Female-specific research on sports science and sports medicine (SSSM) fails to mirror the increase in participation and popularity of women’s sport. Females have historically been excluded from SSSM research, particularly because their physiological intricacy necessitates more complex study designs, longer research times, and additional costs. Consequently, most SSSM practices are based on research with men, despite potential problems in translation to females due to sexual dimorphism in biological and phenotypical parameters as well as differences in event characteristics (e.g., race distances/durations). Recognition that erroneous extrapolations may hamper the efforts of females to maximize their athletic potential has created an impetus to acknowledge and readdress the sex disparity in SSSM research. To direct the priorities for future research, it is prudent to first develop a comprehensive understanding of the gaps in current knowledge by systematically “auditing” the literature. By conducting audits of the literature to highlight underdeveloped topics or identify potential problems with the quality of research, this information can then be used to expediently direct new research activities. This paper therefore presents a standardized audit methodology to establish the representation of female athletes in subdisciplines of existing SSSM research, including a template for reporting the results of key metrics. This standardized audit process will enable comparisons over time and between research subdisciplines. This working guide provides an important step toward achieving sex equity across SSSM research, with the eventual goal of providing evidence-based recommendations specific to the female athlete.
Ella S. Smith, Alannah K.A. McKay, Kathryn E. Ackerman, Rachel Harris, Kirsty J. Elliott-Sale, Trent Stellingwerff, and Louise M. Burke
Alannah K.A. McKay, Trent Stellingwerff, Ella S. Smith, David T. Martin, Iñigo Mujika, Vicky L. Goosey-Tolfrey, Jeremy Sheppard, and Louise M. Burke
Throughout the sport-science and sports-medicine literature, the term “elite” subjects might be one of the most overused and ill-defined terms. Currently, there is no common perspective or terminology to characterize the caliber and training status of an individual or cohort. This paper presents a 6-tiered Participant Classification Framework whereby all individuals across a spectrum of exercise backgrounds and athletic abilities can be classified. The Participant Classification Framework uses training volume and performance metrics to classify a participant to one of the following: Tier 0: Sedentary; Tier 1: Recreationally Active; Tier 2: Trained/Developmental; Tier 3: Highly Trained/National Level; Tier 4: Elite/International Level; or Tier 5: World Class. We suggest the Participant Classification Framework can be used to classify participants both prospectively (as part of study participant recruitment) and retrospectively (during systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses). Discussion around how the Participant Classification Framework can be tailored toward different sports, athletes, and/or events has occurred, and sport-specific examples provided. Additional nuances such as depth of sport participation, nationality differences, and gender parity within a sport are all discussed. Finally, chronological age with reference to the junior and masters athlete, as well as the Paralympic athlete, and their inclusion within the Participant Classification Framework has also been considered. It is our intention that this framework be widely implemented to systematically classify participants in research featuring exercise, sport, performance, health, and/or fitness outcomes going forward, providing the much-needed uniformity to classification practices.