ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to investigate the possible links between the practice of video games and physical health. It seeks to answer the following question: What are the physical health consequences of playing video games in healthy video game player? and How is it currently investigated?.MethodsA scoping review was conducted to identify observational and experimental studies pertaining to our research question. Retrieved papers were screened using a two-phase method first involving a selection based on titles and abstracts. Then, potentially relevant studies were read and triaged. The final set of included studies was analysed, and data were subsequently extracted. Observational studies and experimental studies were assessed using the appropriate Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and data were synthetised according to specific physical health and related health behaviours.ResultsTwelve peer-reviewed articles were retained for further analyses. Results of this scoping review suggest preliminary evidence that time spent gaming is associated with some health outcomes indicators. Our results indicate preliminary evidence that increased gaming time is associated with higher body mass index and lower self-reported general health status. There is insufficient evidence to conclude on a possible association between gaming time and physical activity or sedentary behaviours, sleep or fatigue, musculoskeletal pain or dietary behaviours.ConclusionThe results of this sopping review suggest an association between increased video game playing time and a deterioration in some physical health indicators but available evidence is scarce, precluding from any strong conclusion.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an exercise protocol designed to induce delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) in paraspinal muscles and its effects on low back functional capacities. MethodsTwenty-four healthy participants were asked to perform four series of 25 trunk flexionextension in a prone position (45-degrees inclined Roman chair). The protocol was performed using loads corresponding to participant's trunk weight plus 10% of their trunk extension maximal voluntary contraction. Perceived soreness and pain were assessed using an 11-points numerical analogue scale 3 times a day during 5 days post-DOMS protocol. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) in paraspinal muscles (L2 and L4 bilaterally) and the vastus medialis (control site), and trunk extension maximal voluntary contraction were assessed 24 to 36 hours post-protocol and compared to baseline (t-tests). ResultsMuscle soreness (3.8/10) and pain (2.1/10) peak scores were observed 24 to 36 hours post-protocol (mean of 28 hours). A significant reduction in trunk extension maximal voluntary contraction was observed post-protocol (p=0.005). Significant reductions in PPT were observed post-protocol for all trunk extensor sites (ps<0.01), but not for the control site (p=0.40). Conclusions

Background The current sanitary crisis brought on by the COVID-19 recently forced a large proportion of workers to adopt telecommuting with limited time to plan transition. Given that several work-related risk factors are associated with headache and neck pain, it seems important to determine those associated with headache and neck pain in telecommuters. The main objective of this study was to identify which telecommuting and individual associated factors are related with headache and neck pain occurrence in telecommuters over a five days follow-up. The second objective was to evaluate the impact of wearing a headset on headache and neck pain intensity in telecommuters. Methods One hundred and sixty-two participants in telecommuting situation were recruited. Baseline assessment included sociodemographic data, headache and neck pain-related disability (6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire (NBQ)), headache and neck pain frequency and intensity as well as questions about the wearing of a headset (headset wearing, headset type and headset wearing hours). A prospective data collection of headache, neck pain and headset wearing was conducted using daily e-mail over a 5-day follow-up. A stepwise multivariate regression model was performed to determine associated factors of headache or neck pain occurrence during the follow-up. A t-test was conducted to assess the impact of headset wearing on headache and neck pain intensity during the follow-up. Results Regarding headache, the stepwise multivariate regression model showed that the HIT-6 score was associated with future headache occurrence in telecommuters (OR (95% CI) = 1.094 (1.042–1.148); R2 = 0.094; p <  0.001). For neck pain, the stepwise multivariate regression showed that the NBQ score was related to future neck pain occurrence in telecommuters (OR (95% CI) = 1.182 (1.102–1.269); R2 = 0.182; p <  0.001). T-test showed no difference between participants that wore a headset and participant that did not wore a headset on mean headache (p = 0.94) and neck pain (p = 0.56) intensity during the five days follow-up. Conclusion Although several work-related risk factors are associated with headache and neck pain in workers, telecommuting did not present the same risks. Working set-up did not have a significant impact on headache and neck pain as headache-related disability was the only associated factor of future headache episodes and neck-pain related disability was the only associated factor of future neck pain episodes. Also, wearing a headset had no impact on headache and neck pain in telecommuters.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of lumbar muscle delayed-onset muscle 2 soreness (DOMS) on the ability of the trunk muscles to reproduce different levels of force. 3 Methods: Twenty healthy adults (10 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. Force reproduction in trunk extension and flexion was assessed at 50 and 75% of participants' maximal 5 isometric voluntary contraction in flexion and extension before and after a lumbar muscle DOMS 6 protocol. Trunk proprioception was evaluated and compared between these conditions using different 7 variables such as constant errors (CE), absolute errors (AE), variable errors (VE) and time to peak force 8 (TPF). For each variable, repeated measure ANOVAs were conducted. 9 Results: AE were higher when participants had to reach the target post-DOMS protocol in extension 10 compared to flexion and in presence of higher demand of force (p=0.02). For VE, results showed that 11 participants were more variable in extension than in flexion when the required force was higher (p=0.04). 12 CE variable was higher when participants had to reach the force target in extension compared to flexion 13 under the effect of DOMS (p=0.02). Results also showed that participants took less time to reach the force 14 target post-DOMS protocol in extension (0.62 ± 0.20 sec) and in flexion (0.53 ± 0.19 sec) than pre-DOMS 15 protocol in extension (0.55 ± 0.15) and in flexion (0.50 ± 0.20) (p<0.001). 16 Conclusion: Lumbar muscle DOMS affect trunk proprioception during force reproduction tasks 17 especially in trunk extension and at higher force.