Implementation of gluten-free diets among nonceliac athletes has rapidly increased in recent years because of perceived ergogenic and health benefits. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a gluten-free diet (GFD) on exercise performance, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, perceived well-being, intestinal injury, and inflammatory responses in nonceliac athletes. Thirteen competitive endurance cyclists (8 males, 5 females) with no positive clinical screening for celiac disease or history of irritable bowel syndrome (mean ± SD; age, 32 ± 7 yr; weight, 71.1 ± 13.4 kg; height, 177.0 ± 11.8 cm, VO2max 59.1 ± 8.0 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) were allocated to a 7-d gluten-containing diet (GCD) or GFD separated by a 10-d washout in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Cyclists ate a GFD alongside either gluten-containing or gluten-free food bars (16 g wheat gluten per day) while habitual training and nutrition behaviors were controlled. During each diet, cyclists completed the Daily Analysis of Life Demand for Athletes (DALDA) and GI questionnaires (postexercise and daily). On day 7, cyclists completed a submaximal steady-state (SS) 45-min ride at 70% Wmax followed by a 15-min time trial (TT). Blood samples were taken preexercise, post-SS, and post-TT to determine intestinal fatty acid binding protein (IFABP) and inflammatory markers (cytokine responses: interleukin [IL] 1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-15, tumor necrosis factor α). Mixed effects logistic regression was used to analyze data. TT performance was not significantly different (P = 0.37) between the GCD (245.4 ± 53.4 kJ) and GFD (245.0 ± 54.6 kJ). GI symptoms during exercise, daily, and DALDA responses were similar for each diet (P > 0.11). There were no significant differences in IFABP (P = 0.69) or cytokine (P > 0.13) responses. A short-term GFD had no overall effect on performance, GI symptoms, well-being, and a select indicator of intestinal injury or inflammatory markers in nonceliac endurance athletes.

We surveyed 910 athletes to assess behaviours towards self-selected food/ingredient avoidance to minimize gastrointestinal distress. Fifty-five percent eliminated at least 1 high fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) food/category, with up to 82.6% reporting symptom improvement. In athletes indicating that high FODMAP foods trigger gastrointestinal symptoms, lactose (86.5%) was most frequently eliminated, followed by galactooligosaccharides (23.9%), fructose (23.0%), fructans (6.2%), and polyols (5.4%). Athletes avoid predominantly lactose and to a lesser extent other high FODMAP foods to reduce gastrointestinal distress.

With the advent of workplace health and wellbeing programs designed to address prolonged occupational sitting, tools to measure behaviour change within this environment should derive from empirical evidence. In this study we measured aspects of validity and reliability for the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire that asks employees to recount the percentage of work time they spend in the seated, standing, and walking postures during a typical workday. Three separate cohort samples (N = 236) were drawn from a population of government desk-based employees across several departmental agencies. These volunteers were part of a larger state-wide intervention study. Workplace sitting and physical activity behaviour was measured both subjectively against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and objectively against ActivPal accelerometers before the intervention began. Criterion validity and concurrent validity for each of the three posture categories were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients, and a bias comparison with 95 % limits of agreement. Test-retest reliability of the survey was reported with intraclass correlation coefficients. Criterion validity for this survey was strong for sitting and standing estimates, but weak for walking. Participants significantly overestimated the amount of walking they did at work. Concurrent validity was moderate for sitting and standing, but low for walking. Test-retest reliability of this survey proved to be questionable for our sample. Based on our findings we must caution occupational health and safety professionals about the use of employee self-report data to estimate workplace physical activity. While the survey produced accurate measurements for time spent sitting at work it was more difficult for employees to estimate their workplace physical activity.

