ACSM Blog
Menu

In This Section:

  • Sport-Related Concussion: A Primer

    by Greg Margason | Oct 28, 2022

    Sports-Related Concussion: A PrimerSo, you’ve had yourself a concussion. Or maybe a client or one of your athletes has. And now you’re wondering what exactly happened, medically speaking, and when you or your client will be healed up and able to get back in the swing of things.

    Fortunately, ACSM’s Team Physician Consensus Conference (TPCC) has updated guidelines, published in Current Sports Medicine Reports, on this exact subject. Let’s explore:

    First, we should define our terms. The TPCC guidelines focus on sport-related concussion, or “SRC,” so I’ll be considering that condition — rather than concussion more broadly — in this post. According to the experts, an SRC is actually a traumatic brain injury. It’s caused by physical forces affecting the brain, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. So, a hefty bonk on the head could cause an SRC, but so could a blow to another part of the body with enough force behind it to also act on the head — say a quick directional change, like being on the receiving end of a particularly brutal or unlucky tackle in a football game.

    But getting a diagnosis can be tricky. We don’t yet have reliable SRC biomarkers — though researchers are working on that — and the way physicians come to a conclusion about whether someone has had an SRC is by weighing a number of symptoms and factors, like neurological issues that develop suddenly and dissipate relatively quickly and a lack of other potential contributors like drugs, alcohol or spinal injury. Also note that you don’t have to have lost consciousness to have experienced an SRC, and your CT and MRI scans, if you get them, will likely look completely normal. Not exactly helpful.

    But now your physician has ultimately diagnosed you with an SRC, and you’re wondering how long you’ll be experiencing symptoms, which up to this point might have consisted of headache, dizziness, confusion and feeling like you’re in a fog. You might also be anxious — understandably — and irritable, or you might be having trouble sleeping — or not sleeping. Lovely.

    The good news is that the majority of adult athletes typically recover from SRC within two weeks. For children it can be a little longer, normally up to four weeks. If symptoms persist beyond that timeframe, you could say you’re experiencing “persisting symptoms after SRC,” which the TPCC physicians shorten to the initialism “PSaSRC.”

    The reasons behind PSaSRC are complex, but some of the factors associated with a longer recovery include experiencing a higher number of initial symptoms, having a preexisting mood disorder such as anxiety or depression, or resting too long after the injury.

    That last point is perhaps the most interesting. For some time, the conventional wisdom was to employ rather extreme rest, both physical and mental, after an SCR. And though there’s still value in spending the first 24-48 hours at rest to adequately heal and recover, whiling away more than a few days in bed or on the couch might actually be counterproductive. Speak with your doctor, of course, but the latest findings seem to indicate it’s best not to stay under strict rest for too long but instead, as the TPCC physicians put it, “gradually and progressively resume cognitive and physical activity.”

    To sum things up: An SRC is a sport-related traumatic brain injury caused by direct or indirect forces on the head. SRCs can be difficult to diagnose, but if a physician determines you’ve experienced one, you can expect to be dealing with symptoms for about two weeks (four weeks for children). Any longer than that, and you’re — logically — experiencing persistent symptoms. Though there isn’t an easy way to determine who will have persistent symptoms and who won’t, a good proactive measure against them is to, with your doctor’s guidance, slowly return to activities of daily living rather than following the older model of strict rest, which may actually lengthen your recovery.

    Good luck, and — cautiously and judiciously — get back out there.

  • Disability, Employment and Progress in the Fitness Space

    by Greg Margason | Oct 24, 2022

    Disability, Employment and Progress in the Fitness SpaceDid you know that 81% of people with a disability don’t feel welcome in the fitness industry? 

    That means as fitness professionals, leaders and educators, we have a lot of work to do. One of the biggest areas of need is in representation. We are the fitness industry after all, and we know that representation sells our brands. We know the stigmas around sizeism and ageism all too well, but what about ableism? People with a disability rarely, if ever, get to see themselves at the gym, in commercials or on the flyer, and they certainly cannot request a trainer that looks like them at most gyms around the country. 

