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).

This review aimed to identify the effects of strength training programs on the physical fitness of Olympic combat sports (OCS) athletes. The systematic review included peer-reviewed articles that incorporated interventions that included pre- and post-intervention physical fitness assessment. The search was performed in the SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science databases between April and September 2022. PRISMA and the TESTEX checklist were used to select and assess the methodological quality of the studies. Twenty studies with 504 participants (428 males and 76 females) were included. Significant improvements were found in athletes’ maximal dynamic and isometric strength, muscle power, flexibility, and balance. In addition, improvements in favor of the training groups in specific actions of judo, karate, fencing, and boxing were observed. In conclusion, interventions aimed at the development of muscle strength in OCS, specifically in judo, boxing, karate, wrestling, and fencing, proved to be beneficial at a physical fitness level, resulting in significant increases in favor of the training groups with OCS, which could be used by trainers and coaches to improve the physical performance of athletes.

We aimed to assess the athletic performance changes in combat sport athletes (CoSAs) after plyometric-jump training (PJT), compared to control conditions, through a systematic review with meta-analysis. Following PRISMA guidelines, three electronic databases were searched for includable articles, according to a PICOS approach. Using a random-effects model, Hedges’ g effects sizes (ES) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, with values of 75% representing low, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Twelve eligible articles were identified for systematic review, seven of high quality and five of moderate quality, according to the PEDro scale. The studies recruited taekwondo, silat, wrestling, judo, fencing, and karate athletes (292 total participants), including specific–active and active controls. Most participants had a mean age of <18 years and were males (n = 225). Compared to the control, PJT programmes, involving 4–12 weeks and 2–3 sessions per week, induced small to moderate improvements (ES = 0.47 to 1.04) in athletes’ maximal strength (e.g., 1RM squat), vertical jump height, change-of-direction speed, and specific performance (e.g., fencing movement velocity), although without meaningful effects on body mass, fat mass, and muscle mass (ES = 0.02 to −0.06). Most (7 of 8) outcomes attained low heterogeneity. The outcome-level GRADE analysis indicated a certainty of evidence from low to moderate. In conclusion, PJT, when compared to control conditions, may improve CoSA athletic performance.

The aim of this systematic review was to analyse the studies centered on the effects of Olympic combat sports (OCS [i.e., boxing, fencing, judo, karate, taekwondo, wrestling]) on older adults’ physical-functional, physiological, and psychoemotional health status. The review comprised randomised-controlled trials with OCS interventions, including older adults (≥60 years), and measures of physical-functional, physiological, and/or psychoemotional health. The studies were searched through SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EBSCO databases until 5 January 2021. The PRISMA-P and TESTEX scales were used to assess the quality of the selected studies. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (code: CRD42020204034). Twelve OCS intervention studies were found (scored ≥ 60% for methodological quality), comprising 392 females and 343 males (mean age: 69.6 years), participating in boxing, judo, karate, and taekwondo. The qualitative analysis revealed that compared to controls, OCS training improved muscle strength, cardiorespiratory capacity, agility, balance, movement, attention, memory, mental health, anxiety, and stress tolerance. Meta-analysis was available only for the chair stand test, and an improvement was noted after OCS training compared to control. In conclusion, OCS interventions improves older adults’ physical-functional, physiological, and psychoemotional health. Our systematic review confirms that OCS training has high adherence (greater than 80%) in older adults.

The aim of this research was to compare the effects of a technique-specific high-intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol vs. traditional taekwondo training on physical fitness and body composition in taekwondo athletes, as well as to analyse the inter-individual response. Utilising a parallel controlled design, sixteen male and female athletes (five females and 11 males) were randomly divided into an experimental group (EG) that participated in the technique-specific HIIT and a control group (CG) that participated in traditional taekwondo training. Both groups trained three days/week for four weeks. Squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 5-metre sprint (5M), 20-metre shuttle run (20MSR), taekwondo specific agility test (TSAT), multiple frequency speed of kick test (FSKT_MULT), total kicks, and kick decrement index (KDI), as well as body composition were evaluated. Results indicate that there are no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the factors group and time factor and group by time interaction (p > 0.05). Although percentage and effect size increases were documented for post-intervention fitness components in TSAT, total kicks, KDI, and 20MSR, responders and non-responders were also documented. In conclusion, a HIIT protocol based on taekwondo-specific technical movements does not report significant differences in fitness and body composition compared to traditional taekwondo training, nor inter-individual differences between athletes.