The Weekly Roundup is an opportunity to recap a week in news and share recently discovered materials that might be of interest.
THE NUZZO LETTER IN THE NEWS
Sports Medicine, 2024
Abstract: Many individuals do not participate in resistance exercise, with perceived lack of time being a key barrier. Minimal dose strategies, which generally reduce weekly exercise volumes to less than recommended guidelines, might improve muscle strength with minimal time investment. However, minimal dose strategies and their effects on muscle strength are still unclear. Here our aims are to define and characterize minimal dose resistance exercise strategies and summarize their effects on muscle strength in individuals who are not currently engaged in resistance exercise. The minimal dose strategies overviewed were: “Weekend Warrior,” single-set resistance exercise, resistance exercise “snacking,” practicing the strength test, and eccentric minimal doses. “Weekend Warrior,” which minimizes training frequency, is resistance exercise performed in one weekly session. Single-set resistance exercise, which minimizes set number and session duration, is one set of multiple exercises performed multiple times per week. “Snacks,” which minimize exercise number and session duration, are brief bouts (few minutes) of resistance exercise performed once or more daily. Practicing the strength test, which minimizes repetition number and session duration, is one maximal repetition performed in one or more sets, multiple days per week. Eccentric minimal doses, which eliminate or minimize concentric phase muscle actions, are low weekly volumes of submaximal or maximal eccentric-only repetitions. All approaches increase muscle strength, and some approaches improve other outcomes of health and fitness. “Weekend Warrior” and single-set resistance exercise are the approaches most strongly supported by current research, while snacking and eccentric minimal doses are emerging concepts with promising results. Public health programs can promote small volumes of resistance exercise as being better for muscle strength than no resistance exercise at all.
KNOWLEDGE BIN
Articles and essays
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sport, 2024
Abstract: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male-born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case-by-case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision-making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.
BMJ Public Health, 2024
Abstract: Objectives: This study sought to explore whether generalised joint hypermobility (GJH, a common marker of variant connective tissue) was a risk factor for self-reported non-recovery from COVID-19 infection. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: COVID Symptom Study Biobank (https://cssbiobank.com/) UK. Participants: Participants were surveyed in August 2022. 3064 (81.4%) reported at least one infection with COVID-19. These individuals self-reported on recovery and completed a self-report questionnaire to detect GJH (Hakim and Grahame 5-part questionnaire, 5PQ). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the presence of self-reported non-recovery from COVID-19 infection at the time of the survey. Additional outcomes included scores on 5PQ and self-reported fatigue level (Chalder Fatigue Scale). Results: The presence of GJH was not specifically associated with reported COVID-19 infection risk per se. However, it was significantly associated with non-recovery from COVID-19 (OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.70)). This association remained after sequential models adjusting for age, sex, ethnic group, education level and index of multiple deprivation (OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.61)) and further adjustment for vaccination status and number of vaccinations (OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.60)). Additionally, including in a model adjusting for all covariates, hypermobility significantly predicted higher fatigue levels (B=0.95, SE=0.25, t=3.77, SE, p=0.002). Fatigue levels mediated the link between GJH and non-recovery from COVID-19 (estimate of indirect effect=0.18, 95% bootstrapped CI 0.08 to 0.29). Conclusions: Individuals with GJH were approximately 30% more likely not to have recovered fully from COVID-19 infection at the time of the questionnaire, and this predicted the fatigue level. This observation is clinically important through its potential impact for understanding and identifying sub-phenotypes of long COVID for screening and personalised targeted interventions. More generally, greater awareness of GJH and its extra-articular associations is needed for effective patient stratification and implementation of personalised medicine.
Construction and validation of a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2024
Abstract: Two large studies (combined n = 5,878) set out to construct and validate a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes. Studies assessed the reliability, factor structure, model fit, and both convergent and divergent validity of the scale. Studies also examined the prevalence of critical social justice attitudes in different populations and the scale's correlations with other variables of interest, including well-being variables: anxiety, depression, and happiness. Participants for Study 1 (n = 848) were university faculty and students, as well as non-academic adults, from Finland. Participants responded to a survey about critical social justice attitudes. Twenty one candidate items were devised for an initial item pool, on which factor analyses were conducted, resulting in a 10-item pilot version of critical social justice attitude scales (CSJAS). Participants for Study 2 were a nationwide sample (n = 5,030) aged 15–84 from Finland. Five new candidate items were introduced, of which two were included in the final, seven-item, version of CSJAS. The final CSJAS scale had high reliability (α = 0.87, ω = 0.88) and a good model fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.04, standardized root mean residual [SRMR] = 0.01, χ2 (14, 5024) = 132.8 (p < 0.001)) as well as convergent and divergent validity. Overall, the study sample rejected critical social justice propositions, with strong rejection from men. Women expressed more than twice as much support for the propositions (d = 1.20). In both studies, CSJAS was correlated with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so than being on the political left was. The critical social justice attitude scale was successfully constructed and validated. It had good reliability and model fit.
