Nutrition-Related Information Shared by Latine Influencers: A YouTube Content Analysis.

Latines are the fastest growing populace in the United States. Latine is a new, inclusive term for Hispanic and Latino populations regardless of gender identity. When compared with non-Latine counterparts, Latines have higher prevalence rates of obesity, diabetes, chronic liver disease, and kidney disease, which are associated with poor dietary behaviors. More research is warranted into the factors behind Latines' understanding of nutrition and potential sources of health information that influence dietary behaviors. This study describes the nutrition-related health information shared through YouTube by English-speaking Latine individuals between the ages of 18 and 49. For this content analysis, a cross-sectional study design was used. A four-step search strategy identified eligible YouTube channels and their corresponding video blogs (vlogs): discovery, screening, eligibility, and included. NVivo 1.0 was used to qualitatively code the nutrition-related information. A total of 68 vlogs were identified and reviewed. Five main themes emerged from the data (what vloggers discussed): Nutrition Philosophies, Inaccurate Information, Product Promotion, Recommendations based on the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), and Recommendations not based on the 2020-2025 DGA. Although some of the nutrition-related information shared followed the 2020-2025 DGA, not all information were in line with these guidelines. Misinformation can undermine the scientific work done by health professionals and can threaten the health and lives of the citizenry by creating barriers for accessing, understanding, and utilizing evidenced-informed guidance in making health decisions. This study revealed that more research is warranted into specific aspects of social media and how they influence health behavior.

The effect of passive versus active recovery on power output over six repeated wingate sprints.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of active versus passive recovery on 6 repeated Wingate tests (30-s all-out cycling sprints on a Velotron ergometer). METHOD: Fifteen healthy participants aged 29 (SD = 8) years old (body mass index = 23 [3] kg/m(2)) participated in 3 sprint interval training sessions separated by 3 to 7 days between each session during a period of 1 month. The 1st visit was familiarization to 6 cycling sprints; the 2nd and 3rd visits involved a warm-up followed by 6 30-s cycling sprints. Each sprint was followed by 4 min of passive (resting still on the ergometer) or active recovery (pedaling at 1.1 W/kg). The same recovery was used within each visit, and recovery type was randomized between visits. RESULTS: Active recovery resulted in a 0.6 W/kg lower peak power output in the second sprint (95% confidence interval [CI] [ - 0.2, - 0.8 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) and a 0.4 W/kg greater average power output in the 5th and 6th sprints (95% CI [+0.2,+0.6 W/kg], effect size = 0.50, p < .01) compared with passive recovery. There was little difference between fatigue index, total work, or accumulated work between the 2 recovery conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Passive recovery is beneficial when only 2 sprints are completed, whereas active recovery better maintains average power output compared with passive recovery when several sprints are performed sequentially (partial eta squared between conditions for multiple sprints = .38).