1.
Effects of face masks on performance and cardiorespiratory response in well-trained athletes.
Egger, F, Blumenauer, D, Fischer, P, Venhorst, A, Kulenthiran, S, Bewarder, Y, Zimmer, A, Böhm, M, Meyer, T, Mahfoud, F
Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2022;(3):264-271
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, compulsory masks became an integral part of outdoor sports such as jogging in crowded areas (e.g. city parks) as well as indoor sports in gyms and sports centers. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate the effects of medical face masks on performance and cardiorespiratory parameters in athletes. METHODS In a randomized, cross-over design, 16 well-trained athletes (age 27 ± 7 years, peak oxygen consumption 56.2 ± 5.6 ml kg-1 min-1, maximum performance 5.1 ± 0.5 Watt kg-1) underwent three stepwise incremental exercise tests to exhaustion without mask (NM), with surgical mask (SM) and FFP2 mask (FFP2). Cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses were monitored by spiroergometry and blood lactate (BLa) testing throughout the tests. RESULTS There was a large effect of masks on performance with a significant reduction of maximum performance with SM (355 ± 41 Watt) and FFP2 (364 ± 43 Watt) compared to NM (377 ± 40 Watt), respectively (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.50). A large interaction effect with a reduction of both oxygen consumption (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.34) and minute ventilation (p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.39) was observed. At the termination of the test with SM 11 of 16 subjects reported acute dyspnea from the suction of the wet and deformed mask. No difference in performance was observed at the individual anaerobic threshold (p = 0.90). CONCLUSION Both SM and to a lesser extent FFP2 were associated with reduced maximum performance, minute ventilation, and oxygen consumption. For strenuous anaerobic exercise, an FFP2 mask may be preferred over an SM.
2.
What are the recommendations for returning athletes who have experienced long term COVID-19 symptoms?
Lindsay, RK, Wilson, JJ, Trott, M, Olanrewaju, O, Tully, MA, López-Sánchez, GF, Shin, JI, Pizzol, D, Allen, P, Butler, LT, et al
Annals of medicine. 2021;(1):1935-1944
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Currently, there is limited research reporting the symptoms of long COVID among athletes, and the recommendations for athletes returning to competition/training who have experienced long COVID symptoms. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the recommendations for returning athletes who have experienced long COVID symptoms. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under CRD42021265939. Two authors searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus from August 2019-July 2021. Search terms included words related to "long COVID", "athlete" and "return". Data extraction was completed for each study by two independent investigators for: (1) first author name; (2) year of publication; (3) journal; (4) Definition of athlete (i.e. elite or non-elite) (5) Recommendations reported. A total of 220 records were found. Following title and abstract screening, 61 studies were eligible for full text screening. Overall, no studies, commentaries, editorials or reviews provided specific recommendations for "long COVID" defined as COVID-19 signs and symptoms lasting for over 4 weeks as a result of COVID-19 infection. In addition, we found no studies which reported symptoms of athletes suffering from long COVID. Despite the lack of evidence, we did find eight separate professional recommendations for managing "long-term effects" and "ongoing" or "prolonged" symptoms and COVID-19 complications among athletes. Practitioners should be aware of both mental and physical symptoms of long COVID, and additional considerations may be required for athletes who have undergone intensive care. The present review provides a list of recommendations based on existing literature that may be followed and implemented for returning athletes.Key MessagesFurther research, including longitudinal research of athletes who have tested positive for COVID-19, is required to develop evidenced-based guidelines for athletes with ongoing COVID-19 symptoms.Prior to returning to play after COVID-19 infection, a thorough medical history, physical and psychological examination should be conducted by a medical professional.Athletes should continue to monitor and record their own physical and psychological markers of health.
3.
Ain't Just Imagination! Effects of Motor Imagery Training on Strength and Power Performance of Athletes during Detraining.
Dello Iacono, A, Ashcroft, K, Zubac, D
Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2021;(11):2324-2332
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate the effects of motor imagery (MI) training on strength and power performances of professional athletes during a period of detraining caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS Thirty male professional basketball players (age, 26.1 ± 6.2 yr) were randomly assigned to three counterbalanced groups: two MI training groups, who completed imagery training by mentally rehearsing upper and lower limb resistance training exercises loaded with either 85% of one repetition maximum (85%1RM) or optimum power loads (OPL), or a control group. For six consecutive weeks, although all groups completed two weekly sessions of high-intensity running, only the MI groups performed three additional MI sessions a week. Maximal strength and power output were measured through 1RM and OPL assessments in the back squat and bench press exercises with a linear positioning transducer. Vertical jump and throwing capabilities were assessed with the countermovement jump and the seated medicine ball throw tests, respectively. Kinesthetic and visual imagery questionnaires, and chronometry and rating of perceived effort scores were collected to evaluate MI vividness, MI ability, and perceived effort. RESULTS Physical performances improved significantly following both MI protocols (range, ~2% to ~9%), but were reduced in the control group, compared with preintervention (P ≤ 0.016). Moreover, interactions (time-protocol) were identified between the two MI groups (P ≤ 0.001). Whereas the 85%1RM led to greater effects on maximal strength measures than the OPL, the latter induced superior responses on measures of lower limb power. These findings were mirrored by corresponding cognitive and psychophysiological responses. CONCLUSIONS During periods of forced detraining, MI practice seems to be a viable tool to maintain and increase physical performance capacity among professional athletes.
