you currently in lockdown? Yes 7955 (64) No 4568 (36) Missing 3 (−) Lockdown experience, weeks ≤ 4 1809 (15) 5–8 4256 (35) 9–12 5839 (48) ≥ 12 278 (2) Missing 344 (−) Number of household members 1 (live alone) 815 (7) 2 2012 (16) 3 2468 (20) 4 3376 (27) ≥ 5 3767 (30) Missing 88 (−) Table 2 Training and exercise during lockdown (n = 12,526) As athletes could select multiple answers for all questions, the numbers do not total 12,526 or 100% What the governing authority allowed during lockdown Number (%) Exercising at home only 8330 (67) Using available spaces for exercise around my housing area/compound 5256 (42) Outdoor cycling 3354 (27) Running in a recreational park or stadium 3317 (27) Outdoor hiking or trekking in non-public facilities 2577 (21) Receive/borrow equipment from sports bodies or institutes and train at home 2105 (17) Access to gymnasium (muscle strengthening/resistance training) 579 (5) Access to sports academy or institute’s school or university’s facilities 510 (4) Other 100 (1) Athletes’ Training During COVID-19 Lockdown plyometrics, technical skill, speed endurance, long endurance, and interval training). Training session frequency altered (from between five and seven sessions to four or fewer sessions per week), with shorter training sessions (≥ 60 to < 60min) and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction) for most athletes. Overall scores of knowledge and beliefs/attitudes related to training during lockdown were moderate and generally did not differ by athlete classification, except for recreational athletes, which were poor/ moderate. Training-related information is digitally and easily accessible for most athletes. Despite this, higher classification athletes appear to have learned “more” from their sporting experiences and networks, scoring higher than recreational athletes for knowledge and beliefs/attitudes about training (Table3). Total scores were modest (range ~ 54–58%; moderate; see Table3) across all surveyed athlete classifications, aside from recreational, suggesting that training-related evidence may not penetrate the knowledge and beliefs of all athletes. For example, less than half of the athletes (47%) indicated that endurance capacity could be maintained by doing high-intensity interval training(S2), despite demonstrated positive endurance training effects [29]. Similarly, only ~ 30% of athletes believed that < 4weeks of lockdown would have little effect on their fitness levels (S3), a duration of ‘no training’ that may be tolerated without observing significant de-training effects [30, 31]. Athletes believed they needed “high training intensity” (71%; significantly more among international athletes) with “high training frequency” (88%) to maintain fitness level (S2), concurring with evidence that, to maintain or optimize endurance and strength performance effectively, training intensity must be “kept high” [30–33]. However, an important caveat is that, although strength levels can be retained for ≤ 3weeks without resistance training, rates of strength decay may accelerate thereafter, i.e., ≥ 5weeks [31]. The data and their agreement (or otherwise) with literature evidence should guide training prescriptions during periods of disruption (e.g., lockdown, illness, and injury), and it appears that palatable educational resources to this effect may be required to improve an apparent partial disconnect between the evidence–practitioner–athlete knowledge communication pathways. During lockdown, athletes adapted to training with limited equipment and facilities [5] despite the likely low effectiveness of these approaches for optimal sports-specific training [3] and uncertain safety ramifications. In the current study, most athletes aimed to maintain/develop their general fitness/health and trained alone. Common training activities during lockdown were bodyweight exercises and cardiorespiratory training, probably because of the easy accessibility of these training modalities. Unfortunately for these athletes (in general), remote training (i.e., alone) reduced motivation (53%), a situation amplified by the lack of competition (58%), potentially leading to psychological issues, as reported elsewhere [34]. Such issues may be exacerbated by a lack of a “social facilitator” and encouragement [35] or simply missing interaction with team members [12]. These are substantial factors regarding social invitations for action (i.e., motivators) and athletes’ sport-related decision making [36]. Accordingly, higher classification athletes preferred training through cooperative/shared programming (e.g., athlete and coach input) and were more receptive to “remote training/coaching” (60%; highest amongst worldclass athletes), evidently recognizing this (at least in part) as somewhat effective. Therefore, while we acknowledge the importance of maintaining “fitness” and