    October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and its purpose is to celebrate the achievements of American workers with a disability. This might be easier said than done: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for individuals aged 16-64, the current unemployment rate for persons with a disability is 8.3 % — that’s 5% higher than for those without a disability. An even more staggering statistic? Using that same source and age range, the labor force participation rate for people with a disability is only 38%. 

    Clearly, the fitness industry does not stand alone in its lack of representation. However, there has been progress, as some well-known companies are making strides toward greater inclusion. This year, Peloton came out with their first adaptive training consultant and instructor who has a disability. The Apple Watch has included accessibility features for years, including selecting if you are a wheelchair user as a fitness option and changing the language to “roll” instead of “walk.” In addition, they also added wheelchair-specific workouts to their accessibility features this year. 

    Last year, Degree Deodorant launched a #TrainersForHire campaign to challenge the industry to hire more trainers with a disability. Their recent commercial campaign also highlighted people with a disability being physically active, and the first-of-its-kind adaptive deodorant. Nike joined the club by making their fitness apps more accessible with adaptive workouts in the Nike Training Club, which also includes an instructor with a disability leading the class. PopSugar made inclusive efforts by interviewing my colleague and friend Sonja Ast from Lakeshore Foundation for this 10-Minute High-Intensity Workout for People in a Wheelchair. And finally, Move United’s OnDemand provides online fitness classes for and by people with disability. 

    The COVID-19 pandemic — which significantly affected people with disability more than those without in the fitness space due to the lack of access to inclusive home equipment, fitness apps and walkable communities — certainly helped influence these changes by larger companies, but it also saw an increase in individuals speaking up and creatively developing solutions. For example, para-powerlifter Ali Jawad who, with a few partners, created a new fitness app for people with a disability or Nicole Walsh, who went back to being a personal trainer after a spinal cord injury. The industry has hit a significant enough shift that you can now google “disabled fitness influencers” and actually get a hit. On TikTok you will find influencers Alyssa Gialamas, a Paralympic swimmer, and Jesi Stracham, founder of the Wheel With Me Foundation. 

    While we still have a long way to go to reach true inclusion in the fitness space, especially here in the U.S. where the Americans with Disabilities Act has been around for more than 30 years, we can at least take some time out to acknowledge that we are finally starting to move the needle forward. 

    Join me this month in celebrating those who have broken the mold and successfully found their way into the industry, and pledge with me to make it a whole lot easier for the next generation to find acceptance and success in our industry by being the voice of access and inclusion in your respective fields. 

    Related Content: 
    Certification | Become an ACSM/NCHPAD Certified Inclusive Fitness Trainer
    Book | ACSM's Exercise Management for Persons With Chronic Diseases and Disabilities
    Resource | Increasing Physical Activity for Adults with a Disability

    Kelly BonnerKelly Bonner is the Director of Training and Operations at Lakeshore Foundation for the National Center on Health Physical Activity and Disability (NCHPAD). In her work with NCHPAD, she has conducted numerous trainings on Disability Education to organizations like the World Games, Encompass Health, and state health departments. She has also authored publications and blogs for organizations such as ACSM, CDC and NRPA. Mrs. Bonner manages NCHPAD’s training and education components including their on-line E-learning site. For the past 10 years Mrs. Bonner has overseen and delivered the trainings for the Certified Inclusive Fitness Trainer through ACSM. Mrs. Bonner is a certified fitness specialist and has worked at Lakeshore Foundation, an Olympic and Paralympic training center, working with disabled individuals across the lifespan in the fitness center as well as coaching adapted track and field.