Athletes employ various dietary strategies in attempts to attenuate exercise-induced gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to ensure optimal performance. This case-study outlines one of these GI-targeted approaches via the implementation of a short-term low FODMAP (Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides and Polyols) diet, with the aim to attenuate persistent running specific GI symptoms in a recreationally competitive multisport athlete (male, 86 kg, 57.9 ml·kg·min^-1 V0_2max, 10–15 hr/week training, with no diagnosed GI disorder). Using a single-blinded approach a habitual diet was compared with a 6-day low FODMAP intervention diet (81 ± 5g vs 7.2 ± 5.7g FODMAP s/day) for their effect on GI symptoms and perceptual wellbeing. Training was similar during the habitual and dietary intervention periods. Postexercise (During) GI symptom ratings were recorded immediately following training. Daily GI symptoms and the Daily Analysis of Life Demands for Athletes (DALDA) were recorded at the end of each day. Daily and During GI symptom scores (scale 0–9) ranged from 0–4 during the habitual dietary period while during the low FODMAP dietary period all scores were 0 (no symptoms at all). DALDA scores for worse than normal ranged from 3–10 vs 0–8 in the habitual and low FODMAP dietary periods, respectively, indicating improvement. This intervention was effective for this GI symptom prone athlete; however, randomized-controlled trials are required to assess the suitability of low FODMAP diets for reducing GI distress in other symptomatic athletes.

Purpose:: To assess the validity of power output settings of the Wahoo KICKR Power Trainer (KICKR) using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) over a range of power outputs and cadences. Methods:: Using the KICKR to set power outputs, powers of 100–999 W were assessed at cadences (controlled by the CALRIG) of 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120 rpm. Results:: The KICKR displayed accurate measurements of power of 250–700 W at cadences of 80–120 rpm with a bias of –1.1% (95% limits of agreement [LoA] –3.6% to 1.4%). A larger mean bias in power was observed across the full range of power tested, 100–999 W (4.2%, 95% LoA –20.1% to 28.6%), due to larger biases of 100–200 and 750–999 W (4.5%, 95% LoA –2.3% to 11.3%, and 13.0%, 95% LoA –24.4% to 50.3%), respectively. Conclusions:: Compared with a CALRIG, the KICKR has acceptable accuracy reporting a small mean bias and narrow LoA in the measurement of power output of 250–700 W at cadences of 80–120 rpm. Caution should be applied by coaches and sports scientists when using the KICKR at power outputs of 750 W due to the greater variability in recorded power.

Purpose: To determine the effect of wearing compression socks between repeated running bouts on perceptual, physiological, and performance-based parameters.Methods: Twelve well-trained male runners (mean ± SD 5-km time 19:24 ± 1:19 [min:s]) recorded their perceptions of the efficacy of compression socks for recovery before completion of 2 experimental sessions. Each session consisted of two 5-km running time trials (TT1 and TT2) on a treadmill, with a 1-h recovery period between. In a randomized crossover design, 1 session required participants to wear compression socks during the recovery period, and no compression socks were worn between TTs in the other session (control).Results: Running performance between TT1 and TT2 for runners wearing compression socks was similar between TTs (mean Δ 5.3 ± 20.7 s, d = 0.07, P = .20), whereas for control runners, performance significantly decreased in the second TT (mean Δ 15.9 ± 13.3 s, d = 0.19, P < .01). When grouped by perception of efficacy for compression socks, participants with strong beliefs (n = 7) experienced improved subsequent running performance with compression socks (mean Δ –3.6 ± 19.2 s, d = 0.05, P = .32) compared with those with neutral or negative perceptions (n = 5; mean Δ 17.9 ± 17.0 s, d = 0.19, P = .04). Cross-sectional area of the calf and muscle soreness were significantly reduced during the recovery period with the use of compression socks (P < .01), whereas ratings of fatigue showed no difference between conditions.Conclusions: Wearing compression socks between repeated running bouts can aid recovery and subsequent performance. Furthermore, subsequent exercise performance may be even further enhanced when athletes believe in the efficacy of compression socks to assist in recovery between exercise bouts.