Browse

Although the Paralympic Games have been around for over 60 years, women remain underrepresented in almost all aspects of the Paralympic Movement. It has been suggested that a way to increase women’s involvement is through the implementation of mixed-gender events. On paper, this approach makes sense. However, when it comes to the implementation of mixed-gender opportunities for women, it is less clear how effective these events are in increasing participation by women in Para sport. Through document analysis and interviews with athletes and organizers of mixed-gender Paralympic sport, we explore the various strategies that four mixed-gender sports have used to address the issue of gender parity. Using critical feminist theories, we illustrate how larger social, political, and cultural ideas about gender influence women’s experiences within these events and discuss the potential of using mixed-gender initiatives to address gender parity within the Paralympic Movement.

This study assessed the effect of combined jump training and collagen supplementation on bone mineral density (BMD) in elite road-race cyclists. In this open-label, randomized study with two parallel groups, 36 young (21 ± 3 years) male (n = 8) and female (n = 28) elite road-race cyclists were allocated to either an intervention (INT: n = 18) or a no-treatment control (CON: n = 18) group. The 18-week intervention period, conducted during the off-season, comprised five 5-min bouts of jumping exercise per week, with each bout preceded by the ingestion of 15 g hydrolyzed collagen. Before and after the intervention, BMD of various skeletal sites and trabecular bone score of the lumbar spine were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, along with serum bone turnover markers procollagen Type I N propeptide and carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of Type I collagen. BMD of the femoral neck decreased in CON (from 0.789 ± 0.104 to 0.774 ± 0.095 g/cm²), while being preserved in INT (from 0.803 ± 0.058 to 0.809 ± 0.066 g/cm²; Time × Treatment, p < .01). No differences between treatments were observed for changes in BMD at the total hip, lumbar spine, and whole body (Time × Treatment, p > .05 for all). Trabecular bone score increased from 1.38 ± 0.08 to 1.40 ± 0.09 in CON and from 1.46 ± 0.08 to 1.47 ± 0.08 in INT, respectively (time effect: p < .01), with no differences between treatments (Time × Treatment: p = .33). Serum procollagen Type I N propeptide concentrations decreased to a similar extent in CON (83.6 ± 24.8 to 71.4 ± 23.1 ng/ml) and INT (82.8 ± 30.7 to 66.3 ± 30.6; time effect, p < .001; Time × Treatment, p = .22). Serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of Type I collagen concentrations did not change over time, with no differences between treatments (time effect, p = .08; Time × Treatment, p = .58). In conclusion, frequent short bouts of jumping exercise combined with collagen supplementation beneficially affects femoral neck BMD in elite road-race cyclists.

Resistance exercise training (RET) can be applied effectively to increase muscle mass and function in older adults (65–75 years). However, it has been speculated that older adults above 85 years are less responsive to the benefits of RET. This study compares the impact of RET on muscle mass and function in healthy older adults 65–75 years versus older adults above 85 years. We subjected 17 healthy older adults 65–75 years (OLDER 65–75, n = 13/4 [female/male]; 68 ± 2 years; 26.9 ± 2.3 kg/m²) and 12 healthy older adults above 85 years (OLDER 85+, n = 7/5 [female/male]; 87 ± 3 years; 26.0 ± 3.6 kg/m²) to 12 weeks of whole-body RET (three times per week). Prior to, and after 6 and 12 weeks of training, quadriceps and lumbar spine vertebra 3 muscle cross-sectional area (computed tomography scan), whole-body lean mass (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan), strength (one-repetition maximum test), and physical performance (timed up and go and short physical performance battery) were assessed. Twelve weeks of RET resulted in a 10% ± 4% and 11% ± 5% increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area (from 46.5 ± 10.7 to 51.1 ± 12.1 cm², and from 38.9 ± 6.1 to 43.1 ± 8.0 cm², respectively; p < .001; η² = .67); a 2% ± 3% and 2% ± 3% increase in whole-body lean mass (p = .001; η² = .22); and a 38% ± 20% and 46% ± 14% increase in one-repetition maximum leg extension strength (p < .001; η² = .77) in the OLDER 65–75 and OLDER 85+ groups, respectively. No differences in the responses to RET were observed between groups (Time × Group, all p > .60; all η² ≤ .012). Physical performance on the short physical performance battery and timed up and go improved (both p < .01; η² ≥ .22), with no differences between groups (Time × Group, p > .015; η² ≤ .07). Prolonged RET increases muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in the aging population, with no differences between 65–75 years and 85+ years older adults.

