Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Moussa-Chamari I, Farooq A, Romdhani M, Washif JA, Bakare U, Helmy M, et al.
    Front Public Health, 2024;12:1397924.
    PMID: 39050600 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1397924
    OBJECTIVE: We assessed the direct and indirect relationships between sleep quality, mental health, and physical activity with quality of life (QOL) in college and university students.

    METHODS: In a cross-sectional design, 3,380 college students (60% females; age = 22.7 ± 5.4) from four continents (Africa: 32%; America: 5%; Asia: 46%; and Europe: 15%; others: 2%) completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Insomnia Severity Index (ISI); Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS); the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS); the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ); and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-Brief).

    RESULTS: We showed that sleep quality, insomnia, and depression had direct negative effects on the physical domain of QOL (β = -0.22, -0.19, -0.31, respectively, p 

  2. Romdhani M, Rae DE, Nédélec M, Ammar A, Chtourou H, Al Horani R, et al.
    Sports Med, 2021 Dec 08.
    PMID: 34878639 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01601-y
    OBJECTIVE: In a convenience sample of athletes, we conducted a survey of COVID-19-mediated lockdown (termed 'lockdown' from this point forward) effects on: (i) circadian rhythms; (ii) sleep; (iii) eating; and (iv) training behaviors.

    METHODS: In total, 3911 athletes [mean age: 25.1 (range 18-61) years, 1764 female (45%), 2427 team-sport (63%) and 1442 elite (37%) athletes] from 49 countries completed a multilingual cross-sectional survey including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Insomnia Severity Index questionnaires, alongside bespoke questions about napping, training, and nutrition behaviors.

    RESULTS: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (4.3 ± 2.4 to 5.8 ± 3.1) and Insomnia Severity Index (4.8 ± 4.7 to 7.2 ± 6.4) scores increased from pre- to during lockdown (p i) early outdoor training; (ii) regular meal scheduling (whilst avoiding meals prior to bedtime and caffeine in the evening) with appropriate composition; (iii) regular bedtimes and wake-up times; and (iv) avoidance of long and/or late naps.

  3. Washif JA, Pyne DB, Sandbakk Ø, Trabelsi K, Aziz AR, Beaven CM, et al.
    Biol Sport, 2022 Oct;39(4):1103-1115.
    PMID: 36247962 DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2022.117576
    Ramadan intermittent fasting during the COVID-19 lockdown (RIFL) may present unique demands. We investigated training practices (i.e., training load and training times) of athletes, using pre-defined survey criteria/questions, during the 'first' COVID-19 lockdown, comparing RIFL to lockdown-alone (LD) in Muslim athletes. Specifically, a within-subject, survey-based study saw athletes (n = 5,529; from 110 countries/territories) training practices (comparing RIFL to LD) explored by comparative variables of: sex; age; continent; athlete classification (e.g., world-class); sport classification (e.g., endurance); athlete status (e.g., professional); and level of training knowledge and beliefs/attitudes (ranked as: good/moderate/poor). During RIFL (compared to LD), athlete perceptions (ranges presented given variety of comparative variables) of their training load decreased (46-62%), were maintained (31-48%) or increased (2-13%). Decreases (≥ 5%, p < 0.05) affected more athletes aged 30-39 years than those 18-29 years (60 vs 55%); more national than international athletes (59 vs 51%); more team sports than precision sports (59 vs 46%); more North American than European athletes (62 vs 53%); more semi-professional than professional athletes (60 vs 54%); more athletes who rated their beliefs/attitudes 'good' compared to 'poor' and 'moderate' (61 vs 54 and 53%, respectively); and more athletes with 'moderate' than 'poor' knowledge (58 vs 53%). During RIFL, athletes had different strategies for training times, with 13-29% training twice a day (i.e., afternoon and night), 12-26% at night only, and 18-36% in the afternoon only, with ranges depending on the comparative variables. Training loads and activities were altered negatively during RIFL compared to LD. It would be prudent for decision-makers responsible for RIFL athletes to develop programs to support athletes during such challenges.
  4. Washif JA, Farooq A, Krug I, Pyne DB, Verhagen E, Taylor L, et al.
    Sports Med, 2022 04;52(4):933-948.
    PMID: 34687439 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01573-z
    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, 

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links