The effects of a 6-week strength training on critical velocity, anaerobic running distance, 30-m sprint and yo-yo intermittent running test performances in male soccer players

The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of a moderate intensity strength training on changes in critical velocity (CV), anaerobic running distance (D'), sprint performance and Yo-Yo intermittent running test (Yo-Yo IR1) performances. Methods: two recreational soccer teams were divided in a soccer training only group (SO; n = 13) and a strength and soccer training group (ST; n = 13). Both groups were tested for values of CV, D', Yo-Yo IR1 distance and 30-m sprint time on two separate occasions (pre and post intervention). The ST group performed a concurrent 6-week upper and lower body strength and soccer training, whilst the SO group performed a soccer only training. Results: after the re-test of all variables, the ST demonstrated significant improvements for both, YoYo IR1 distance (p = 0.002) and CV values (p<0.001) with no significant changes in the SO group. 30-m sprint performance were slightly improved in the ST group with significantly decreased performance times identified in the SO group (p<0.001). Values for D' were slightly reduced in both groups (ST -44.5 m, 95% CI = -90.6 to 1.6; SO -42.6 m, 95% CI = -88.7 to 3.5). Conclusions: combining a 6-week moderate strength training with soccer training significantly improves CV, Yo-Yo IR1 whilst moderately improving 30-m sprint performances in non-previously resistance trained male soccer players. Critical Velocity can be recommended to coaches as an additional valid testing tool in soccer

Monitoring of risk perceptions and correlates of precautionary behaviour related to human avian influenza during 2006 - 2007 in the Netherlands: results of seven consecutive surveys

BACKGROUND: Avian influenza (AI) is a public health challenge because of ongoing spread and pandemic potential. Non-pharmaceutical measures are important to prevent the spread of AI and to contain a pandemic. The effectiveness of such measures is largely dependent on the behaviour of the population. Risk perception is a central element in changing behaviour. This study aimed to investigate perceived vulnerability, severity and precautionary behaviour related to AI in the Netherlands during seven consecutive surveys in 2006 - 2007 as well as possible trends in risk perception and self-reported precautionary behaviours. METHODS: Seven web-based surveys were conducted including 3,840 respondents over a one-year period. Time trends were analyzed with linear regression analyses. Multivariate analysis was used to study determinants of precautionary behaviour. RESULTS: While infection with AI was considered a very severe health problem with mean score of 4.57 (scale 1 - 5); perceived vulnerability was much lower, with a mean score of 1.69. While perceived severity remained high, perceived vulnerability decreased slightly during a one-year period covering part of 2006 and 2007. Almost half of the respondents (46%) reported taking one or more preventive measures, with 36% reporting to have stayed away from (wild) birds or poultry. In multivariate logistic regression analysis the following factors were significantly associated with taking preventive measures: time of the survey, higher age, lower level of education, non-Dutch ethnicity, vaccinated against influenza, higher perceived severity, higher perceived vulnerability, higher self efficacy, lower level of knowledge, more information about AI, and thinking more about AI. Self efficacy was a stronger predictor of precautionary behaviour for those who never or seldom think about AI (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.9 - 2.7), compared to those who think about AI more often (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: The fact that perceived severity of AI appears to be high and remains so over time offers a good point of departure for more specific risk communications to promote precautionary actions. Such communications should aim at improving knowledge about the disease and preventive actions, and focus on perceived personal vulnerability and self efficacy in taking preventive measures

Cancer Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoepidemiology: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation

Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled “Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation” on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice

Sex Differences in the Brain: A Whole Body Perspective

Most writing on sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain (including our own) considers just two organs: the gonads and the brain. This perspective, which leaves out all other body parts, misleads us in several ways. First, there is accumulating evidence that all organs are sexually differentiated, and that sex differences in peripheral organs affect the brain. We demonstrate this by reviewing examples involving sex differences in muscles, adipose tissue, the liver, immune system, gut, kidneys, bladder, and placenta that affect the nervous system and behavior. The second consequence of ignoring other organs when considering neural sex differences is that we are likely to miss the fact that some brain sex differences develop to compensate for differences in the internal environment (i.e., because male and female brains operate in different bodies, sex differences are required to make output/function more similar in the two sexes). We also consider evidence that sex differences in sensory systems cause male and female brains to perceive different information about the world; the two sexes are also perceived by the world differently and therefore exposed to differences in experience via treatment by others. Although the topic of sex differences in the brain is often seen as much more emotionally charged than studies of sex differences in other organs, the dichotomy is largely false. By putting the brain firmly back in the body, sex differences in the brain are predictable and can be more completely understood

Cleavage modification did not alter blastomere fates during bryozoan evolution

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The study was funded by the core budget of the Sars Centre and by The European Research Council Community’s Framework Program Horizon 2020 (2014–2020) ERC grant agreement 648861 to A

Optimisation of Perioperative Cardiovascular Management to Improve Surgical Outcome II (OPTIMISE II) trial: study protocol for a multicentre international trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy with low-dose inotrope infusion compared with usual care in patients undergoing major elective gastrointestinal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality in older patients with comorbidities undergoing gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Infections after surgery are common in such patients, prolonging hospitalisation and reducing postoperative short-term and long-term survival. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids and inotropic drugs may reduce infection rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms suggested a modest reduction in postoperative morbidity. A large definitive trial is needed to confirm or refute this and inform widespread clinical practice. METHODS: The Optimisation of Perioperative Cardiovascular Management to Improve Surgical Outcome II (OPTIMISE II) trial is a multicentre, international, parallel group, open, randomised controlled trial. 2502 high-risk patients undergoing major elective gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intravenous fluid combined with low-dose inotrope infusion, or usual care. The trial intervention will be carried out during and for 4 hours after surgery. The primary outcome is postoperative infection of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation; however, outcome assessors will be blinded when feasible. Participant recruitment started in January 2017 and is scheduled to last 3 years, within 50 hospitals worldwide. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The OPTIMISE II trial has been approved by the UK National Research Ethics Service and has been approved by responsible ethics committees in all participating countries. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a widely accessible peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN39653756.The OPTIMISE II trial is supported by Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, CA) and the UK National Institute for Health Research through RMP’s NIHR Professorship