Search

In 1924, Otto Warburg asked "How does the metabolism of a growing tissue differ from that of a non-growing tissue?" Currently, we know that proliferating healthy and cancer cells reprogramme their metabolism. This typically includes increased glucose uptake, glycolytic flux and lactate synthesis. A key function of this reprogramming is to channel glycolytic intermediates and other metabolites into anabolic reactions such as nucleotide-RNA/DNA synthesis, amino acid-protein synthesis and the synthesis of, for example, acetyl and methyl groups for epigenetic modification. In this review, we discuss evidence that a hypertrophying muscle similarly takes up more glucose and reprogrammes its metabolism to channel energy metabolites into anabolic pathways. We specifically discuss the functions of the cancer-associated enzymes phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase and pyruvate kinase muscle 2 in skeletal muscle. In addition, we ask whether increased glucose uptake by a hypertrophying muscle explains why muscularity is often negatively associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A training plan, or an exercise prescription, is the point where we translate sport and exercise science into practice. As in medicine, good practice requires writing a training plan or prescribing an exercise programme based on the best current scientific evidence. A key issue, however, is that a training plan or exercise prescription is typically a mix of many interacting interventions (e.g. exercises and nutritional recommendations) that additionally change over time due to periodisation or tapering. Thus, it is virtually impossible to base a complex long-term training plan fully on scientific evidence. We, therefore, speak of evidence-informed training plans and exercise prescriptions to highlight that only some of the underlying decisions are made using an evidence-based decision approach. Another challenge is that the adaptation to a given, e.g. endurance or resistance training programme is often highly variable. Until biomarkers for trainability are identified, we must therefore continue to test athletes, clients, or patients, and monitor training variables via a training log to determine whether an individual sufficiently responds to a training intervention or else re-plan. Based on these ideas, we propose a subjective, pragmatic six-step approach that details how to write a training plan or exercise prescription that is partially based on scientific evidence. Finally, we advocate an athlete, client and patient-centered approach whereby an individual's needs and abilities are the main consideration behind all decision-making. This implies that sometimes the most effective form of training is eschewed if the athlete, client or patient has other wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced footwear technology improves average running economy compared with racing flats in sub-elite athletes. However, not all athletes benefit as performance changes vary from a 10% drawback to a 14% improvement. The main beneficiaries from such technologies, world-class athletes, have only been analyzed using race times. Objective: The aim of this study was to measure running economy on a laboratory treadmill in advanced footwear technology compared to a traditional racing flat in world-class Kenyan (mean half-marathon time: 59:30 min:s) versus European amateur runners. Methods: Seven world-class Kenyan and seven amateur European male runners completed a maximal oxygen uptake assessment and submaximal steady-state running economy trials in three different models of advanced footwear technology and a racing flat. To confirm our results and better understand the overall effect of new technology in running shoes, we conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis. Results: Laboratory results revealed large variability in both world-class Kenyan road runners, which ranged from a 11.3% drawback to a 11.4% benefit, and amateur Europeans, which ranged from a 9.7% benefit to a 1.1% drawback in running economy of advanced footwear technology compared to a flat. The post-hoc meta-analysis revealed an overall significant medium benefit of advanced footwear technology on running economy compared with traditional flats. Conclusions: Variability of advanced footwear technology performance appears in both world-class and amateur runners, suggesting further testing should examine such variability to ensure validity of results and explain the cause as a more personalized approach to shoe selection might be necessary for optimal benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]