physical qualities during lockdown, it is clear that mental and motivational aspects and training safety also warrant attention. Training with sport specificity tailored towards key competition bouts/cycles requires inherent well-orchestrated variation in the key principles of training [4, 37, 38], which was evidently challenging during lockdown. Marked reductions in training frequency, duration, and intensity relative to before lockdown were reported, disproportionately affecting lower-level athletes compared with world-class and international athletes (Figs.1 and 2). Irrespective of athlete classification, changes (i.e., reduced) in multiple training variables can compromise an athlete’s functional performance, especially if the training intensity is not maintained [30, 31, 33]. For example, among professional cyclists, changes in training volume and intensity distribution during a 7-week lockdown caused a large reduction in 5and 20-min (maximal effort) cycling performance [39]. Total training volume decreased (− 34%), and the weekly volume of different standardized zones (i.e., zone 1 [low intensity] to zone 6 Table 3 Comparison of knowledge and beliefs/attitudes related to training interruptions during lockdown among athlete classification from world class to recreational (n = 12,495) Higher scores indicate a greater number of correct (for knowledge) or positive (for beliefs/attitudes) answers (e.g., strongly agree/agree or strongly disagree/disagree with a statement);Data are mean ± standard deviation * Significantly different from all other athlete classifications Classification Knowledge (range 0–9 marks) Beliefs/attitudes (range 0–7 marks) World class 5.2 ± 1.6 (58%) 3.9 ± 1.5 (56%) International 5.2 ± 1.6 (58%) 3.9 ± 1.6 (56%) National 5.1 ± 1.7 (57%) 3.8 ± 1.6 (54%) State 5.1 ± 1.6 (57%) 3.9 ± 1.6 (56%) Recreational 4.8 ± 1.8 (53%)* 3.4 ± 1.7 (49%)* Total 5.1 ± 1.7 (57%) 3.8 ± 1.6 (54%) Effect size 0.003 0.005 J.A.Washif et al. Table 4 Athlete practices during COVID-19 lockdown Athletes could select multiple answers for all questions. Percentages within athlete classifications represent a “yes” answer relative to a “no” answer HIIT high-intensity intervaltraining, INT international, NAT national, REC recreational, ST state, WC world class a Significantly higher b Significantly lower * Significant relationship with athlete classification (χ2), p < 0.05 Practice Percentage WC INT NAT ST REC Overall 1. What are/were your general purpose(s) of training during the lockdown? (n = 12,385) To maintain/develop general fitness/health* 84 83 81b83 84 83 To maintain/develop skills/technique* 44 44 44a40b33b43 To maintain/develop strength and power* 56 58a55 52b45b54 To maintain/develop muscular endurance* 57 58a55 52b49b55 To maintain/develop abdominal strength* 50 52a50a43b40b48 To maintain/develop aerobic fitness* 50 53a51 46b46b50 To maintain/develop general flexibility* 49a49a43 38b39b44 To improve muscle balance* 39a40a36 34b31b36 Weight management* 46 48 47 47 54a48 Other* 1 1 1b1a2a1 2. Who is prescribing/prescribed the training program during the lockdown? (n = 12,351) Own training program* 35b34b42 54a54a44 Training program from my coach/trainer* 46a45a42a30b30b40 Combined own training and coach/trainer* 44a44a37 29b23b36 Found training material from an external source: online/social media/TV, a friend, etc.* 20b25 24b30a30a26 Other* 0 0 0 1 2a0 3. Do/did you train? (n = 12,347) Alone* 82a78b78b81 82 80 In a small group of partners of equal athletic capacity* 31 32a31a25b21b29 With family members or friends with little athletic capacity* 22a19 18 18 18 19 Other 1 1a1 1b1 1 4. What are the type of exercises that you are doing/have been doing consistently (at least twice a week) during lockdown? (n = 12,522) Bodyweight-based exercises with limited equipment* 68a66 64 64 56b65 Weightlifting/strength training with suitable equipment (dumbbells, weights, etc.)* 40a34a31b29b26b32 Technical skills (sport-specific skills)* 41a40a37 33b28b36 Imitation or simulation of the techniques of my sport* 30a27a25 20b21b25 Cardiovascular training (running, cycling, jogging, rowing), including HIIT* 65a62a59 56b51b59 Plyometric training (repeated jumping) 26 31a28a20b15b26 Other* 1 1 1b1 4a1 5. What are the types of specific training you are/were able to do with the same intensity during the lockdown (very similar to pre-lockdown)? (n = 12,522) Warm-up and stretching* 84a82 81 80b78b81 Weightlifting (strength) training* 35 32 33 34 27b33 Plyometric training (e.g., repeated jumping)* 31 34a32a25b20b30 Technical skills (sport specific)* 33a33a32a26b24b31 Speed training* 25 30a28 25b21b27 Speed endurance* 29 33a28 26b23b28 Long endurance* 43a43a39 35b30b39 Interval/intermittent training* 41a38a35 31b31b35 Change of directions* 14 17a17a12b10b15 Others* 1 1 1 1 3a1 Athletes’ Training During COVID-19 Lockdown (LINP2), UFR STAPS, UPL, Paris Nanterre University, Nanterre, France 22 Physical Culture, Sports andRecreation, College Universi, Pristina, Kosovo 23 Faculty ofPhysical Education andSport, University ofTetova, Tetovo, NorthMacedonia 24 Sport Science andSport Medicine, Singapore Sport Institute, Sport Singapore, Singapore, Singapore 25 Department ofSport, Exercise andRehabilitation, Northumbria University, NewcastleuponTyne, UK 26 Division ofHealth, Engineering, Computing andScience, Te Huataki Waiora School ofHealth, University ofWaikato, Tauranga, NewZealand 27 Division ofMedicine, Training andHealth, Institute ofSport Science andMotology, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany 28 Applied Motion Department, Institute ofSport Research, Sports University ofTirana, Tirana, Albania 29 Physiotherapy Department, Minerva Punjab Academy andFootball Club, Mohali, Punjab, India 30 Department ofOrthopedics, Nyangabgwe Hospital, Francistown, Botswana 31 Botswana Football Association Medical Committee, Gaborone, Botswana 32 Faculty ofKinesiology, University ofZagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 33 High Institute ofSport andPhysical Education, University ofSfax, Sfax, Tunisia 34 INISA, Federal University ofMato Grosso doSul, CampoGrande, Brazil 35 Sport andExercise Science, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia 36 Laboratory forIndustrial andApplied Mathematics (LIAM), Department ofMathematics andStatistics, York University, Toronto, ONM3J1P3, Canada 37 Portugal Football School, Portuguese Football Federation, Oeiras, Portugal 38 Facultad de Ciencias del Deporte, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain 39 Tunisian Research Laboratory, Sport Performance Optimisation, National Center ofMedicine andScience inSports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia 40 Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, AUT University, Auckland, NewZealand 41 Department ofKinesiology, Brock University, St.Catharines, ON, Canada 42 Faculty ofPhysical Education andSport, University ofCraiova, Craiova, Romania 43 Faculty ofSport, University ofLjubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 44 Department ofAutomation, Biocybernetics andRobotics, Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia 45 Right toDream Academy, OldAkrade, Ghana 46 Sport Science andResearch Department, Centre Orthopédique Santy, FIFA Medical Centre ofExcellence, Lyon, France 47 Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité (LIBM EA 7424), Claude Bernard University (Lyon 1), Lyon, France 48 Department ofSports Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey 49 Al Hilal Football Club, Riyadh, SaudiArabia 50 Paris Saint Germain FC, Paris, France 51 Health andPhysical Education Department, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, KingdomofSaudiArabia 52 Department ofExercise andSport Science, University ofWisconsin-La Crosse, LaCrosse, WI, USA 53 Sport Department, School ofPhysical Education andSport, University ofSão Paulo, SãoPaulo, Brazil 54 Interdisciplinary Laboratory forResearch inEducation, EA 7483, University ofNew Caledonia, Avenue James Cook, 98800Nouméa, NewCaledonia 55 Sport andExercise Science, School ofAllied Health, Human Services andSport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia 56 New Zealand All Blacks, New Zealand Rugby, Wellington, NewZealand 57 School ofHuman Science (Exercise andSport Science), The University ofWestern Australia, Perth, WA, Australia 58 School ofBehavioural andHealth Sciences, McAuley atBanyo, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia 59 Interdisciplinary Laboratory inNeurosciences, Physiology andPsychology: Physical Activity, Health andLearning (LINP2), UPL, UFR STAPS, Paris Nanterre University, Nanterre, France 60 Research Laboratory, Molecular Bases ofHuman Pathology, Faculty ofMedicine, LR19ES13, University ofSfax, Sfax, Tunisia 61 Sports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University ofMedical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 62 Iran Football Medical Assessments andRehabilitation Center, IFMARC , Tehran, Iran 63 School ofHealth Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway 64 Department ofEconomic-Administrative Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente, LosMochis, Sinaloa, México 65 Department ofSport Science andHealth, Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago, Chile 66 University ofSantiago ofChile (USACH), Sciences ofPhysical Activity, Sports andHealth School, Santiago, Chile 67 Weil-Cornell Medical College inQatar, Doha, Qatar 68 Section Sports Medicine, Faculty ofHealth Sciences, University ofPretoria, Pretoria, SouthAfrica 69 Department ofExercise andSports Science, University oftheFree State, Bloemfontein, SouthAfrica J.A.Washif et al. 70 Laboratoire ACTES, UFR-STAPS, Université