Background Schoolbags and the consequences of carrying them, particularly those associated with overload, are often studied as a health concern. Modifications in gait and posture were reported when children carried loads that corresponded to more than 10% of their body weight (BW). The aims of this study were to verify the load that is carried by Portuguese students and how it is influenced by factors such as school grade, school schedule, lunch site, physical education, sex and body mass index (BMI). Acquiring a more specific knowledge of the Portuguese context and understanding the influence of these factors may allow us to generate proposals to control them in ways that benefit students. Methods The load carried by students in the 5th grade (10.6 ± 0.4 years) and 9th grade (14.7 ± 0.6 years) were weighed with a luggage scale on all days of the week, resulting in 680 evaluations. Data related to the school day were also collected, such as the student’s lunch site, how he or she got to school and his or her school schedule for that day. Individual height and weight were also assessed. Results The 5th grade students carried greater loads than the 9th grade students, resulting in a substantial difference relative to their BW. The school loads of the 5th grade students were mostly greater than 10% of their BWs. Girls tended to carry heavier loads than boys, and overweight students also tended to carry heavier loads. Students who could eat lunch at home carried less weight, and on physical education days, the total load carried increased, but the backpacks of the 5th grade students were lighter. Conclusions The results of the current study describe excessive schoolbag weight among Portuguese students and expound on some of the factors that influence it, which can help researchers and professionals design a solution to decrease children’s schoolbag loads.

This study analyzed the effects of pseudoephedrine (PSE) provided at different time of day on neuromuscular performance, side effects, and violation of the current doping cut-off threshold [World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)]. Nine resistance-trained males carried out bench press and full squat exercises against four incremental loads (25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% one repetition maximum [1RM]), in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. Participants ingested either 180 mg of PSE (supra-therapeutic dose) or placebo in the morning (7:00 h; AM(PLAC) and AM(PSE)) and in the afternoon (17:00 h; PM(PLAC) and PM(PSE)). PSE enhanced muscle contraction velocity against 25% and 50% 1RM loads, only when it was ingested in the mornings, and only in the full squat exercise (4.4-8.7%; P < 0.05). PSE ingestion raised urine and plasma PSE concentrations (P < 0.05) regardless of time of day; however, cathine only increased in the urine samples. PSE ingestion resulted in positive tests occurring in 11% of samples, and it rose some adverse side effects such us tachycardia and heart palpitations. Ingestion of a single dose of 180 mg of PSE results in enhanced lower body muscle contraction velocity against low and moderate loads only in the mornings. These mild performance improvements are accompanied by undesirable side effects and an 11% risk of surpassing the doping threshold.

PurposeThe aim of the present study was to determine the effects of an upper body compression garment (UBCG) on thermoregulatory responses during cycling in a controlled laboratory thermoneutral environment (~23°C). A secondary aim was to determine the cardiovascular and perceptual responses when wearing the garment.MethodsSixteen untrained participants (age: 21.3 ± 5.7 years; peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak): 50.88 ± 8.00 mL/min/kg; mean ± SD) performed 2 cycling trials in a thermoneutral environment (~23°C) wearing either UBCG or control (Con) garment. Testing consisted of a 5-min rest on a cycle ergometer, followed by 4 bouts of cycling for 14-min at ~50%VO2peak, with 1-min rest between each bout. At the end of these bouts there was 10-min of passive recovery. During the entire protocol rectal temperature (Trec), skin temperature (Tskin), mean body temperature (Tbody), and heat storage (HS) were measured. Heart rate (HR), VO2, pH, hematocrit (Hct), plasma electrolytes, weight loss (Wloss), and perceptual responses were also measured.ResultsThere were no significant differences between garments for Tskin, HS, HR, VO2, pH, Hct, plasma electrolyte concentration, Wloss, and perceptual responses during the trial. Trec did not differ between garment conditions during rest, exercise, or recovery although a greater reduction in Trec wearing UBCG (p = 0.01) was observed during recovery. Lower Tbody during recovery was found when wearing UBCG (36.82°C ± 0.30°C vs. 36.99°C ± 0.24°C).ConclusionWearing a UBCG did not benefit thermoregulatory, cardiovascular, and perceptual responses during exercise although it was found to lower Tbody during recovery, which suggests that it could be used as a recovery tool after exercise.