We compared running economy (RE) and 3-km time-trial (TT) variables of runners wearing Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4), Saucony Endorphin lightweight racing flats (FLAT), and their habitual running (OWN) footwear. Eighteen male recreational runners (age = 33.5 ± 11.9 year (mean ± SD), peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak) = 55.8 ± 4.4 mL/kg·min) attended 4 sessions approximately 7 days apart. The first session consisted of a VO_2peak test to inform subsequent RE speeds set at 60%, 70%, and 80% of the speed eliciting VO_2peak. In subsequent sessions, treadmill RE and 3-km TTs were assessed in the 3 footwear conditions in a randomized, counterbalanced crossover design. Oxygen consumption (mL/kg·min) was less in VP4 (from 4.3% to 4.4%, p ≤ 0.002) and FLAT (from 2.7% to 3.4%, p ≤ 0.092) vs. OWN across intensities, with a non-significant difference between VP4 and FLAT (1.0%-1.7%, p ≥ 0.292). Findings related to energy cost (W/kg) and energetics cost of transport (J/kg·m) were comparable. VP4 3-km TT performance (11:07.6 ± 0:56.6 mm:ss) was enhanced vs. OWN by 16.6 s (2.4%, p = 0.005) and vs. FLAT by 13.0 s (1.8%, p = 0.032). The 3-km times between OWN and FLAT (0.5%, p = 0.747) were similar. Most runners (n = 11, 61%) ran their fastest TT in VP4. Overall, VP4 improved laboratory-based RE measures in male recreational runners at relative speeds compared to OWN, but the RE improvements in VP4 were not significant vs. FLAT. More runners exhibited better treadmill TT performances in VP4 (61%) vs. FLAT (22%) and OWN (17%). The variability in RE (-10.3% to 13.3%) and TT (-4.7% to 9.3%) improvements suggests that responses to different types of shoes are individualized and warrant further investigation.

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%], 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. 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).