Toward sustainable environmental quality: Identifying priority research questions for Latin America

The Global Horizon Scanning Project (GHSP) is an innovative initiative that aims to identify important global environmental quality research needs. Here we report 20 key research questionsfrom LatinAmerica (LA).Members of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) LA and other scientistsfrom LA were asked to submit research questions that would represent priority needs to address in the region. One hundred questions were received, then partitioned among categories, examined, and some rearranged during a workshop in Buenos Aires,Argentina. Twenty priority research questions were subsequently identified. These research questions included developing, improving, and harmonizing across LA countries methods for 1) identifying contaminants and degradation products in complex matrices (including biota); 2) advancing prediction of contaminant risks and effects in ecosystems, addressing lab-to-field extrapolation challenges, and understanding complexities of multiple stressors (including chemicals and climate change); and 3) improving management and regulatory tools toward achieving sustainable development. Whereas environmental contaminants frequently identified in these key questions were pesticides, pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors or modulators, plastics, and nanomaterials, commonly identified environmental challenges were related to agriculture, urban effluents, solid wastes, pulp and paper mills, and natural extraction activities. Several interesting research topics included assessing and preventing pollution impacts on conservation protected areas, integrating environment and health assessments, and developing strategiesfor identification, substitution, and design of less hazardous chemicals (e.g., green chemistry). Finally, a recurrent research need included developing an understanding of differential sensitivity of regional species and ecosystems to environmental contaminants and other stressors. Addressing these critical questions will support development of long-term strategic research efforts to advance more sustainable environmental quality and protect public health and the environment in LA.Centro de Investigaciones del Medioambient

A New Direction to Athletic Performance: Understanding the Acute and Longitudinal Responses to Backward Running

Backward running (BR) is a form of locomotion that occurs in short bursts during many overground field and court sports. It has also traditionally been used in clinical settings as a method to rehabilitate lower body injuries. Comparisons between BR and forward running (FR) have led to the discovery that both may be generated by the same neural circuitry. Comparisons of the acute responses to FR reveal that BR is characterised by a smaller ratio of braking to propulsive forces, increased step frequency, decreased step length, increased muscle activity and reliance on isometric and concentric muscle actions. These biomechanical differences have been critical in informing recent scientific explorations which have discovered that BR can be used as a method for reducing injury and improving a variety of physical attributes deemed advantageous to sports performance. This includes improved lower body strength and power, decreased injury prevalence and improvements in change of direction performance following BR training. The current findings from research help improve our understanding of BR biomechanics and provide evidence which supports BR as a useful method to improve athlete performance. However, further acute and longitudinal research is needed to better understand the utility of BR in athletic performance programs

A 1-Year Study of Endurance Runners: Training, Laboratory Tests, and Field Tests

Purpose: To compare critical speed (CS) measured from a single-visit field test of the distance–time relationship with the “traditional” treadmill time-to-exhaustion multivisit protocol. Methods: Ten male distance runners completed treadmill and field tests to calculate CS and the maximum distance performed above CS (D′). The field test involved 3 runs on a single visit to an outdoor athletics track over 3600, 2400, and 1200 m. Two field-test protocols were evaluated using either a 30-min recovery or a 60-min recovery between runs. The treadmill test involved runs to exhaustion at 100%, 105%, and 110% of velocity at VO2max, with 24 h recovery between runs. Results: There was no difference in CS measured with the treadmill and 30-min- and 60-minrecovery field tests (P .05). A typical error of the estimate of 0.14 m/s (95% confidence limits 0.09–0.26 m/s) was seen for CS and 88 m (95% confidence limits 60–169 m) for D′. A coefficient of variation of 0.4% (95% confidence limits: 0.3–0.8%) was found for repeat tests of CS and 13% (95% confidence limits 10–27%) for D′. Conclusion: The single-visit method provides a useful alternative for assessing CS in the field