Objective In March 2020, several countries banned unnecessary outdoor activities during COVID-19, commonly called ‘lockdowns. These lockdowns have the potential to impact associated levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Given the numerous health outcomes associated with physical activity and sedentary behaviour, the aim of this review was to summarise literature that investigated differences in physical activity and sedentary behaviour before vs during the COVID-19 lockdown. Design, data sources and eligibility criteria Electronic databases were searched from November 2019 to October 2020 using terms and synonyms relating to physical activity, sedentary behaviour and COVID-19. The coprimary outcomes were changes in physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour captured via device-based measures or self-report tools. Risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Sixty six articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (total n=86 981). Changes in physical activity were reported in 64 studies, with the majority of studies reporting decreases in physical activity and increases in sedentary behaviours during their respective lockdowns across several populations, including children and patients with a variety of medical conditions. Conclusion Given the numerous physical and mental benefits of increased physical activity and decreased sedentary behaviour, public health strategies should include the creation and implementation of interventions that promote safe physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour should other lockdowns occur.

https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/bmjosem/7/1/e000960.full.pdf

Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: a systematic review

Prescribing the frequency, duration, or volume of training is simple as these factors can be altered by manipulating the number of exercise sessions per week, the duration of each session, or the total work performed in a given time frame (e.g., per week). However, prescribing exercise intensity is complex and controversy exists regarding the reliability and validity of the methods used to determine and prescribe intensity. This controversy arises from the absence of an agreed framework for assessing the construct validity of different methods used to determine exercise intensity. In this review, we have evaluated the construct validity of different methods for prescribing exercise intensity based on their ability to provoke homeostatic disturbances (e.g., changes in oxygen uptake kinetics and blood lactate) consistent with the moderate, heavy, and severe domains of exercise. Methods for prescribing exercise intensity include a percentage of anchor measurements, such as maximal oxygen uptake (
$${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_{{{\text{2max}}}}$$

), peak oxygen uptake (
$${\dot{\text{V}}\text{O}}_{{{\text{2peak}}}}$$

), maximum heart rate (HRmax), and maximum work rate (i.e., power or velocity—
$${\dot{\text{W}}}_{{\max}}$$

 or 
$${\dot{\text{V}}}_{{\max}}$$

, respectively), derived from a graded exercise test (GXT). However, despite their common use, it is apparent that prescribing exercise intensity based on a fixed percentage of these maximal anchors has little merit for eliciting distinct or domain-specific homeostatic perturbations. Some have advocated using submaximal anchors, including the ventilatory threshold (VT), the gas exchange threshold (GET), the respiratory compensation point (RCP), the first and second lactate threshold (LT1 and LT2), the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS), critical power (CP), and critical speed (CS). There is some evidence to support the validity of LT1, GET, and VT to delineate the moderate and heavy domains of exercise. However, there is little evidence to support the validity of most commonly used methods, with exception of CP and CS, to delineate the heavy and severe domains of exercise. As acute responses to exercise are not always predictive of chronic adaptations, training studies are required to verify whether different methods to prescribe exercise will affect adaptations to training. Better ways to prescribe exercise intensity should help sport scientists, researchers, clinicians, and coaches to design more effective training programs to achieve greater improvements in health and athletic performance.

An Examination and Critique of Current Methods to Determine Exercise Intensity

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing mass disruption to our daily lives. We integrate mobility data from mobile devices and area-level data to study the walking patterns of 1.62 million anonymous users in 10 metropolitan areas in the United States. The data covers the period from mid-February 2020 (pre-lockdown) to late June 2020 (easing of lockdown restrictions). We detect when users were walking, distance walked and time of the walk, and classify each walk as recreational or utilitarian. Our results reveal dramatic declines in walking, particularly utilitarian walking, while recreational walking has recovered and even surpassed pre-pandemic levels. Our findings also demonstrate important social patterns, widening existing inequalities in walking behavior. COVID-19 response measures have a larger impact on walking behavior for those from low-income areas and high use of public transportation. Provision of equal opportunities to support walking is key to opening up our society and economy.

