Feasibility of Volitional Reaction Time Tests in Athletes: A Systematic Review

2023 International Olympic Committee's (IOC) consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs)

Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) was first introduced in 2014 by the International Olympic Committee's expert writing panel, identifying a syndrome of deleterious health and performance outcomes experienced by female and male athletes exposed to low energy availability (LEA; inadequate energy intake in relation to exercise energy expenditure). Since the 2018 REDs consensus, there have been >170 original research publications advancing the field of REDs science, including emerging data demonstrating the growing role of low carbohydrate availability, further evidence of the interplay between mental health and REDs and more data elucidating the impact of LEA in males. Our knowledge of REDs signs and symptoms has resulted in updated Health and Performance Conceptual Models and the development of a novel Physiological Model. This Physiological Model is designed to demonstrate the complexity of either problematic or adaptable LEA exposure, coupled with individual moderating factors, leading to changes in health and performance outcomes. Guidelines for safe and effective body composition assessment to help prevent REDs are also outlined. A new REDs Clinical Assessment Tool-Version 2 is introduced to facilitate the detection and clinical diagnosis of REDs based on accumulated severity and risk stratification, with associated training and competition recommendations. Prevention and treatment principles of REDs are presented to encourage best practices for sports organisations and clinicians. Finally, methodological best practices for REDs research are outlined to stimulate future high-quality research to address important knowledge gaps.

Methodology for studying Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs): a narrative review by a subgroup of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) consensus on REDs

In the past decade, the study of relationships among nutrition, exercise and the effects on health and athletic performance, has substantially increased. The 2014 introduction of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) prompted sports scientists and clinicians to investigate these relationships in more populations and with more outcomes than had been previously pursued in mostly white, adolescent or young adult, female athletes. Much of the existing physiology and concepts, however, are either based on or extrapolated from limited studies, and the comparison of studies is hindered by the lack of standardised protocols. In this review, we have evaluated and outlined current best practice methodologies to study REDs in an attempt to guide future research.This includes an agreement on the definition of key terms, a summary of study designs with appropriate applications, descriptions of best practices for blood collection and assessment and a description of methods used to assess specific REDs sequelae, stratified as either Preferred, Used and Recommended or Potential Researchers can use the compiled information herein when planning studies to more consistently select the proper tools to investigate their domain of interest. Thus, the goal of this review is to standardise REDs research methods to strengthen future studies and improve REDs prevention, diagnosis and care.

Association of military-specific reaction time performance with physical fitness and visual skills

Background

The aim of the present study was to explore whether military-specific reaction time (RT) test performance is affected by individuals' physical and visual skills.

Method

In a single testing session, the military-specific Simple and Go, No-Go RT, aerobic power (20-m Multistage Shuttle Run test), maximal upper- and lower-body mechanical capacities (bench press and squat against different loads), and visual skills (multiple object tracking and dynamic visual acuity) of 30 young men (15 active-duty military personnel and 15 sport science students) were evaluated.

Results

The main findings revealed that the Simple RT and Go, No-Go RT presented (1) with aerobic power non-significant small correlations in military personnel (r = -0.39 and -0.35, respectively) and non-significant negligible correlations in sport science students (r = -0.10 and 0.06, respectively), (2) inconsistent and generally non-significant correlations with the maximal mechanical capacities of the upper- and lower-body muscles (r range = -0.10, 0.67 and -0.27, 0.48, respectively), (3) non-significant correlations with visual skills (r magnitude ≥ 0.58) with the only exception of the Go, No-Go RT that was significantly correlated to all visual variables in the group of students (i.e., students who achieved better results during visual tests had shorter RT; r magnitude ≥ 0.58), and (4) none of the physical and visual variables significantly predicted the Simple RT or Go, No-Go RT.

Conclusion

Altogether, these results indicate that military-specific RT performance is generally independent of physical and visual skills in both military personnel and active university students.

Validation of a Novel Reaction Time Test Specific for Military Personnel

A military-specific reaction time (RT) test was developed to explore its reliability and sensitivity to discriminate between military personnel and sport science students. Fifteen male professional Spanish soldiers and 16 male sport science students completed two RT test modalities: military-specific and nonspecific RT tests. For each RT test modality, both the Simple (i.e., one stimulus, one response) and the Go, No-Go RT (i.e., true, and false stimuli, one response) were tested. The military-specific RT test consisted of a video presented through virtual reality glasses of a forest environment in which soldiers would appear from behind different bushes (stimuli) and the response consisted of pressing the button of a gun-shaped mouse (when they saw a soldier pointing a rifle at them). Both Simple and Go, No-Go RT reached acceptable reliability in both populations (coefficient of variation ≤ 9.64%). Military personnel presented a lower RT than sport science students during the military-specific RT test (p ≤ .001), while no differences were obtained during the nonspecific RT test. RT values were not significantly correlated between the military-specific and nonspecific RT tests (r ≤ .02). These findings collectively suggest that the novel military-specific RT test is an ecologically valid alternative to evaluate the information processing abilities of military personnel.