No abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the resting cardiac autonomic nervous system’s response to the ingestion of a complex containing Citrus aurantium + Caffeine (CA + C) and its influence on recovery following a high-intensity anaerobic exercise bout in habitual caffeine users.MethodsTen physically active males (25.1 ± 3.9 years; weight 78.71 ± 9.53 kg; height 177.2 ± 4.6 cm; body fat 15.5 ± 3.13%) participated in this study, which consisted of two exhaustive exercise protocols in a randomized crossover design. On each visit the participants consumed either a CA + C (100 mg of CA and 100 mg of C) or placebo (dextrose) capsule. After consumption, participants were monitored throughout a 45-min ingestion period, then completed a repeated Wingate protocol, and were then monitored throughout a 45-min recovery period. Cardiac autonomic function (Heart Rate (HR) and Heart Rate Variability (HRV)) and plasma epinephrine (E) and norepinephrine (NE) were taken at four different time points; Ingestion period: baseline (I1), post-ingestion period (I2); Recovery period: immediately post-exercise (R1), post-recovery period (R2). Heart rate variability was assessed in 5-min increments.ResultsA repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant time-dependent increases in HR, sympathetic related markers of HRV, and plasma E and NE at I2 only in the CA + C trial (p < 0.05); however, no meaningful changes in parasympathetic markers of HRV were observed. Participants recovered in a similar time-dependent manner in all markers of HRV and catecholamines following the PLA and CA + C trials.ConclusionThe consumption of CA + C results in an increase of sympathetic activity during resting conditions without influencing parasympathetic activity. CA + C provides no influence over cardiac autonomic recovery.

The purpose of this study was to compare the body fat per cent (BF%) assessed with a unique handheld electrical impedance myography (EIM) device, along with other popular methods, to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants included 33 males (aged 24.3 ± 4.6 years) and 38 females (aged 25.3 ± 8.9 years) who completed 2 visits separated by 24-72 h. The assessments included DXA, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), skinfold measures (SKF), and three separate EIM measurements. No significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) were found between all EIM assessments when compared against DXA for both males and females for each visit. All methods showed no significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) between days within themselves. Across both days, the standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the EIM measurements ranged from 2.66% to 3.15%, the SEE for BIA was 2.80 and 2.85, and for SKF was 2.90 and 2.82. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from ±5.34% to ±6.38% for EIM measurements and were highest for SKF (±7.42% and ±7.47%). The total error for both days was largest for SKF (5.20% and 5.35%) and lowest for the EIM measurements (2.48-3.24%). This investigation supports use of a handheld EIM device as an accurate and reliable method of estimating BF% compared to DXA in young, apparently healthy individuals with BF% in the range of 10-22% for males and 20-32% in females and suggests this EIM device be considered a viable alternative to other established field measurements in this population.

Context: Research has suggested that the prevalence of young women with eating disorders (EDs) is increasing, but determining the exact prevalence of EDs within the female student-athlete (FS-A) population is difficult. Looking at certain traits may help us to identify their level of susceptibility to developing an ED.Objective: To determine the susceptibility of FS-As to EDs in relation to self-concept, including self-esteem and body image.Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Athletic training and health centers at National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, and III institutions via e-mail questionnaire correspondence.Patients or Other Participants: A total of 439 FS-As from 17 participating institutions completed the questionnaires. The sample was primarily white (83.1%) and underclass (61.8%).Main Outcome Measure(s): The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts: 3 subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Body Cathexis Scale, and demographic items.Results: A total of 6.8% of FS-As were susceptible to anorexia and 1.8% were susceptible to bulimia. The majority of FS-As (61%) reported normal self-esteem levels, whereas 29.4% had high self-esteem. Overall, 64.5% were satisfied and 23% were very satisfied with their body image.Conclusions: These results are generally positive in that they suggest FS-As have high levels of self-concept and are at low risk to develop EDs. However, these findings do not mean that all concerns should be dismissed. Although more than 90% of the respondents were not susceptible to an ED, there are still FS-As who may be. Athletic departments should evaluate their FS-As' levels of self-concept so that their susceptibility to EDs can be addressed. The emotional aspect of health care should be included in providing holistic care for student-athletes. Athletic trainers often are the primary health care providers for FS-As, so they should be made aware of this concern.

A machine belt squat is a piece of equipment designed to allow the performance of squats while loading weight on the lifter's hips using a belt. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if belt squats differ from back squats in activation of the primary movers, and to determine the predictive capabilities of back squat load, training status, and anthropometric data on belt squat load. Thirty-one participants (16 males and 15 females) completed anthropometric measurements, a demographic questionnaire, a familiarization visit, and two testing visits, completing a 5 repetition maximum test for back squat and belt squat. Surface electromyography was used to measure muscle activation for the left and right vastus medialis (VMO), vastus lateralis (VLO), rectus femoris (RF), and gluteus maximus (GM). Comparison of muscle activation between the two exercises showed significant differences in the left GM (back squat: 0.84 ± 0.45, belt squat: 0.69 ± 0.22, p=0.015) and right GM (back squat: 0.86 ± 0.45, belt squat: 0.71 ± 0.29, p=0.004). Regression analysis computed significant prediction equations for belt squat load for general population, males, females, and advanced lifters. Overall, results indicate that belt squats may significantly differ in GM activation from back squats. Back squat load, as well as other variables, may be effective in accurately estimating appropriate belt squat load. These findings may help to more appropriately program for training with machine belt squats as a back squat alternative.