Des Antilles, PointeàPitre, France 71 School ofHealth andLife Sciences, University oftheWest ofScotland, Hamilton, UK 72 Faculty ofSport andHealth Sciences, Biology ofPhysical Activity, University ofJyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 73 Medical Board Member, International Netball Federation, Manchester, UK 74 High Performance Director, Sports Authority ofIndia, Bangalore, India 75 SEHA, Singapore, Singapore 76 Department ofInternal Medicine, Yonsei University College ofMedicine, Seoul, SouthKorea 77 Department ofSport Science, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, KualaLumpur, Malaysia 78 Sport Science Department, Fulham Football Club, Fulham,London, UK 79 Centre forTrust, Peace andSocial Relation, Coventry University, Coventry, UK 80 Department ofSport Management, Faculty ofManagement, Canadian University ofDubai, Dubai, UnitedArabEmirates 81 Programa Avancado de Cultura Contemporanea, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, RiodeJaneiro, Brazil 82 Antlers Sports Clinic, Kashima, Ibaraki, Japan 83 Department ofOrthopedic Surgery, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan 84 Faculty ofPhysical Education, University ofTetovo, Tetovo, NorthMacedonia 85 Institute ofSport Sciences, University ofLausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 86 Department ofHuman Kinetics andHealth Education, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Nigeria 87 Ho Chi Minh City University ofSport, HoChiMinh, Vietnam 88 School ofHealth andCaring Sciences, University ofWest Attica, Attica, Greece 89 University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France 90 Seattle Sounders Football Club, Seattle, WA, USA 91 Department ofBiomedical Sciences forHealth, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy 92 School ofHealth Sciences, College ofHealth andMedicine, University ofTasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia 93 Sports Medicine, Australian Institute ofSport, Bruce, ACT , Australia 94 University ofCanberra Research Institute forSport andExercise (UCRISE), University ofCanberra, Bruce, ACT , Australia 95 Nuffield Department ofOrthopaedics, Rheumatology andMusculoskeletal Sciences, University ofOxford, Oxford, UK 96 Health, Economy, Motricity andEducation (HEME) Research Group, Faculty ofSport Sciences, University ofExtremadura, Cáceres, Spain 97 University ofWitwatersrand, Wits Institute forSports Health, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica 98 Health andSport Science Department, Educational Faculty, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham, Thailand 99 Medical Department, All Nepal Football Association (ANFA), Lalitpur, Nepal 100 Department ofExercise Physiology, College ofSport Sciences, University ofIsfahan, Isfahan, Iran 101 Faculty ofSport Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, Indonesia 102 Krannert School ofPhysical Therapy, University ofIndianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA 103 Bashundhara Kings, Nilphamari, Bangladesh 104 Miskawaan Health Group, Bangkok, Thailand 105 Department ofSports Science andPhysical Education, University ofAgder, Kristiansand, Norway 106 Physiotherapy Department, BP Eyes Foundation CHEERS Hospital, Bhaktapur, Nepal 107 Research Laboratory: Education, Motricity, Sport andHealth, EM2S, LR19JS01, University ofSfax, Sfax, Tunisia 108 Sports Clinic, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Clinique d‘Eich, Luxembourg, Luxembourg 109 Luxembourg Institute ofResearch inOrthopedics, Sports Medicine andScience, Luxembourg, Luxembourg 110 Human Motion, Orthopedics, Sports Medicine andDigital Methods, Luxembourg Institute ofHealth, Luxembourg, Luxembourg 111 Research Institute forOlympic Sports, Jyvaskyla, Finland 112 Institute forSports Science, CAU ofKiel, Kiel, Germany 113 Neurocognition andAction, University ofBielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany 114 University ofQueensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia 115 Department ofPhysiology andLung Function Testing, Faculty ofMedicine ofSousse, University ofSousse, Sousse, Tunisia 116 Faculty ofSciences ofBizerte, University ofCarthage, Bizerte, Tunisia 117 High Institute ofSports, Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia 118 FIFA Medical Centre ofExcellence Algiers, Algiers, Algeria 119 Medical Committee, Confederation ofAfrican Football, Giza, Egypt 120 Jozef Pilsudski University ofPhysical Education inWarsaw, Warsaw, Poland 121 Centre forElite Sports Research, Department ofNeuromedicine andMovement Science, Norwegian, University ofScience andTechnology, Trondheim, Norway 122 Laboratoire de Recherche “Insuffisance Cardiaque” (LR12SP09), Hôpital Farhat HACHED, Université de Sousse, Sousse, Tunisie 123 Laboratoire de Physiologie, Faculté de Médicine de Sousse, Université de Sousse, Sousse, Tunisie