Historical articles and essays
Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2018
Abstract: Aims: Several studies have reported the under-representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration and to analyse the fraction of women participating in phases I, II and III. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional, structured research into publicly available registration dossiers of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that are prescribed frequently. Furthermore, we analysed compounds with high hepatic clearance and a known gender-related difference in drug response. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared figures with US disease prevalence data. Results: For 38 of the initial 137 drugs (28%), sufficient data were reported and publicly available. For these drugs, 185 479 trial participants were included, of whom 47% were female and 44% were male; gender was not reported for 9% of participants. However, the number of female participants varied with the phase of the trial, with 22% females in phase I trials vs. 48% and 49%, respectively, in phase II and III trials. When compared with US disease prevalence data, 10 drugs (26%) had a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected with the disease compared with representation in clinical trials. Conclusions: From these publicly available data, there was no evidence of any systematic under-representation of women in clinical trials.
RUBBISH BIN
Articles and essays
Toward the Advancement of Equity in Scientific Publishing
American Psychologist, 2024
Abstract: Peer review represents the foundation and gatekeeper to scientific dissemination, making it among the most important points to improve the representation of members of diverse gender, racial/ethnic, and other sociodemographic groups. The American Psychological Association (APA) highlights equity, diversity, and inclusion among its guiding principles. APA journals publish a large volume of cutting-edge psychological research (processing 20,000 + submissions per year) and reach a wide audience and have the unique opportunity to contribute to APA's mission by disseminating data on the diversity of those involved in the production of psychological science. In this commentary, we highlight recommendations for actionable steps to promote greater equity in the peer review process. While our recommendations are not exhaustive, we hope that they are steps in the right direction and will contribute to conversations that have already begun regarding actions to address underrepresentation in the scientific process.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 2024
Abstract: In this article, I draw upon critical feminist and intersectional frameworks to delineate an overarching orientation to structural oppression and unequal power relations that advantages White heteropatriarchal nuclear families (WHNFs) and marginalizes others as a function of family structure and relationship status. Specifically, I theorize that marriage fundamentalism, like structural racism, is a key structuring element of White heteropatriarchal supremacy. Marriage fundamentalism can be understood as an ideological and cultural phenomenon, where adherents espouse the superiority of the two-parent married family. But it is also a hidden or unacknowledged structural mechanism of White heteropatriarchal family supremacy that is essential to the reproduction and maintenance of family inequality in the United States. Through several examples, I demonstrate how—since colonization—marriage fundamentalism has been instantiated through laws, policies, and practices to unduly advantage WHNFs while simultaneously marginalizing Black, Indigenous, immigrant, mother-headed, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) families, among others. I conclude with a call for family scientists to further interrogate how marriage fundamentalism reproduces family inequality in American family life and to work toward its dismantling. A deeper understanding of how these complex and often covert mechanisms of structural oppression operate in family life is needed to disrupt these mechanisms and advance family equality and justice.
Support The Nuzzo Letter
If you appreciated this content, please consider supporting The Nuzzo Letter with a one-time or recurring donation. Your support is greatly appreciated. It helps me to continue to work on independent research projects and fight for my evidence-based discourse. To donate, click the DonorBox logo. In two simple steps, you can donate using ApplePay, PayPal, or another service. Thank you.
Great stuff. I particularly enjoyed 'Theorizing White heteropatriarchal supremacy, marriage fundamentalism, and the mechanisms that maintain family inequality' and shared it for some laughs.
My last ex-girlfriend was a W&GS 'scholar' who would occasionally show me the drafts of papers she was working on, particulary her PhD thesis for which she couldn't even decide on a subject (last I heard it was going to be about wolves--which apparently wasn't a problem topic for a W&GS thesis at Texas Woman's University).
Every W&GS paper I ever read, no matter who the author or what the topic, was practically indistinguishable from every other one. You could play pseudo-intellectual bingo with every one ever written. Squares could be posit (sounds so much more authoritative than 'suppose', don't it?), structural, centering, deconstruction, colonialism, etc. It would make a good Livestream.