Effect of cardiorespiratory fitness level on physiological responses and task performance during a high-rise firefighting task.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) on physiological and performance outcomes during a 120-m vertical high-rise ascent in firefighters with CRF levels at or above (higher-fit (HF)) and below (lower-fit (LF)) the national recommended minimum physical employment standard (O2max 42.3 ml·kg-1·min-1). METHODS: Twenty-eight firefighters completed two high-rise firefighting trials (continuous and discontinuous ascent with pre-determined 1-min rest breaks). Task time (TT), heart rate (HR), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), core body temperature (CT) and thermal comfort (TC) were recorded at predetermined elevations. RESULTS: TT was significantly longer in both trials for the LF group. RPE and TC were also significantly higher in the LF group, with three times more LF firefighters being unable to complete the ascent without sounding their low-air alarm. CONCLUSIONS: Higher CRF improves performance and efficiency during stair-climbing in simulated high-rise firefighting tasks.

Physiological Responses and Performance of Simulated High-Rise Firefighting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine the physiological effects of breathing apparatus and ascent strategies during a simulated 120-m vertical high-rise firefighting ascent. METHODS: Twenty-eight firefighters completed four high-rise firefighting trials wearing standard- or extended-duration breathing apparatus with continuous ascent (SDBA-C/EDBA-C) or with breaks (SDBA-B/EDBA-B). Task time, heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion, core body temperature, and thermal comfort were recorded at predetermined elevations. RESULTS: Task time took significantly longer during the EDBA-C compared with SDBA-C trial. Heart rate (at 40, 80, and 100 m) was significantly lower in trials following breaks compared with the continuous trials. Core body temperature rose by 0.11°C every 10 m of ascent. During the SDBA trials, 89% to 96% of firefighters activated their low air alarm compared with only 7% in EDBA. CONCLUSIONS: Firefighters should wear EDBA beyond 80 m of ascent and are encouraged to take regular breaks.

Joint position statement of the International Federation of Sports Medicine (FIMS) and European Federation of Sports Medicine Associations (EFSMA) on the IOC framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination based on gender identity and sex variations.

The IOC recently published its framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination based on gender identity and sex variations. This framework is drafted mainly from a human rights perspective, with less consideration for medical/scientific issues. The framework places the onus for gender eligibility and classification entirely on the International Federations (IFs), even though most will not have the capacity to implement the framework. The position of no presumption of advantage is contrary to the 2015 IOC consensus. Implementation of the 2021 framework will be a major challenge for IFs that have already recognised the inclusion of trans and women athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) using a scientific/medical solution. The potential consequences for sports that need to prioritise fairness or safety could be one of two extremes (1) exclusion of all transgender or DSD athletes on the grounds of advantage or (2) self-identification that essentially equates to no eligibility rules. Exclusion of all transgender or DSD athletes is contrary to the Olympic charter and unlawful in many countries. While having no gender eligibility rules, sport loses its meaning and near-universal support. Athletes should not be under pressure to undergo medical procedures or treatment to meet eligibility criteria. However, if an athlete is fully informed and consents, then it is their free choice to undergo carefully considered or necessary interventions for gender classification for sport to compete fairly and safely in their chosen gender. Free choice is a fundamental human right, but so is the right to fair and safe competition.

Sport and exercise genomics: the FIMS 2019 consensus statement update.

Rapid advances in technologies in the field of genomics such as high throughput DNA sequencing, big data processing by machine learning algorithms and gene-editing techniques are expected to make precision medicine and gene-therapy a greater reality. However, this development will raise many important new issues, including ethical, moral, social and privacy issues. The field of exercise genomics has also advanced by incorporating these innovative technologies. There is therefore an urgent need for guiding references for sport and exercise genomics to allow the necessary advancements in this field of sport and exercise medicine, while protecting athletes from any invasion of privacy and misuse of their genomic information. Here, we update a previous consensus and develop a guiding reference for sport and exercise genomics based on a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis. This SWOT analysis and the developed guiding reference highlight the need for scientists/clinicians to be well-versed in ethics and data protection policy to advance sport and exercise genomics without compromising the privacy of athletes and the efforts of international sports federations. Conducting research based on the present guiding reference will mitigate to a great extent the risks brought about by inappropriate use of genomic information and allow further development of sport and exercise genomics in accordance with best ethical standards and international data protection principles and policies. This guiding reference should regularly be updated on the basis of new information emerging from the area of sport and exercise medicine as well as from the developments and challenges in genomics of health and disease in general in order to best protect the athletes, patients and all other relevant stakeholders.

Recommendations for return to sport during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

In this viewpoint we make specific recommendations that can assist and make the return to sport/exercise as safe as possible for all those impacted - from the recreational athlete to the elite athlete. We acknowledge that there are varying rules and regulations around the world, not to mention the varying philosophies and numerous schools of thought as it relates to return to sport/exercise and we have been cognisant of this in our recommendations. Despite the varying rules and circumstances around the world, we believe it is essential to provide some helpful and consistent guidance for return to training and sport for sport and exercise physicians around the world at this most difficult time. The present viewpoint provides practical and medical recommendations on the resumption to sport process.

Influence of accelerometer type and placement on physical activity energy expenditure prediction in manual wheelchair users.

PURPOSE: To assess the validity of two accelerometer devices, at two different anatomical locations, for the prediction of physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in manual wheelchair users (MWUs). METHODS: Seventeen MWUs (36 ± 10 yrs, 72 ± 11 kg) completed ten activities; resting, folding clothes, propulsion on a 1% gradient (3,4,5,6 and 7 km·hr-1) and propulsion at 4km·hr-1 (with an additional 8% body mass, 2% and 3% gradient) on a motorised wheelchair treadmill. GT3X+ and GENEActiv accelerometers were worn on the right wrist (W) and upper arm (UA). Linear regression analysis was conducted between outputs from each accelerometer and criterion PAEE, measured using indirect calorimetry. Subsequent error statistics were calculated for the derived regression equations for all four device/location combinations, using a leave-one-out cross-validation analysis. RESULTS: Accelerometer outputs at each anatomical location were significantly (p < .01) associated with PAEE (GT3X+-UA; r = 0.68 and GT3X+-W; r = 0.82. GENEActiv-UA; r = 0.87 and GENEActiv-W; r = 0.88). Mean ± SD PAEE estimation errors for all activities combined were 15 ± 45%, 14 ± 50%, 3 ± 25% and 4 ± 26% for GT3X+-UA, GT3X+-W, GENEActiv-UA and GENEActiv-W, respectively. Absolute PAEE estimation errors for devices varied, 19 to 66% for GT3X+-UA, 17 to 122% for GT3X+-W, 15 to 26% for GENEActiv-UA and from 17.0 to 32% for the GENEActiv-W. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the GENEActiv device worn on either the upper arm or wrist provides the most valid prediction of PAEE in MWUs. Variation in error statistics between the two devices is a result of inherent differences in internal components, on-board filtering processes and outputs of each device.