/pdf/effect-of-covid-19-response-policies-on-walking-behavior-in-2l6u0i0awe.pdf

Effect of COVID-19 response policies on walking behavior in US cities.

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). 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). 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. 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).

/pdf/training-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-knowledge-beliefs-and-2yhxccfsii.pdf

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

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 outbreak has challenged professional athletes' training and competition routines in a way not seen before. This report aims to inform about the changes in training volume and intensity distribution and their effects on functional performance due to a 7-week home-confinement period in professional road cyclists from a Union Cycliste Internationale Pro Team. METHODS: A total of 18 male professional cyclists (mean [SD] age = 24.9 [2.8] y, body mass = 66.5 [5.6] kg, maximal aerobic power = 449 [39] W; 6.8 [0.6] W/kg) were monitored during the 10 weeks before the lockdown (outdoor cycling) and the 7-week lockdown (indoor cycling turbo trainer). Data from the mean maximal power output (in watts per kilogram) produced during the best 5-minute and best 20-minute records and the training intensity distributions (weekly volumes at power-based training zones) were collected from WKO5 software. RESULTS: Total training volume decreased 33.9% during the lockdown (P 1.36; P < .001) with losses between 1% and 19% in all the cyclists. CONCLUSIONS: Total indoor volumes of 12 hours per week, with 6 hours per week at low intensity (Z1 and Z2) and 2 hours per week at high intensity over the threshold (Z5 and Z6), were insufficient to maintain performance in elite road cyclists during the COVID-19 lockdown. Such performance declines should be considered to enable a safe and effective return to competition.

Training Load and Performance Impairments in Professional Cyclists During COVID-19 Lockdown.

Three to 5 cycling tests to exhaustion allow prediction of time to exhaustion (TTE) at power output based on calculation of critical power (CP). We aimed to determine the accuracy of CP predictions...

/pdf/time-to-exhaustion-during-cycling-is-not-well-predicted-by-likesevmhz.pdf

Time to exhaustion during cycling is not well predicted by critical power calculations

Pallares, JG, Cerezuela-Espejo, V, Moran-Navarro, R, Martinez-Cava, A, Conesa, E, and Courel-Ibanez, J. A new short track test to estimate the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max and maximal aerobic speed in well-trained runners. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1216-1221, 2019-This study was designed to validate a new short track test (Track(1:1)) to estimate running performance parameters maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), based on a laboratory treadmill protocol and gas exchange data analysis (Lab(1:1)). In addition, we compared the results with the University of Montreal Track Test (UMTT). Twenty-two well-trained male athletes (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max 60.3 ± 5.9 ml·kg·min; MAS ranged from 17.0 to 20.3 km·h) performed 4 testing protocols: 2 in laboratory (Lab(1:1)-pre and Lab(1:1)) and 2 in the field (UMTT and Track(1:1)). The Lab(1:1)-pre was designed to determine individuals' Vpeak and set initial speeds for the subsequent Lab(1:1) short ramp graded exercise testing protocol, starting at 13 km·h less than each athlete's Vpeak, with 1 km·h increments per minute until exhaustion. The Track(1:1) was a reproduction of the Lab(1:1) protocol in the field. A novel equation was yielded to estimate the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max from the Vpeak achieved in the Track(1:1). Results revealed that the UMTT significantly underestimated the Vpeak (-4.2%; bias = -0.8 km·h; p 0.05). Thus, the current Track(1:1) test emerges as a better alternative than the UMTT to estimate maximal running performance parameters in well-trained and highly trained athletes on the field.

Víctor Cerezuela-Espejo

Papers

Time to exhaustion during cycling is not well predicted by critical power calculations

A New Short Track Test to Estimate the V[Combining Dot Above]O2max and Maximal Aerobic Speed in Well-Trained Runners.