BackgroundExercising at intensities where fat oxidation rates are high has been shown to induce metabolic benefits in recreational and health-oriented sportsmen. The exercise intensity (Fatpeak) eliciting peak fat oxidation rates is therefore of particular interest when aiming to prescribe exercise for the purpose of fat oxidation and related metabolic effects. Although running and walking are feasible and popular among the target population, no reliable protocols are available to assess Fatpeak as well as its actual velocity (VPFO) during treadmill ergometry. Our purpose was therefore, to assess the reliability and day-to-day variability of VPFO and Fatpeak during treadmill ergometry running.MethodsSixteen recreational athletes (f = 7, m = 9; 25 ± 3 y; 1.76 ± 0.09 m; 68.3 ± 13.7 kg; 23.1 ± 2.9 kg/m2) performed 2 different running protocols on 3 different days with standardized nutrition the day before testing. At day 1, peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and the velocities at the aerobic threshold (VLT) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) of 1.00 (VRER) were assessed. At days 2 and 3, subjects ran an identical submaximal incremental test (Fat-peak test) composed of a 10 min warm-up (70 % VLT) followed by 5 stages of 6 min with equal increments (stage 1 = VLT, stage 5 = VRER). Breath-by-breath gas exchange data was measured continuously and used to determine fat oxidation rates. A third order polynomial function was used to identify VPFO and subsequently Fatpeak. The reproducibility and variability of variables was verified with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Pearson’s correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation (CV) and the mean differences (bias) ± 95 % limits of agreement (LoA).ResultsICC, Pearson’s correlation and CV for VPFO and Fatpeak were 0.98, 0.97, 5.0 %; and 0.90, 0.81, 7.0 %, respectively. Bias ± 95 % LoA was −0.3 ± 0.9 km/h for VPFO and −2 ± 8 % of VO2peak for Fatpeak.ConclusionIn summary, relative and absolute reliability indicators for VPFO and Fatpeak were found to be excellent. The observed LoA may now serve as a basis for future training prescriptions, although fat oxidation rates at prolonged exercise bouts at this intensity still need to be investigated.

ObjectivesTransparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.SettingExploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.ParticipantsThe sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.ResultsThe sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants’ sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.ConclusionsThese results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.

No abstract

Tensiomyography measures the radial displacement of a muscle during an electrically evoked twitch contraction. The rate of muscle displacement is increasingly reported to assess contractile properties. Several formulas currently exist to calculate the rate of displacement during the contraction phase of the maximal twitch response. However, information on the reproducibility of these formulas is scarce. Further, different rest intervals ranging from 10 s to 30 s are applied between consecutive stimuli during progressive electrical stimulation until the maximum twitch response. The effect of different rest intervals on the rate of displacement has not been investigated so far. The first aim of this study is to investigate the within and between-day reliability of the most frequently used formulas to calculate the rate of displacement. The second aim is to investigate the effect of changing the inter-stimulus interval on the rate of displacement. We will determine the rectus femoris and biceps femoris rate of displacement of twenty-four healthy subjects’ dominant leg on two consecutive days. The maximum displacement curve will be determined two times within three minutes on the first day and a third time 24 h later. On day two, we will also apply three blocks of ten consecutive stimuli at a constant intensity of 50 mA. Inter-stimuli intervals will be 10 s, 20 s or 30 s in each block, respectively, and three minutes between blocks. The order of inter-stimulus intervals will be randomized. This study will allow a direct comparison between the five most frequently used formulas to calculate the rate of displacement in terms of their reproducibility. Our data will also inform on the effect of different inter-stimulus intervals on the rate of displacement. These results will provide helpful information on methodical considerations to determine the rate of displacement and may thus contribute to a standardized approach.

Introduction: While transparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice, earlier studies have shown that deficiencies are common. This study examined current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedics. Methods: The sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopedics journals over eight months. Two independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigor, the study sample, and data analysis. Results: The sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigor criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty percent (confidence interval [CI] 53-68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (CI 25-39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; CI 1-7%). Only 18% (CI 12-24%) included information on randomization type, method, and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants' sex/gender (95%; CI 92-98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; CI 72-84%). Only 20% (CI 14-26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories. Conclusions: These results will aid the sports medicine and orthopedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomization and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. These practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting. Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9648H