BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation最新文献

Foam rolling (FR) is commonly used in health and sports settings, yet it remains unclear how well current practice aligns with scientific evidence. We synthesised the available research on FR and compared it with practitioners' knowledge across professions and language-based cultural spheres.The evidence consistently supports acute increases in range of motion (ROM), short-term pain reduction, and transient improvements in muscle stiffness and blood flow. However, evidence for performance enhancement, injury prevention, and "fascial adhesion release" is limited or inconclusive, and data on safety are scarce.A cross-sectional online survey (n = 452; conducted in German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and English-speaking countries) showed that only 2 of 15 evidence-based items reached the 80% correct response threshold. A simple majority answered just 10 items in accordance with current evidence, indicating substantial knowledge gaps. Accuracy varied by profession and cultural sphere.Overall, while FR is effective for acute ROM gains and pain relief, current beliefs about performance and long-term effects are not supported by robust evidence. The mismatch between research and practice highlights the need for clearer communication of findings, accessible continuing education, and evidence-based guidelines.Identified research gaps do not allow an appropriate judgement of the responses. This research gap calls for future research, while substantial effort should be invested into science communication to reach a broader audience.

Background: Warm-up intensity is considered a key factor influencing acute physical performance, yet its specific effects on explosive power and agility in university football players remain unclear. This study compared the acute effects of low-, moderate-, and high-intensity warm-up on lower-limb explosive power and agility.

Methods: Twenty male university football athletes completed three 15-min warm-up protocols differing in intensity. Performance was assessed using the standing triple jump (STJ), 10 m sprint, 505 test, and T-test at pre-, post-, and post-10. Generalized mixed linear models were applied to evaluate the effects of intensity and time, with results reported as standardized effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence limits (CL).

Results: The 10 m sprint performance was substantially better after the low-intensity warm-up than the moderate-intensity (ES; ± 90% CL: Post: 1.93; ± 0.64; Post-10: 3.31; ± 0.45) and high-intensity (Post: 1.90; ± 0.64; Post-10: 3.56; ± 0.65) warm-ups. The 505 test also showed superior performance after the low-intensity warm-up (vs. moderate: 1.55; ± 0.74, 1.16; ± 0.44; vs. high: 3.15; ± 0.72, 1.24; ± 0.44). Notably, in the 505 test (post: 1.6; ± 0.7; post-10: trivial), performance following the moderate-intensity warm-up at post was also substantially superior to that following the high-intensity warm-up. The T-test demonstrated a similar advantage (vs. moderate: 0.95; ± 0.23, 0.78; ± 0.22; vs. high: 0.86; ± 0.23, 0.73; ± 0.22). In contrast, the STJ (vs. low, post: 0.66; ± 0.31; post-10: 0.51; ± 0.31) improved only immediately after the moderate- and high-intensity warm-ups.

Conclusion: Low-intensity warm-up produced the most consistent and sustained improvements in sprint and agility performance. Moderate-intensity warm-up showed only a brief advantage in the 505 test, whereas high-intensity warm-up generally impaired speed and change-of-direction performance, with any explosive power gains being short-lived. These findings identify warm-up intensity as a key determinant of pre-competition readiness in male university football athletes.

Background: Return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains a critical issue in sports medicine. Despite improvements in rehabilitation, many patients fail to return to their preinjury level of activity. Previous studies have primarily focused on clinical and biomechanical factors that influence RTS; however, the impact of intrinsic physiological changes, particularly urinary proteomic profiles, has not yet been fully explored. This study aimed to identify potential urinary protein biomarkers associated with RTS in ACLR patients.

Methods: A total of 30 ACLR patients, at least 9 months post-surgery, were recruited. Patients were divided into RTS and non-RTS groups based on their ability to RTS, recovery to preinjury Tegner levels, and a leg symmetry index (LSI) of ≥ 85% on the single-leg hop (SLH) test. Furthermore, urine samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to identify differentially expressed proteins associated with RTS. Potential biomarkers and mechanism associated with RTS were identified by series of bioinformatics and machine learning methods such as pathway enrichment methods, protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), receiver operating characteristic curve and correlation analysis.

