Background: Concentrations of endogenous sex hormones fluctuate across the menstrual cycle (MC), which could have implications for exercise performance in women. At present, data are conflicting, with no consensus on whether exercise performance is affected by MC phase. Objective: To determine the effects of the MC on exercise performance and provide evidence-based, practical, performance recommendations to eumenorrheic women. Methods: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched for published experimental studies that investigated the effects of the MC on exercise performance, which included at least one outcome measure taken in two or more defined MC phases. All data were meta-analysed using multilevel models grounded in Bayesian principles. The initial meta-analysis pooled pairwise effect sizes comparing exercise performance during the early follicular phase with all other phases (late follicular, ovulation, early luteal, mid-luteal and late luteal) amalgamated. A more comprehensive analysis was then conducted, comparing exercise performance between all phases with direct and indirect pairwise effect sizes through a network meta-analysis. Results from the network meta-analysis were summarised by calculating the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA). Study quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist and a strategy based on the recommendations of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Results: Of the 78 included studies, data from 51 studies were eligible for inclusion in the initial pairwise meta-analysis. The three-level hierarchical model indicated a trivial effect for both endurance- and strength-based outcomes, with reduced exercise performance observed in the early follicular phase of the MC, based on the median pooled effect size (ES_0.5 = − 0.06 [95% credible interval (CrI): − 0.16 to 0.04]). Seventy-three studies had enough data to be included in the network meta-analysis. The largest effect was identified between the early follicular and the late follicular phases of the MC (ES_0.5 = − 0.14 [95% CrI: − 0.26 to − 0.03]). The lowest SUCRA value, which represents the likelihood that exercise performance is poor, or among the poorest, relative to other MC phases, was obtained for the early follicular phase (30%), with values for all other phases ranging between 53 and 55%. The quality of evidence for this review was classified as “low” (42%). Conclusion: The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that exercise performance might be trivially reduced during the early follicular phase of the MC, compared to all other phases. Due to the trivial effect size, the large between-study variation and the number of poor-quality studies included in this review, general guidelines on exercise performance across the MC cannot be formed; rather, it is recommended that a personalised approach should be taken based on each individual's response to exercise performance across the MC.

Background: Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are double agents, which downregulate endogenous concentrations of oestradiol and progesterone whilst simultaneously providing daily supplementation of exogenous oestrogen and progestin during the OCP-taking days. This altered hormonal milieu differs significantly from that of eumenorrheic women and might impact exercise performance, due to changes in ovarian hormone-mediated physiological processes. Objective: To explore the effects of OCPs on exercise performance in women and to provide evidence-based performance recommendations to users. Methods: This review complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A between-group analysis was performed, wherein performance of OCP users was compared with naturally menstruating women, and a within-group analysis was conducted, wherein performance during OCP consumption was compared with OCP withdrawal. For the between-group analysis, women were phase matched in two ways: (1) OCP withdrawal versus the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle and (2) OCP consumption versus all phases of the menstrual cycle except for the early follicular phase. Study quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black Checklist and a strategy based on the recommendations of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group. All meta-analyses were conducted within a Bayesian framework to facilitate probabilistic interpretations. Results: 42 studies and 590 participants were included. Most studies (83%) were graded as moderate, low or very low quality, with 17% achieving high quality. For the between-group meta-analysis comparing OCP users with naturally menstruating women, posterior estimates of the pooled effect were used to calculate the probability of at least a small effect (d ≥ 0.2). Across the two between-group comparison methods, the probability of a small effect on performance favouring habitual OCP users was effectually zero (p < 0.001). In contrast, the probability of a small effect on performance favouring naturally menstruating women was moderate under comparison method (1) (d ≥ 0.2; p = 0.40) and small under comparison method (2) (d ≥ 0.2; p = 0.19). Relatively large between-study variance was identified for both between-group comparisons ( $$\tau$$τ _0.5 = 0.16 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.01–0.44] and $$\tau$$τ _0.5 = 0.22 [95% CrI 0.06–0.45]). For the within-group analysis comparing OCP consumption with withdrawal, posterior estimates of the pooled effect size identified almost zero probability of a small effect on performance in either direction (d ≥ 0.2; p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: OCP use might result in slightly inferior exercise performance on average when compared to naturally menstruating women, although any group-level effect is most likely to be trivial. Practically, as effects tended to be trivial and variable across studies, the current evidence does not warrant general guidance on OCP use compared with non-use. Therefore, when exercise performance is a priority, an individualised approach might be more appropriate. The analysis also indicated that exercise performance was consistent across the OCP cycle.

Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on the effects of β-alanine supplementation on exercise capacity and performance. Design This study was designed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A 3-level mixed effects model was employed to model effect sizes and account for dependencies within data. Data sources 3 databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science) were searched using a number of terms (‘β-alanine’ and ‘Beta-alanine’ combined with ‘supplementation’, ‘exercise’, ‘training’, ‘athlete’, ‘performance’ and ‘carnosine’). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Inclusion/exclusion criteria limited articles to double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies investigating the effects of β-alanine supplementation on an exercise measure. All healthy participant populations were considered, while supplementation protocols were restricted to chronic ingestion. Cross-over designs were excluded due to the long washout period for skeletal muscle carnosine following supplementation. A single outcome measure was extracted for each exercise protocol and converted to effect sizes for meta-analyses. Results 40 individual studies employing 65 different exercise protocols and totalling 70 exercise measures in 1461 participants were included in the analyses. A significant overall effect size of 0.18 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.28) was shown. Meta-regression demonstrated that exercise duration significantly (p=0.004) moderated effect sizes. Subgroup analyses also identified the type of exercise as a significant (p=0.013) moderator of effect sizes within an exercise time frame of 0.5–10 min with greater effect sizes for exercise capacity (0.4998 (95% CI 0.246 to 0.753)) versus performance (0.1078 (95% CI −0.201 to 0.416)). There was no moderating effect of training status (p=0.559), intermittent or continuous exercise (p=0.436) or total amount of β-alanine ingested (p=0.438). Co-supplementation with sodium bicarbonate resulted in the largest effect size when compared with placebo (0.43 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.64)). Summary/conclusions β-alanine had a significant overall effect while subgroup analyses revealed a number of modifying factors. These data allow individuals to make informed decisions as to the likelihood of an ergogenic effect with β-alanine supplementation based on their chosen exercise modality.

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanics of the traditional squat with 2 popular exercise variations commonly referred to as the powerlifting squat and box squat. Twelve male powerlifters performed the exercises with 30, 50, and 70% of their measured 1 repetition maximum (1RM), with instruction to lift the loads as fast as possible. Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify biomechanical variables. A range of significant kinematic and kinetic differences (p < 0.05) emerged between the exercises. The traditional squat was performed with a narrow stance, whereas the powerlifting squat and box squat were performed with similar wide stances (48.3 ± 3.8, 89.6 ± 4.9, 92.1 ± 5.1 cm, respectively). During the eccentric phase of the traditional squat, the knee traveled past the toes resulting in anterior displacement of the system center of mass (COM). In contrast, during the powerlifting squat and box squat, a more vertical shin position was maintained, resulting in posterior displacements of the system COM. These differences in linear displacements had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on a number of peak joint moments, with the greatest effects measured at the spine and ankle. For both joints, the largest peak moment was produced during the traditional squat, followed by the powerlifting squat, then box squat. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also noted at the hip joint where the largest moment in all 3 planes were produced during the powerlifting squat. Coaches and athletes should be aware of the biomechanical differences between the squatting variations and select according to the kinematic and kinetic profile that best match the training goals.

The purpose of the investigation was to compare the kinematics and kinetics of the deadlift performed with 2 distinct barbells across a range of submaximal loads. Nineteen male powerlifters performed the deadlift with a conventional straight barbell and a hexagonal barbell that allowed the lifter to stand within its frame. Subjects performed trials at maximum speed with loads of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80% of their predetermined 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Inverse dynamics and spatial tracking of the external resistance were used to quantify kinematic and kinetic variables. Subjects were able to lift a heavier 1RM load in the hexagonal barbell deadlift (HBD) than the straight barbell deadlift (SBD) (265 ± 41 kg vs. 245 ± 39 kg, p < 0.05). The design of the hexagonal barbell significantly altered the resistance moment at the joints analyzed (p < 0.05), resulting in lower peak moments at the lumbar spine, hip, and ankle (p < 0.05) and an increased peak moment at the knee (p < 0.05). Maximum peak power values of 4,388 ± 713 and 4,872 ± 636 W were obtained for the SBD and HBD, respectively (p < 0.05). Across the submaximal loads, significantly greater peak force, peak velocity and peak power values were produced during the HBD compared to during the SBD (p < 0.05). The results demonstrate that the choice of barbell used to perform the deadlift has a significant effect on a range of kinematic and kinetic variables. The enhanced mechanical stimulus obtained with the hexagonal barbell suggests that in general the HBD is a more effective exercise than the SBD.

The purpose of this paper was to carry out a systematic review with a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined the combined effects of resistance training (RT) and creatine supplementation on regional changes in muscle mass, with direct imaging measures of hypertrophy. Moreover, we performed regression analyses to determine the potential influence of covariates. We included trials that had a duration of at least 6 weeks and examined the combined effects of creatine supplementation and RT on site-specific direct measures of hypertrophy (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or ultrasound) in healthy adults. A total of 44 outcomes were analyzed across 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria. A univariate analysis of all the standardized outcomes showed a pooled mean estimate of 0.11 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): −0.02 to 0.25), providing evidence for a very small effect favoring creatine supplementation when combined with RT compared to RT and a placebo. Multivariate analyses found similar small benefits for the combination of creatine supplementation and RT on changes in the upper and lower body muscle thickness (0.10–0.16 cm). Analyses of the moderating effects indicated a small superior benefit for creatine supplementation in younger compared to older adults (0.17 (95%CrI: −0.09 to 0.45)). In conclusion, the results suggest that creatine supplementation combined with RT promotes a small increase in the direct measures of skeletal muscle hypertrophy in both the upper and lower body.