Suchergebnisse

IntroductionMusculoskeletal injuries are common during military and other occupational physical training programs. Employers have a duty of care to reduce employees' injury risk, where females tend to be at greater risk than males. However, quantification of principle co-factors influencing the sex–injury association, and their relative importance, remain poorly defined. Injury risk co-factors were investigated during Royal Air Force (RAF) recruit training to inform the strategic prioritization of mitigation strategies.Material and MethodsA cohort of 1,193 (males n = 990 (83%); females n = 203 (17%)) recruits, undertaking Phase-1 military training, were prospectively monitored for injury occurrence. The primary independent variable was sex, and potential confounders (fitness, smoking, anthropometric measures, education attainment) were assessed pre-training. Generalized linear models were used to assess associations between sex and injury.ResultsIn total, 31% of recruits (28% males; 49% females) presented at least one injury during training. Females had a two-fold greater unadjusted risk of injury during training than males (RR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.49–2.10). After anthropometric, lifestyle and education measures were included in the model, the excess risk decreased by 34%, but the associations continued to be statistically significant. In contrast, when aerobic fitness was adjusted, an inverse association was identified; the injury risk was 40% lower in females compared with males (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42–0.83).ConclusionsPhysical fitness was the most important confounder with respect to differences in males' and females' injury risk, rather than sex alone. Mitigation to reduce this risk should, therefore, focus upon physical training, complemented by healthy lifestyle interventions.

Purpose:Exertional heat stress adversely distrupts (GI) barrier integrity and, through subsequent microbial translocation (MT), negativly impacts health. Despite widespread application, the temporal reliability of popular GI barrier integity and MT biomarkers is poorly characterised. Method: Fourteen males completed two 80‐min exertional heat stress tests (EHST) separated by 7–14 days. Venous blood was drawn pre, immediately‐ and 1‐hr post both EHSTs. GI barrier integrity was assessed using the serum Dual‐Sugar Absorption Test (DSAT), Intestinal Fatty‐Acid‐Binding Protein (I‐FABP) and Claudin‐3 (CLDN‐3). MT was assessed using plasma Lipopolysaccharide Binding Protein (LBP), total 16S bacterial DNA and Bacteroides DNA. Results: No GI barrier integrity or MT biomarker, except absolute Bacteroides DNA, displayed systematic trial order bias (p ≥ .05). I‐FABP (trial 1 = Δ 0.834 ± 0.445 ng ml−1; trial 2 = Δ 0.776 ± 0.489 ng ml−1) and CLDN‐3 (trial 1 = Δ 0.317 ± 0.586 ng ml−1; trial 2 = Δ 0.371 ± 0.508 ng ml−1) were increased post‐EHST (p ≤ .01). All MT biomarkers were unchanged post‐EHST. Coefficient of variation and typical error of measurement post‐EHST were: 11.5% and 0.004 (ratio) for the DSAT 90‐min postprobe ingestion; 12.2% and 0.004 (ratio) at 150‐min postprobe ingestion; 12.1% and 0.376 ng ml−1 for I‐FABP; 4.9% and 0.342 ng ml−1 for CLDN‐3; 9.2% and 0.420 µg ml−1 for LBP; 9.5% and 0.15 pg µl−1 for total 16S DNA; and 54.7% and 0.032 for Bacteroides/total 16S DNA ratio. Conclusion: Each GI barrier integrity and MT translocation biomarker, except Bacteroides/total 16S ratio, had acceptable reliability at rest and postexertional heat stress.

The spread of novel SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the disease COVID-19 that is caused by SARS-CoV-2, continues apace. Saving lives and slowing the worldwide pandemic remain of utmost importance to everyone: the public, healthcare professionals, scientists, industry and governments. It is absolutely essential that advice given to the public is evidence-based, accurate and timely; anything less would mislead and has the potential to cause harm. Popular information channels, such as social media platforms, have been rife with misinformation that has been perpetuated by fear and uncertainty. This has been the case particularly for diet and lifestyle advice. There are recommendations for the prevention of the spread of COVID-19 from the WHO,1 the UK,2 Irish3 and USA4 governments and the European Commission,5 as well as public health and healthcare agencies, including key direction on self-isolation.6 This short original report aims to provide a balanced scientific view on vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 virus/COVID-19 disease. It provides a succinct summary of the current scientific evidence of associations between vitamin D, influenza, upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and immune health. Importantly, the paper concludes with lifestyle strategies for avoiding vitamin D deficiency and ensuring a healthy balanced diet at any time, including during the current pandemic. The overarching messages are as follows: (1) Vitamin D is essential for good health. (2) Many people, particularly those living in northern latitudes (such as the UK, Ireland, Northern Europe, Canada and the northern parts of the USA, northern India and China), have poor vitamin D status, especially in winter or if confined indoors. (3) Low vitamin D status may be exacerbated during this COVID-19 crisis (eg, due to indoor living and hence reduced sun exposure), and anyone who is self-isolating with limited access to sunlight is advised to take a vitamin D supplement according to their government's recommendations for the general population (ie, 400IU/day for ...