Results: Significant differences in knee muscle characteristics, including limb circumferences and isokinetic strength, were observed between the RTS and Non-RTS groups. A total of 3433 proteins were identified, with 20 upregulated and 58 downregulated in the RTS group. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and Gene Ontology (GO) analyses revealed key pathways including regulation of actin cytoskeleton, calcium ion binding, and Pathways related to inflammation such as IL-17 signaling pathway and neutrophil extracellular trap formation. Five proteins, including Glypican-3 (GPC3), Phosphatidylinositol transfer protein alpha isoform (PIPNA), Rap guanine nucleotide exchange factor 3 (RPGF3), Histone H1.5 (H15), and Small proline-rich protein 3 (SPRR3), were identified as potential biomarkers for evaluating RTS.

Conclusions: Muscle function was the primary factor influencing RTS after ACLR. The study revealed proteomic differences between those who RTS and those who do not. The identified potential biomarkers, such as GPC3, PIPNA, RPGF3, H15, and SPRR3, may serve as candidate targets to guide interventions designed to improve RTS outcomes following ACLR.

Trial registration: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061779) on 02/07/2022.

Background: Table tennis is characterized by high intensity and short rallies, where the stability of technical and tactical execution is crucial to performance. Existing research on performance fluctuations has primarily focused on psychological or score-based metrics, neglecting the technical execution of strokes. To address this gap, this study introduces a novel metric: Stroke Performance Fluctuation (SPF).

Method: The dataset consists of 100 elite matches (50 male and 50 female matches) between 2021 and 2025, analyzing 2,163 rallies and 29,406 strokes. SPF is quantified as the deviation between Rally Winning Probability (RWP) and Expected Rally Winning Probability (ERWP). SPF values were also compared across gender, competitive level and games.

Results: (1) Male players exhibited significantly higher fluctuations than female players, particularly in Block, Flick, Push, Touch Short, Topspin, and Twist; (2) Top 20 players are more consistent than others in serving, receiving, and offensive techniques; (3) Performance in Touch Short against Pendulum and Topspin against Topspin exhibited a significant decline in the later stages of the match.

Conclusions: The SPF indicator provides a novel and effective measure of stroke behavior stability in elite table tennis. By quantifying fluctuations in technical and tactical performance, the SPF indicator reveals gender- and competition-level differences in stroke stability. In addition, we used performance deviation to describe how consistency changes across games within a match. This framework not only advances performance analysis beyond score-based or psychology-based measures but also offers practical applications for coaches, enabling targeted training and tactical interventions to reduce stroke instability and enhance competitive resilience.

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is linked to impaired metabolic and cardiovascular health, and concurrent exercise is a key intervention to enhance these outcomes. However, the effect of exercise sequence on these outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the effects of 12 weeks of concurrent training, performed in different sequences of aerobic and resistance exercise, on VO₂ Peak, glucose tolerance area under the curve (GT AUC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body mass index (BMI) in patients with T2DM.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, participants were allocated to Concurrent Aerobic-Resistance Training (CART = 13), Concurrent Resistance-Aerobic Training (CRAT = 13), or a control group (COG = 13). Training was conducted three times per week for 12 weeks. VO₂ Peak, GT AUC, WHR, and BMI were measured pre- and post-intervention. Data were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA to assess Group × Time interactions, followed, when significant, by Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc pairwise comparisons across groups to identify differences in intervention-related changes.

Results: Both CART and CRAT significantly improved VO₂ Peak, GT AUC, WHR, and BMI compared to the control group (p < .05). VO₂ Peak increased by 2.999 mL/kg/min in CART and 2.147 mL/kg/min in CRAT, while GT AUC decreased by 23.01 and 24.22 units, respectively, reflecting enhanced cardiovascular fitness and glucose tolerance. WHR decreased by 0.106 in CART and 0.095 in CRAT, whereas BMI reduction was greater in CART (2.76 kg/m²) than in CRAT (1.48 kg/m²), suggesting a potential effect of exercise sequence on obesity indices.

Conclusion: Twelve weeks of concurrent training effectively enhanced cardiovascular fitness, glycemic control, and obesity indices in T2DM patients. While both exercise sequences provided benefits, performing aerobic exercise before resistance training may maximize BMI reduction, whereas improvements in VO₂ Peak, reduction in WHR, and glucose tolerance occur regardless of exercise order. These findings support adopting flexible, evidence-based concurrent training programs for metabolic and cardiovascular health.

Trial registration: 02 September 2025, Registration no: PACTR202509591505325.