Practical considerations for continuous glucose monitoring in elite athletes with type 1 diabetes mellitus: A narrative review.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) refers to a metabolic condition where a lack of insulin impairs the usual homeostatic mechanisms to control blood glucose levels. Historically, participation in competitive sport has posed a challenge for those with T1DM, where the dynamic changes in blood glucose during exercise can result in dangerously high (hyperglycaemia) or low blood glucoses (hypoglycaemia) levels. Over the last decade, research and technological development has enhanced the methods of monitoring and managing blood glucose levels, thus reducing the chances of experiencing hyper- or hypoglycaemia during exercise. The introduction of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems means that glucose can be monitored conveniently, without the need for frequent fingerpick glucose checks. CGM devices include a fine sensor inserted under the skin, measuring levels of glucose in the interstitial fluid. Readings can be synchronized to a reader or mobile phone app as often as every 1-5 min. Use of CGM devices is associated with lower HbA1c and a reduction in hypoglycaemic events, promoting overall health and athletic performance. However, there are limitations to CGM, which must be considered when being used by an athlete with T1DM. These limitations can be addressed by individualized education plans, using protective equipment to prevent sensor dislodgement, as well as further research aiming to: (i) account for disparities between CGM and true blood glucose levels during vigorous exercise; (ii) investigate the effects of temperature and altitude on CGM accuracy, and (iii) explore of the sociological impact of CGM use amongst sportspeople without diabetes on those with T1DM.

More than a Metric: How Training Load is Used in Elite Sport for Athlete Management.

Training load monitoring is a core aspect of modern-day sport science practice. Collecting, cleaning, analysing, interpreting, and disseminating load data is usually undertaken with a view to improve player performance and/or manage injury risk. To target these outcomes, practitioners attempt to optimise load at different stages throughout the training process, like adjusting individual sessions, planning day-to-day, periodising the season, and managing athletes with a long-term view. With greater investment in training load monitoring comes greater expectations, as stakeholders count on practitioners to transform data into informed, meaningful decisions. In this editorial we highlight how training load monitoring has many potential applications and cannot be simply reduced to one metric and/or calculation. With experience across a variety of sporting backgrounds, this editorial details the challenges and contextual factors that must be considered when interpreting such data. It further demonstrates the need for those working with athletes to develop strong communication channels with all stakeholders in the decision-making process. Importantly, this editorial highlights the complexity associated with using training load for managing injury risk and explores the potential for framing training load with a performance and training progression mindset.