Sex-differences in elite-performance track and field competition from 1983 to 2015

The purpose of this study was to assess the veracity of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s assertion that sex-differences in athletic performance in elite-standard track and field competition is of the order of 10–12%. Exponential curves were fitted to the data of selected track and field events of the finals of all IAAF World Championships and Olympic Games from 1983 to 2016. For each curve, the coefficient of determination R² was calculated, in combination the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the curve constants. Sex-differences were evaluated via differences in the fitted curves between men and women. Mean performances of winners, as well as overall performance means of all participants, were also analyzed. The calculated sex-difference was 8.2 ± 1.0% – 11.8 ± 2.1% for sprints, 10.3 ± 3.3% – 12.8 ± 4.0% for middle and long-distance events, 9.7 ± 2.9% – 13.1 ± 2.9% for relays and 14.2 ± 2.2% – 25.0 ± 4.4% for jumps. This study therefore confirms that the percentage difference accepted by the CAS is appropriate for elite-standard track and field events.     

Females exposed to 24 h of sleep deprivation do not experience greater physiological strain,but do perceive heat illness symptoms more severely,during exercise-heat stress

There is limited and inconclusive evidence surrounding the physiological and perceptual responses to heat stress while sleep deprived, especially for females. This study aimed to quantify the effect of 24 h sleep deprivation on physiological strain and perceptual markers of heat-related illness in females. Nine females completed two 30-min heat stress tests (HST) separated by 48 h in 39°C, 41% relative humidity at a metabolic heat production of 10 W · kg^?1. The non-sleep deprived HST was followed by the sleep deprivation (SDHST) trial for all participants during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Physiological and perceptual measures were recorded at 5 min intervals during the HSTs. On the cessation of the HSTs, heat illness symptom index (HISI) was completed. HISI scores increased after sleep deprivation by 28 ± 16 versus 20 ± 16 (P = 0.01). Peak (39.40 ± 0.35°C vs. 39.35 ± 0.33°C) and change in rectal temperature (1.91 ± 0.21 vs. 1.93 ± 0.34°C), and whole body sweat rate (1.08 ± 0.31 vs. 1.15 ± 0.36 L · h^?1) did not differ (P > 0.05) between tests. No difference was observed in peak, nor rise in: heart rate, mean skin temperature, perceived exertion or thermal sensation during the HSTs. Twenty-four hours sleep deprivation increased perceptual symptoms associated with heat-related illness; however, no thermoregulatory alterations were observed.     

An audit of injuries in six english professional soccer academies

Regulations now state that professional academies in the United Kingdom are required to substantially increase the volume of soccer training. This study assessed the current injury occurrence, providing an update to reports published prior to the introduction of the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP). 608 soccer players aged 11–18 years from six professional soccer clubs were prospectively monitored, recording injuries during the 2014–2015 season. An injury rate of 1.32 injuries per player/season was indicated with a mean time loss of 21.9 days per injury. The greatest time loss per injury was in the U14s-U15s, and the highest rate of severe injuries in the U15s. Strains and sprains were the most common injury type, with the knee and ankle the most frequently injured anatomical sites. Seasonal variation indicated two peaks in injury incidence, occurring in September and January. In comparison to a published audit prior to the inception of the EPPP, this study indicates that academy soccer players are three-times more likely to experience an injury. Given that time loss and injury severity also increased during periods that typically follow rapid growth, these players should be considered an important group for training load monitoring and injury prevention strategies.     

Hyperandrogenic athletes: performance differences in elite-standard 200m and 800m finals

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the difference in elite-standard track and field performance between women athletes with and without hyperandrogenism reaches the 10–12% difference in performance between men and women, using only results from elite-standard track and field final competitions. Officially available data from two hyperandrogenic women (Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand) were compared with the characteristic performance of 200m and 800m elite-standard finals. The finishing times of Caster Semenya, before her ineligibility to compete in 2009 and after the suspension of the 2011 IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations were found to be respectively 1.24% and 1.49% faster than the predicted performance in 800m finals. When compared with the result of the second classified, the difference was respectively 0.65% and 2.08%. The analysis of the finishing times of Dutee Chand did not lead to any conclusions due to the lack of available data. The present study indicates that the percentage difference in performance between women with and women without hyperandrogenism does not reach the 3% difference requested by the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the reinstatement of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations, neither does it reach the 10% accepted range of difference in performance between men and women.     

Brainjacking in deep brain stimulation and autonomy

'Brainjacking’ refers to the exercise of unauthorized control of another’s electronic brain implant. Whilst the possibility of hacking a Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) has already been proven in both experimental and real-life settings, there is reason to believe that it will soon be possible to interfere with the software settings of the Implanted Pulse Generators (IPGs) that play a central role in Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) systems. Whilst brainjacking raises ethical concerns pertaining to privacy and physical or psychological harm, we claim that the possibility of brainjacking DBS raises particularly profound concerns about individual autonomy, since the possibility of hacking such devices raises the prospect of third parties exerting influence over the neural circuits underpinning the subject’s cognitive, emotional and motivational states. However, although it seems natural to assume that brainjacking represents a profound threat to individual autonomy, we suggest that the implications of brainjacking for individual autonomy are complicated by the fact that technologies targeted by brainjacking often serve to enhance certain aspects of the user’s autonomy. The difficulty of ascertaining the implications of brainjacking DBS for individual autonomy is exacerbated by the varied understandings of autonomy in the neuroethical and philosophical literature. In this paper, we seek to bring some conceptual clarity to this area by mapping out some of the prominent views concerning the different dimension of autonomous agency, and the implications of brainjacking DBS for each dimension. Drawing on three hypothetical case studies, we show that there could plausibly be some circumstances in which brainjacking could potentially be carried out in ways that could serve to enhance certain dimensions of the target’s autonomy. Our analysis raises further questions about the power, scope, and necessity of obtaining prior consent in seeking to protect patient autonomy when directly interfering with their neural states, in particular in the context of self-regulating closed-loop stimulation devices.     

Everyday nationalism and elite research universities in the USA and England

The reinvigoration of popular nationalism in the USA and UK has largely been framed as counter to the cosmopolitan globalization associated with their elite universities over the past decade. Opposing these two sets of values may be too simplistic, however, given the cultural and political ties long institutionalized between elite universities and the nation. This article endeavors to highlight these entanglements—which were present before the election of Donald Trump or the fateful vote for Brexit—by drawing on interviews conducted with personnel at four elite research universities in these two countries from 2013 to 2014. In particular, this article focuses on the way these individuals invoked symbolic boundaries drawn along national lines as common sense, natural, and enduring, seeing their universities as embodying national characteristics, and as obliged to serve national interests. In providing ontological order to the world, the presence of this “banal” or “everyday” nationalism has arguably been central to the conceptualization and enactment of internationalization in these and other universities. These findings complicate discussions of elite universities as globalizing and unmooring from the nation-state framework, or otherwise working against the forces of nationalism. The article also raises new questions about divisions between different constituents of today’s globalizing academy.