Search

Muscle Dysmorphia (MD) is a condition characterized by an excessive preoccupation with muscularity. The environment in which a person resistance trains may have an impact on the clinical features of MD. The aim of this study was to compare MD symptomatology between individuals who train in traditional fitness centers (TFC) and those who train in high-intensity functional training environments (HIFT). Method: Volunteers were recruited from both TFC and HIFT facilities. Participants (N=376) completed an online (Qualtrics) demographics survey and Muscle Dysmorphia Questionnaire (MDQ). A two-way ANOVA compared the effect of training environment on MDQ scores among HIFT and TFC men and women. Results: Training environment significantly affected MDQ [F (4, 345) = 3.765, p = .005, d = 0.737]. The mean score for TFC (M = 111.73, SD = 20.39, [107.78, 115.68]) was significantly higher than HIFT (M = 102.20, SD = 19.59, [99.17, 105.23]). Discussion: Participants with greater MD symptoms may prefer training in TFC, thus potentially facilitating and perpetuating MD symptomatology. The results of the present study may provide insight into creating optimal treatment programs for individuals with clinical MD. Keywords: strength training; high intensity training; body image, Standards for attractiveness infiltrate nearly every area of popular media, constantly reinforcing the image of the ideal body. For men, the ideal body is muscular, indicating power and success (Brown [...]

Adaptations to resistance training and subsequent performance can be undermined by inadequate interset recovery. Methods typically used to monitor recovery were developed for longitudinal use, making them time-inefficient within singular exercise bouts. If valid, perceptual recovery status (PRS) may be used as an efficient and inexpensive assessment tool to monitor individual recovery. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the validity of PRS on monitoring recovery during a high-intensity back-squat session. Methods: Ten healthy men participated in the 2-session study (separated by at least 48 h). Session 1 included anthropometrics, PRS familiarization, and a 1-repetition-maximum back squat. Session 2 included a high-intensity protocol (5 sets of 5 repetitions; 5-min interset recovery; 85% of 1-repetition maximum). PRS was obtained before the first set and during the last 30 seconds of each 5-minute recovery; rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was also collected. A linear position transducer collected mean barbell velocity (MBV). Repeated-measures correlations assessed the common intraindividual relationships of PRS scores to intraset MBV and RPE, respectively. Results: A very large, positive correlation appeared between PRS and MBV (r [95% CI] =.778 [.613 to.878]; P <.0001). A large, negative correlation emerged between PRS and RPE (r [95% CI] = −.549 [−.737 to −.282]; P <.001). Conclusions: Results indicate that PRS can be a means for practitioners to monitor individualized recovery. PRS tracked well with RPE, strengthening its utility in a practitioner-based setting. Findings provide insight into the practicality of PRS for recovery monitoring. It could be used alongside other measures (eg, MBV and countermovement jump) to individually program and maintain performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTranscranial Focused Ultrasound (tFUS) is a promising new potential neuromodulation tool. However, the safety of tFUS neuromodulation has not yet been assessed adequately. Patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy electing to undergo an anterior temporal lobe resection present a unique opportunity to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tFUS neuromodulation. Histological changes in tissue after tFUS can be examined after surgical resection, while further potential safety concerns can be assessed using neuropsychological testing.MethodsNeuropsychological functions were assessed in eight patients before and after focused ultrasound sonication of the temporal lobe at intensities up to 5760 mW/cm2. Using the BrainSonix Pulsar 1002, tFUS was delivered under MR guidance, using the Siemens Magnetom 3T Prisma scanner. Neuropsychological changes were assessed using various batteries. Histological changes were assessed using hematoxylin and eosin staining, among others.ResultsWith respect to safety, the histological analysis did not reveal any detectable damage to the tissue, except for one subject for whom the histology findings were inconclusive. In addition, neuropsychological testing did not show any statistically significant changes in any test, except for a slight decrease in performance on one of the tests after tFUS.SignificanceThis study supports the hypothesis that low-intensity Transcranial Focused Ultrasound (tFUS) used for neuromodulation of brain circuits at intensities up to 5760 mW/cm2 may be safe for use in human research. However, due to methodological limitations in this study and inconclusive findings, more work is warranted to establish the safety. Future directions include greater number of sonications as well as longer exposure at higher intensity levels to further assess the safety of tFUS for modulation of neuronal circuits.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement of five commercially available accelerometers in estimating energy expenditure while performing an acute bout of high-intensity functional training (HIFT). Methods: Participants (n = 47; average age: 28.5 ± 11.6 years) consisted of recreationally active, healthy adults. Each participant completed a session of HIFT: a 15-minute workout consisting of 12 repetitions each of air-squats, sit-ups, push-ups, lunges, pull-ups, steps-ups, and high-knees; performed circuit-style by completing as many rounds as possible. During this session, each participant wore the Cosmed K4b2 portable metabolic analyzer (PMA) and five different accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X, Nike Fuelband, Fitbit One, Fitbit Charge HR, and Jawbone UP Move). Results: Four of the five activity trackers reported lower (p < 0.05) total EE values compared to the PMA during the acute bout of HIFT. The waist-mounted device (ActiGraph, 182.55 ± 37.93 kcal) was not significantly different from, and most closely estimated caloric expenditure compared to the PMA (144.99 ± 37.13 kcal) (p = 0.056). A repeated-measures ANOVA showed that all activity trackers were significantly different from the reference measure (PMA) (p < 0.05). Systematic relative agreement between the activity trackers was calculated, exhibiting a significant ICC = 0.426 (F [46,230] = 5.446 [p < 0.05]). Conclusion: The wrist- and hip-mounted activity trackers did not accurately assess energy expenditure during HIFT exercise. With the exception of the ActiGraph GT3X, the remaining four activity trackers showed inaccurate estimates of the amount of kilocalories expended during the HIFT exercise bout compared to the PMA.