Background: Adequate recovery from exercise is essential to maintain performance throughout training and competition. While compression garments (CG) have been demonstrated to accelerate recovery, the literature is clouded by conflicting results and uncertainty over the optimal conditions of use.Objectives: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of compression garments on the recovery of strength, power and endurance performance following an initial bout of resistance, running, or non-load bearing endurance (metabolic) exercise.Methods: Change-score data were extracted from 23 peer-reviewed studies on healthy participants. Recovery was quantified by converting into standardized mean effect sizes (ES [± 95% confidence interval ( Conclusion: The largest benefits resulting from CG were for strength recovery from 2-8 h, and > 24 h. Considering exercise modality, compression most effectively enhanced recovery from resistance exercise, particularly at timepoints > 24 h. The use of CG would also be recommended to enhance next-day cycling performance. The benefits of CG in relation to applied pressures and participant training status are unclear and limited by the paucity of reported data. Key Points• Small, significant and very likely benefits on exercise recovery can be achieved through use of compression garments (CG).• The greatest benefits from CG are evident in recovery of strength performance and from resistance exercise, which may imply that CG ameliorate muscle damage.• Next day cycling performance was also subject to large very likely benefits following the use of CG.

Sports beverages formulated with fructose and glucose composites enhance exogenous carbohydrate oxidation, gut comfort, and endurance performance, relative to single-saccharide formulations. However, a critical review of performance data is absent. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the effect of fructose:glucose/maltodextrin (glucose or maltodextrin) composites versus glucose/maltodextrin on endurance performance. Mechanistic associations were drawn from effects on carbohydrate metabolism, gut, and other sensory responses. Overall, 14 studies contained estimates of 2.5-3.0-h endurance performance in men, mostly in cycling. Relative to isocaloric glucose/maltodextrin, the ingestion of 0.5-1.0:1-ratio fructose:glucose/maltodextrin beverages at 1.3-2.4 g carbohydrate·min(-1) produced small to moderate enhancements (1-9 %; 95 % confidence interval 0-19) in mean power. When 0.5:1-ratio composites were ingested at ≥1.7 g·min(-1), improvements were larger (4-9 %; 2-19) than at 1.4-1.6 g·min(-1) (1-3 %; 0-6). The effect sizes at higher ingestion rates were associated with increased exogenous carbohydrate oxidation rate, unilateral fluid absorption, and lower gastrointestinal distress, relative to control. Solutions containing a 0.7-1.0:1 fructose:glucose ratio were absorbed fastest; when ingested at 1.5-1.8 g·min(-1), a 0.8:1 fructose:glucose ratio conveyed the highest exogenous carbohydrate energy and endurance power compared with lower or higher fructose:glucose ratios. To conclude, ingesting 0.5-1.0:1-ratio fructose:glucose/maltodextrin beverages at 1.3-2.4 g·min(-1) likely benefits 2.5-3.0 h endurance power versus isocaloric single saccharide. Further ratio and dose-response research should determine if meaningful performance benefits of composites accrue with ingestion <1.3 g·min(-1), relative to higher doses. Effects should be established in competition, females, other food formats, and in heat-stress and ultra-endurance exercise where carbohydrate demands may differ from the current analysis.

Findings from this study suggest that oscillometric assessments of central hemodynamic variables exceed the criterion for acceptable reliability and are most reliable when participants are evaluated while supine and fasted.

New evidence and feedback from colleagues have led to modifications to the Nutrition for Sport Knowledge Questionnaire (NSKQ) and Abridged Nutrition for Sport Knowledge Questionnaire (ANSKQ). The changes predominately affect questions regarding the nutrient content of foods, protein recommendations and the legality of supplements. Some English language edits have also been made.