Purpose: In this commentary, I present arguments against the use of the force–velocity profiling concept in design and adaptations of training programs targeting sprinting. The purpose of this commentary is to make sports practitioners more aware of the rationale behind the concept and explain why it does not work. Rationale: Force–velocity profiling is a mathematical way to present the velocity development during sprint behavior. Some details of this behavior may be accentuated by transforming it to other variables, but it does not add any new information about sprint performance. Thus, contrary to what is often claimed, the force–velocity profile does not represent maximal capacities (ability of force and velocity generation) of the athlete. It is claimed that through force–velocity profiling one may identify the optimal ratio of force and velocity capacities. Furthermore, proponents of the force–velocity profiling concept suggest that through directed training force and velocity capacities can be altered (inversely dependent) to obtain this optimal ratio, without changing the capacity to express power. Fundamentally, this idea is unfounded and implausible. Conclusion: At best, force–velocity profiling may be able to identify between-athletes differences. However, these can be more easily deduced directly from performance time traces.

Background: Exercise with blood-flow restriction (BFR) is being increasingly used by practitioners working with athletic and clinical populations alike. Most early research combined BFR with low-load resistance training and consistently reported increased muscle size and strength without requiring the heavier loads that are traditionally used for unrestricted resistance training. However, this field has evolved with several different active and passive BFR methods emerging in recent research. Purpose: This commentary aims to synthesize the evolving BFR methods for cohorts ranging from healthy athletes to clinical or load-compromised populations. In addition, real-world considerations for practitioners are highlighted, along with areas requiring further research. Conclusions: The BFR literature now incorporates several active and passive methods, reflecting a growing implementation of BFR in sport and allied health fields. In addition to low-load resistance training, BFR is being combined with high-load resistance exercise, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems training of varying intensities, and sport-specific activities. BFR is also being applied passively in the absence of physical activity during periods of muscle disuse or rehabilitation or prior to exercise as a preconditioning or performance-enhancement technique. These various methods have been reported to improve muscular development; cardiorespiratory fitness; functional capacities; tendon, bone, and vascular adaptations; and physical and sport-specific performance and to reduce pain sensations. However, in emerging BFR fields, many unanswered questions remain to refine best practice.

Purpose: One hundred years ago, Hill and Lupton introduced the concept of maximal oxygen uptake ( $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ ), which is regarded as “the principal progenitor of sports physiology.” We provide a succinct overview of the evolvement of research on $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ , from Hill and Lupton‘s initial findings to current debates on limiting factors for $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ and the associated role of convective and diffusive components. Furthermore, we update the current use of $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ in elite endurance sport and clinical settings. Practical Applications and Conclusions: $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ is a healthy and active centenarian that remains a very important measure in elite endurance sports and additionally contributes as an important vital sign of cardiovascular function and fitness in clinical settings. Over the past 100 years, guidelines for the test protocols and exhaustion criteria, as well as the understanding of limiting factors for $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ , have improved dramatically. Presently, possibilities of accurate and noninvasive determination of the convective versus diffusive components of $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ by wearable sensors represent an important future application. $\dot{\mathrm{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_2\text{max}$ is not only an indicator of cardiorespiratory function, fitness, and endurance performance but also represents an important biomarker of cardiovascular function and health to be included in routine assessment in clinical practice.