Do Oncologists Recommend the "Pill" of Physical Activity in Their Practice? Answers from the Oncologist and Patients' Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this current questionnaire-based study were to analyse whether oncologists prescribed PA to their patients in Spain, as well as the type of exercise recommended, the variables that influence whether or not to recommend it and to compare these recommendations with the values reported by their patients. METHODS: Two online questionnaires were designed for this study. The first one, filled in by the oncologists (n = 93), contained aspects such as the attitude or barriers to promoting PA. The second was designed for patients with cancer (n = 149), which assessed PA levels and counselling received from oncologists, among other facets. RESULTS: The majority of oncologists (97%) recommend PA during their consultations. Instead, only 62% of patients reported participating in exercise within the last 7 days. Walking was the most common form of exercise, reported by 50% of participants. Patients who received exercise recommendations from their oncologist walked for more days (p = 0.004; ES = 0.442) and more minutes per day (p = 0.022; ES = 0.410). The barriers most highlighted by patients were lack of time and not knowing how to perform PA. CONCLUSION: Oncologists and patients seem to be interested and able to participate in PA counselling and programmes. However, there was a discrepancy between what was reported by oncologists and expressed by patients in terms of recommendations for PA and the modality itself.

Barriers to Physical Activity for Women with Physical Disabilities: A Systematic Review.

Physical activity is essential for women with physical disabilities. This review aims to identify the barriers they face in practicing sport. A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases in January 2023, with an update in March 2023. The eligibility criteria used for inclusion were as follows. (i) Women with physical disabilities; (ii) women who engage in or want to engage in physical activities and/or sport, both adapted and non-adapted; (iii) identification of women's barriers to such practice; (iv) research articles; and (v) papers written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. The exclusion were as follows. (i) Women with illness, injury or transient physical activity difficulties; (ii) mention of rehabilitative physical activity; and (iii) results showing no differentiation in barrier types by gender. This review identified different barriers, grouped into eight types according to the differentiating factor, thus showing that disable people's participation in physical activity is directly related to some specific barriers which seem to differ according to their gender. Therefore, the success of participation in physical activities depends not only on the user's concern, but also on an inclusive social environment.

Long-Term Combined Effects of Citrulline and Nitrate-Rich Beetroot Extract Supplementation on Recovery Status in Trained Male Triathletes: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Citrulline (CIT) and nitrate-rich beetroot extract (BR) are widely studied ergogenic aids. Nevertheless, both supplements have been studied in short-term trials and separately. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the effects of combining CIT and BR supplementation on recovery status observed by distance covered in the Cooper test, exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) and anabolic/catabolic hormone status have not been investigated to date. Therefore, the main purpose of this research was to assess the effect of the long-term (9 weeks) mixture of 3 g/day of CIT plus 2.1 g/day of BR (300 mg/day of nitrates (NO3-)) supplementation on recovery by distance covered in the Cooper test, EIMD markers (urea, creatinine, AST, ALT, GGT, LDH and CK) and anabolic/catabolic hormones (testosterone, cortisol and testosterone/cortisol ratio (T/C)) in male trained triathletes. Thirty-two triathletes were randomized into four different groups of eight triathletes in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial: placebo group (PLG), CIT group (CITG; 3 g/day of CIT), BR group (BRG; 2.1 g/day of BR (300 mg/day of NO3-)) and CIT-BR group (CIT-BRG; 3 g/day of CIT plus 2.1 g/day of BR (300 mg/day of NO3-)). Distance covered in the Cooper test and blood samples were collected from all participants at baseline (T1) and after 9 weeks of supplementation (T2). There were no significant differences in the interaction between group and time in EIMD markers (urea, creatinine, AST, ALT, GGT, LDH and CK) (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in the group-by-time interaction in distance covered in the Cooper test (p = 0.002; η2p = 0.418), cortisol (p = 0.044; η2p = 0.247) and T/C (p = 0.005; η2p = 0.359). Concretely, significant differences were observed in distance covered in the Cooper test percentage of change (p = 0.002; η2p = 0.418) between CIT-BRG and PLG and CITG, in cortisol percentage change (p = 0.049; η2p = 0.257) and in T/C percentage change (p = 0.018; η2p = 0.297) between CIT-BRG and PLG. In conclusion, the combination of 3 g/day of CIT plus 2.1 g/day of BR (300 mg/day of NO3-) supplementation for 9 weeks did not present any benefit for EIMD. However, CIT + BR improved recovery status by preventing an increase in cortisol and showing an increase in distance covered in the Cooper test and T/C.