Immunosenescence is characterized by deterioration of the immune system caused by aging which induces changes to innate and adaptive immunity. Immunosenescence affects function and phenotype of immune cells, such as expression and function of receptors for immune cells which contributes to loss of immune function (chemotaxis, intracellular killing). Moreover, these alterations decrease the response to pathogens, which leads to several age-related diseases including cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes in older individuals. Furthermore, increased risk of autoimmune disease and chronic infection is increased with an aging immune system, which is characterized by a pro-inflammatory environment, ultimately leading to accelerated biological aging. During the last century, sedentarism rose dramatically, with a concomitant increase in certain type of cancers (such as breast cancer, colon, or prostate cancer), and autoimmune disease. Numerous studies on physical activity and immunity, with focus on special populations (i.e., people with diabetes, HIV patients) demonstrate that chronic exercise enhances immunity. However, the majority of previous work has focused on either a pathological population or healthy young adults whilst research in elderly populations is scarce. Research conducted to date has primarily focused on aerobic and resistance exercise training and its effect on immunity. This review focuses on the potential for exercise training to affect the aging immune system. The concept is that some lifestyle strategies such as high-intensity exercise training may prevent disease through the attenuation of immunosenescence. In this context, we take a top-down approach and review the effect of exercise and training on immunological parameters in elderly at rest and during exercise in humans, and how they respond to different modes of training. We highlight the impact of these different exercise modes on immunological parameters, such as cytokine and lymphocyte concentration in elderly individuals.

The use of herbal medicinal products and supplements has increased during last decades. At present, some herbs are used to enhance muscle strength and body mass. Emergent evidence suggests that the health benefits from plants are attributed to their bioactive compounds such as Polyphenols, Terpenoids, and Alkaloids which have several physiological effects on the human body. At times, manufacturers launch numerous products with banned ingredient inside with inappropriate amounts or fake supplement inducing harmful side effect. Unfortunately up to date, there is no guarantee that herbal supplements are safe for anyone to use and it has not helped to clear the confusion surrounding the herbal use in sport field especially. Hence, the purpose of this review is to provide guidance on the efficacy and side effect of most used plants in sport. We have identified plants according to the following categories: Ginseng, alkaloids, and other purported herbal ergogenics such as Tribulus Terrestris, Cordyceps Sinensis. We found that most herbal supplement effects are likely due to activation of the central nervous system via stimulation of catecholamines. Ginseng was used as an endurance performance enhancer, while alkaloids supplementation resulted in improvements in sprint and cycling intense exercises. Despite it is prohibited, small amount of ephedrine was usually used in combination with caffeine to enhance muscle strength in trained individuals. Some other alkaloids such as green tea extracts have been used to improve body mass and composition in athletes. Other herb (i.e. Rhodiola, Astragalus) help relieve muscle and joint pain, but results about their effects on exercise performance are missing.

The proper design and implementation of a study as well as a balanced and well-supported evaluation and interpretation of its main findings are of crucial importance when reporting and disseminating research. Also accountability, funding acknowledgement and adequately declaring any conflict of interest play a major role in science. Since the Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal (MLTJ) is committed to the highest scientific and ethical standards, we encourage all Authors to take into account and to comply, as much as possible, to the contents and issues discussed in this official editorial. This could be useful for improving the quality of the manuscripts, as well as to stimulate interest and debate and to promote constructive change, reflecting upon uses and misuses within our disciplines belonging to the field of "Clinical and Sport - Science Research".

The novel SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) became a pandemic on 11 March 2020. The epidemiological picture is constantly evolving, and on 13 May, 4,170,424 cases and 287,399 confirmed deaths have been reported (WHO Report). People with COVID-19 infection may show several symptoms, including fever, cough, nausea, vomiting, dyspnea, myalgia, fatigue, arthralgia, headache, diarrhea, and rarely arthritis [1]. COVID-19 clinical features range from asymptomatic patients to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ dysfunction [2, 3]. Influenza symptoms are associated with a cascade of inflammatory mediators. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels in plasma and upper respiratory secretions directly correlate with the magnitude of viral replication, fever, and respiratory and systemic symptoms, including musculoskeletal clinical manifestations [4, 5] Musculoskeletal symptoms such as fatigue, myalgia and arthralgia are common COVID-19 symptoms, but their prevalence has not yet been systematically investigated [6, 7]. We collected the published clinical data of the past 5 months to ascertain the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and epidemiological characteristics published worldwide in COVID-19 patients. Data were tabulated using Microsoft Excel TM 2020 V.16.34. The value was showed as mean ± SD. Student t test was used to reveal musculoskeletal symptoms between the total sample. To assess the incidence for each clinical variable, frequency analysis was performed. Regression analysis (R 2) was used to examine correlations between the total sample and musculoskeletal symptoms extracted. The level of significant was set at p < 0.05.

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).