Background: Public health recommendations and governmental measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in numerous restrictions on daily living including social distancing, isolation and home confinement. While these measures are imperative to abate the spreading of COVID-19, the impact of these restrictions on health behaviours and lifestyles at home is undefined. Therefore, an international online survey was launched in April 2020, in seven languages, to elucidate the behavioural and lifestyle consequences of COVID-19 restrictions. This report presents the results from the first thousand responders on physical activity (PA) and nutrition behaviours. Methods: Following a structured review of the literature, the “Effects of home Confinement on multiple Lifestyle Behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak (ECLB-COVID19)” Electronic survey was designed by a steering group of multidisciplinary scientists and academics. The survey was uploaded and shared on the Google online survey platform. Thirty-five research organisations from Europe, North-Africa, Western Asia and the Americas promoted the survey in English, German, French, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese and Slovenian languages. Questions were presented in a differential format, with questions related to responses “before” and “during” confinement conditions. Results: 1047 replies (54% women) from Asia (36%), Africa (40%), Europe (21%) and other (3%) were included in the analysis. The COVID-19 home confinement had a negative effect on all PA intensity levels (vigorous, moderate, walking and overall). Additionally, daily sitting time increased from 5 to 8 h per day. Food consumption and meal patterns (the type of food, eating out of control, snacks between meals, number of main meals) were more unhealthy during confinement, with only alcohol binge drinking decreasing significantly. Conclusion: While isolation is a necessary measure to protect public health, results indicate that it alters physical activity and eating behaviours in a health compromising direction. A more detailed analysis of survey data will allow for a segregation of these responses in different age groups, countries and other subgroups, which will help develop interventions to mitigate the negative lifestyle behaviours that have manifested during the COVID-19 confinement.

Successful training not only must involve overload but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short-term performance decrement without severe psychological or lasting other negative symptoms. This functional overreaching will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and overtraining syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal, and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be "prolonged maladaptation" not only of the athlete but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline, and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirm or refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the etiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, and others together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this article, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently, several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, and biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meet all the criteria to make their use generally accepted.

Successful training must involve overload, but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short‐term performance decrement, without severe psychological, or lasting other negative symptoms. This Functional Overreaching (FOR) will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, Non‐Functional Overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and the Overtraining Syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be ‘prolonged maladaptation’ not only of the athlete, but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirmor refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the aetiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, etc., together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this paper, we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meets all criteria to make its use generally accepted.

OBJECTIVE: Physical activity (PA) can improve cardiovascular risk in the general population and in patients with type 2 diabetes. Studies also indicate an HbA1c-lowering effect in patients with type 2 diabetes. Since reports in patients with type 1 diabetes are scarce, this analysis aimed to investigate whether there is an association between PA and glycemic control or cardiovascular risk in subjects with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 18,028 adults (≥18 to <80 years of age) from Germany and Austria with type 1 diabetes from the Diabetes-Patienten-Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV) database were included. Patients were stratified according to their self-reported frequency of PA (PA0, inactive; PA1, one to two times per week; PA2, more than two times per week). Multivariable regression models were applied for glycemic control, diabetes-related comorbidities, and cardiovascular risk factors. Data were adjusted for sex, age, and diabetes duration. P values for trend were given. SAS 9.4 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: An inverse association between PA and HbA1c, diabetic ketoacidosis, BMI, dyslipidemia (all P < 0.0001), and hypertension (P = 0.0150), as well as between PA and retinopathy or microalbuminuria (both P < 0.0001), was present. Severe hypoglycemia (assistance required) did not differ in PA groups (P = 0.8989), whereas severe hypoglycemia with coma was inversely associated with PA (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PA seemed to be beneficial with respect to glycemic control, diabetes-related comorbidities, and cardiovascular risk factors without an increase of adverse events. Hence, our data underscore the recommendation for subjects with type 1 diabetes to perform regular PA.

Successful training must involve overload but also must avoid the combination of excessive overload plus inadequate recovery. Athletes can experience short term performance decrement, without severe psychological, or lasting other negative symptoms. This Functional Overreaching (FOR) will eventually lead to an improvement in performance after recovery. When athletes do not sufficiently respect the balance between training and recovery, Non‐Functional Overreaching (NFOR) can occur. The distinction between NFOR and the Overtraining Syndrome (OTS) is very difficult and will depend on the clinical outcome and exclusion diagnosis. The athlete will often show the same clinical, hormonal and other signs and symptoms. A keyword in the recognition of OTS might be ‘prolonged maladaptation’ not only of the athlete, but also of several biological, neurochemical, and hormonal regulation mechanisms. It is generally thought that symptoms of OTS, such as fatigue, performance decline, and mood disturbances, are more severe than those of NFOR. However, there is no scientific evidence to either confirm or refute this suggestion. One approach to understanding the aetiology of OTS involves the exclusion of organic diseases or infections and factors such as dietary caloric restriction (negative energy balance) and insufficient carbohydrate and/or protein intake, iron deficiency, magnesium deficiency, allergies, etc. together with identification of initiating events or triggers. In this paper we provide the recent status of possible markers for the detection of OTS. Currently several markers (hormones, performance tests, psychological tests, biochemical and immune markers) are used, but none of them meets all criteria to make its use generally accepted. We propose a “check list” that might help the physicians and sport scientists to decide on the diagnosis of OTS and to exclude other possible causes of underperformance.

Background: Heart rate recovery ( HRR ) is a noninvasive assessment of autonomic dysfunction and has been implicated with risk of cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality. However, evidence has not been systematically assessed. We performed a meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies to quantify these associations in the general population. Methods and Results: A literature search using 3 databases up to August 2016 was conducted for studies that reported hazard ratios with 95% CI s for the association between baseline HRR and outcomes of interest. The overall hazard ratios were calculated using a random‐effects model. There were 9 eligible studies in total, with 5 for cardiovascular events enrolling 1061 cases from 34 267 participants, and 9 for all‐cause mortality enrolling 2082 cases from 41 600 participants. The pooled hazard ratios associated with attenuated HRR versus fast HRR that served as the referent were 1.69 (95% CI 1.05–2.71) for cardiovascular events and 1.68 (95% CI 1.51–1.88) for all‐cause mortality. For every 10 beats per minute decrements in HRR , the hazard ratios were 1.13 (95% CI 1.05–1.21) and 1.09 (95% CI 1.01–1.19), respectively. Further analyses suggested that the associations observed between attenuated HRR and risk of fatal cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality were independent of traditional metabolic factors for cardiovascular disease (all P <0.05). Conclusions: Attenuated HRR is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality, which supports the recommendation of recording HRR for risk assessment in clinical practice as a routine.