Until recently, there has been less demand for and interest in female-specific sport and exercise science data. As a result, the vast majority of high-quality sport and exercise science data have been derived from studies with men as participants, which reduces the application of these data due to the known physiological differences between the sexes, specifically with regard to reproductive endocrinology. Furthermore, a shortage of specialist knowledge on female physiology in the sport science community, coupled with a reluctance to effectively adapt experimental designs to incorporate female-specific considerations, such as the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraceptive use, pregnancy and the menopause, has slowed the pursuit of knowledge in this field of research. In addition, a lack of agreement on the terminology and methodological approaches (i.e., gold-standard techniques) used within this research area has further hindered the ability of researchers to adequately develop evidenced-based guidelines for female exercisers. The purpose of this paper was to highlight the specific considerations needed when employing women (i.e., from athletes to non-athletes) as participants in sport and exercise science-based research. These considerations relate to participant selection criteria and adaptations for experimental design and address the diversity and complexities associated with female reproductive endocrinology across the lifespan. This statement intends to promote an increase in the inclusion of women as participants in studies related to sport and exercise science and an enhanced execution of these studies resulting in more high-quality female-specific data.

Introduction: The aim of this review is to provide methodological recommendations for menstrual cycle research in exercise science and sports medicine based on a review of recent literature. Research in this area is growing but often reports conflicting results, and it is proposed that some of this may be explained by methodological issues. Methods: This review examined the menstrual cycle verification methods used in recent literature on exercise performance over the menstrual cycle identified through a literature search of PubMed and SportDiscus from 2008 until 2018. Results: Potential changes over the menstrual cycle are likely related to hormone fluctuations; however, only 44% of the selected studies measured the actual concentrations of the female steroid hormones estrogen and progesterone. It was shown that the likely inclusion of participants with anovulatory or luteal phase–deficient cycles in combination with small participant numbers has affected results in recent menstrual cycle research and, consequently, our understanding of this area. Conclusion: To improve the quality of future menstrual cycle research, it is recommended that a combination of three methods is used to verify menstrual cycle phase: the calendar-based counting method combined with urinary luteinizing hormone surge testing and the measurement of serum estrogen and progesterone concentrations at the time of testing. A strict luteal phase verification limit of >16 nmol·L⁻¹ for progesterone should be set. It is also recommended that future research should focus on the inclusion of the late follicular estrogen peak. It is envisaged that these methodological recommendations will assist in clarifying some of the disagreement around the effects of the menstrual cycle on exercise performance and other aspects of exercise science and sports medicine.

Purpose: To compare various measures of training load (TL) derived from physiological (heart rate [HR]), perceptual (rating of perceived exertion [RPE]), and physical (global positioning system [GPS] and accelerometer) data during in-season field-based training for professional soccer.Methods: Fifteen professional male soccer players (age 24.9 ± 5.4 y, body mass 77.6 ± 7.5 kg, height 181.1 ± 6.9 cm) were assessed in-season across 97 individual training sessions. Measures of external TL (total distance [TD], the volume of low-speed activity [LSA; 14.4 km/h], very high-speed running [VHSR; >19.8 km/h], and player load), HR and session-RPE (sRPE) scores were recorded. Internal TL scores (HR-based and sRPE-based) were calculated, and their relationships with measures of external TL were quantified using Pearson product–moment correlations.Results: Physical measures of TD, LSA volume, and player load provided large, significant (r = .71−.84; P < .01) correlations with the HR-based and sRPE-based methods. Volume of HSR and VHSR provided moderate to large, significant (r = .40−.67; P < .01) correlations with measures of internal TL.Conclusions: While the volume of HSR and VHSR provided significant relationships with internal TL, physical-performance measures of TD, LSA volume, and player load appear to be more acceptable indicators of external TL, due to the greater magnitude of their correlations with measures of internal TL.

Low back pain (LBP) is an increasingly common condition worldwide with significant costs associated with its management. Identification of musculoskeletal risk factors that can be treated clinically before the development of LBP could reduce costs and improve the quality of life of individuals. Therefore the aim was to systematically review prospective cohort studies investigating lower back and / or lower limb musculoskeletal risk factors in the development of LBP. MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2016. No age, gender or occupational restrictions of participants were applied. Articles had to be published in English and have a 12 month follow-up period. Musculoskeletal risk factors were defined as any osseous, ligamentous, or muscular structure that was quantifiably measured at baseline. Studies were excluded if participants were pregnant, diagnosed with cancer, or had previous low back surgery. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant articles. Methodological quality was evaluated independently by two reviewers using a generic tool for observational studies. Twelve articles which evaluated musculoskeletal risk factors for the development of low back pain in 5459 participants were included. Individual meta-analyses were conducted based on risk factors common between studies. Meta-analysis revealed that reduced lateral flexion range of motion (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.73, p = 0.002), limited lumbar lordosis (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98, p = 0.034), and restricted hamstring range of motion (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98, p = 0.001) were significantly associated with the development of low back pain. Meta-analyses on lumbar extension range of motion, quadriceps flexibility, fingertip to floor distance, lumbar flexion range of motion, back muscle strength, back muscle endurance, abdominal strength, erector spinae cross sectional area, and quadratus lumborum cross sectional area showed non-significant results. In summary, we found that a restriction in lateral flexion and hamstring range of motion as well as limited lumbar lordosis were associated with an increased risk of developing LBP. Future research should aim to measure additional lower limb musculoskeletal risk factors, have follow up periods of 6-12 months, adopt a standardised definition of LBP, and only include participants who have no history of LBP.

T acceleration have not been established in the scientific literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the biomechanical and performance factors that differentiate sprint acceleration ability in field sport athletes. Twenty men completed sprint tests for biomechanical analysis and tests of power, strength, and leg stiffness. The sprint intervals analyzed were 0–5, 5–10, and 0–10 m. The subjects were split into a faster and slower group based on 0- to 10-m velocity. A 1-way analysis of variance determined variables that significantly (p ≤ 0.05) distinguished between faster and slower acceleration. All subject data were then pooled for a correlation analysis to determine factors contributing most to acceleration. The results showed that 0- to 5-m (∼16% difference) and 0- to 10-m (∼11% difference) contact times for the faster group were significantly lower. Times to peak vertical and horizontal force during ground contact were lower for the faster group. This was associated with the reduced support times achieved by faster accelerators and their ability to generate force quickly. Ground contact force profiles during initial acceleration are useful discriminators of sprint performance in field sport athletes. For the strength and power measures, the faster group demonstrated a 14% greater countermovement jump and 48% greater reactive strength index. Significant correlations were found between velocity (0–5, 5–10, and 0–10 m) and most strength and power measures. The novel finding of this study is that training programs directed toward improving field sport sprint acceleration should aim to reduce contact time and improve ground force efficiency. It is important that even during the short sprints required for field sports, practitioners focus on good technique with short contact times....