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%], 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).A specific funding was provided by the National Sports Institute
of Malaysia for this study.The National Sports Institute of Malaysia.https://www.springer.com/journal/40279am2023Sports Medicin