Ramadan intermittent fasting induced poorer training practices during the COVID-19 lockdown: A global cross-sectional study with 5529 athletes from 110 countries
Author | Washif, Jad |
Author | B. Pyne, David |
Author | Sandbakk, Oyvind |
Author | Trabelsi, Khaled |
Author | Aziz, Abdul Rashid |
Author | Beaven, Christopher |
Author | Krug, Isabel |
Author | Mujika, Inigo |
Author | Ammar, Achraf |
Author | Chaouachi, Anis |
Author | Moussa-Chamari, Imen |
Author | Aloui, Asma |
Author | Chtourou, Hamdi |
Author | Farooq, Abdulaziz |
Author | Haddad, Monoem |
Author | Romdhani, Mohamed |
Author | Salamh, Paul |
Author | Tabben, Montassar |
Author | Wong, Del |
Author | Zerguini, Yacine |
Author | DeLang, Matthew D. |
Author | Taylor, Lee |
Author | Ben Saad, Helmi |
Author | Chamari, Karim |
Available date | 2023-10-23T10:25:27Z |
Publication Date | 2022 |
Publication Name | Biology of Sport |
Resource | Scopus |
Abstract | Ramadan intermittent fasting during the COVID-19 lockdown (RIFL) may present unique demands. We investigated training practices (i.e., training load and training times) of athletes, using pre-defined survey criteria/questions, during the ‘first’ COVID-19 lockdown, comparing RIFL to lockdown-alone (LD) in Muslim athletes. Specifically, a within-subject, survey-based study saw athletes (n = 5,529; from 110 countries/territories) training practices (comparing RIFL to LD) explored by comparative variables of: sex; age; continent; athlete classification (e.g., world-class); sport classification (e.g., endurance); athlete status (e.g., professional); and level of training knowledge and beliefs/attitudes (ranked as: good/moderate/poor). During RIFL (compared to LD), athlete perceptions (ranges presented given variety of comparative variables) of their training load decreased (46–62%), were maintained (31–48%) or increased (2–13%). Decreases (≥ 5%, p < 0.05) affected more athletes aged 30–39 years than those 18–29 years (60 vs 55%); more national than international athletes (59 vs 51%); more team sports than precision sports (59 vs 46%); more North American than European athletes (62 vs 53%); more semi-professional than professional athletes (60 vs 54%); more athletes who rated their beliefs/attitudes ‘good’ compared to ‘poor’ and ‘moderate’ (61 vs 54 and 53%, respectively); and more athletes with ‘moderate’ than ‘poor’ knowledge (58 vs 53%). During RIFL, athletes had different strategies for training times, with 13–29% training twice a day (i.e., afternoon and night), 12–26% at night only, and 18–36% in the afternoon only, with ranges depending on the comparative variables. Training loads and activities were altered negatively during RIFL compared to LD. It would be prudent for decision-makers responsible for RIFL athletes to develop programs to support athletes during such challenges. © 2022 Institute of Sport. All rights reserved. |
Language | en |
Publisher | Institute of Sport |
Subject | Crowdsource data Global sports Remote training Training load Training perception Vulnerable athletes |
Type | Article |
Pagination | 1103-1115 |
Issue Number | 4 |
Volume Number | 39 |
Files in this item
Files | Size | Format | View |
---|---|---|---|
There are no files associated with this item. |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
COVID-19 Research [835 items ]
-
Physical Education [131 items ]