  • Muscle Strength Genotype Predicts Functional Capacity at Older Age

    by Greg Margason | Oct 24, 2022
    Muscle Strength Genotype Predicts Functional Capacity at Older Age

    Throughout the lifespan, maximum hand grip strength reflects general health and vigor and is therefore commonly suggested to be a biomarker of aging. Although aging results in declines in muscle strength, individual strength changes follow a predictable pattern, as shown by strong correlations between measurements carried out decades apart. Family and twin studies have also shown that muscle strength is a moderately (30-65%) heritable phenotype. This suggests the genetic component of maximal strength may be used to characterize the intrinsic capacity for lifetime health.

    Previous genetic studies have not been able to estimate genetic variation in muscle strength, which is a multifactorial phenotype. This means that variation in muscle strength is explained by several environmental factors, including exercise, but also by the contributions of hundreds or thousands of genetic variants, each of which has a small effect size. Using novel polygenic scoring methodology, the measured genetic variation can be summarized in a single score, usually called a polygenic risk score or a polygenic score. The score describes an individual’s genetic liability to a trait or disease, in this case genetic liability to muscle strength.

    In our study, published in the November 2022 issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise®, we constructed a polygenic score for grip strength and validated it against measured grip strength and heritability estimates derived from an independent twin study. We further showed that polygenic score for grip strength also predicts variation in other measures of muscle strength and can be used as an estimate of muscle strength genotype.

    The polygenic score summarizes variation of over 1 million nucleotides and was able to explain 6% of the variation in grip strength and 5% in knee extension, respectively. The predictive value of the polygenic score for grip strength was significantly higher than what has been observed for physical activity polygenic scores, possibly due to the ease of obtaining standardized grip strength measurements.

    In our study we also showed that a muscle strength genotype that supports higher muscle strength was associated with better physical functioning and lower risk of functional limitations among older women. This suggest that genotype may have significant impact on health throughout the lifespan, at least in functional tasks that require good muscle strength.

    While the construction of polygenic scores requires very large, genotyped datasets, after validation, scores can be calculated and used in any dataset that has been genotyped. Polygenic scores may, for example, be used in epidemiological designs to partly adjust for underlying genotype, to study how genotype affects training response or to study gene-lifestyle-disease interactions. In health promotion, these scoring methods can possibly be used for screening high-risk individuals, who need more intensive monitoring with respect to functional limitations or specific diseases. However, to date, we have a very limited amount of information on how genotype affects individual responses to treatment. Therefore, careful ethical consideration is needed before scoring methodology is used in health care.

    Elina SillanpääElina Sillanpää, Ph.D., is an associate professor of health promotion and Academy of Finland research fellow working in the faculty of sport and health sciences at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She has a Ph.D. in sport sciences. Dr. Sillanpää leads a research group that focuses on genetic and molecular studies of physical activity and exercise in relation to biological aging, functional disabilities and aging-associated diseases, using advanced statistical methods and novel bioinformatics to analyze gene-environment interactions. Dr. Sillanpää is an active member of large consortiums, including the Interplay of Genes and Environment Across Multiple Studies (IGEMS) and the Genomics and Biology of Physical Activity Consortium (GenBioPAC). Dr. Sillanpää is a member of ACSM.

    Viewpoints presented in SMB commentaries reflect opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent ACSM positions or policies. Active Voice authors who have received financial or other considerations from a commercial entity associated with their topic must disclose such relationships at the time they accept an invitation to write for SMB.

  • Hologic DXA Webinar Q&A

    by Greg Margason | Oct 19, 2022

    Access the webinar recording here Hologic ACSM Webinar

    Questions regarding other body composition assessment tools:

    • Q: Any informative ideas about 3D body scanning, similar to InBody Scan?
    • Q: DXA is the gold standard test for BMD? Is it right?
    • Q: What are your thoughts/opinions on using ultrasound in assessing body fat as compared to using DXA?
    • Q: You mentioned BIA — what about the COSMED air-displacement assessments?
    • Q: Any specific model to impedance measurement?
    • Q: If you do not have a DXA, do you see utility in BIA measurements?
    • Q: Do you have a favorite method of testing body fat percentage? 

    There are many pros and cons to any body composition assessment tool, DXA included. Many of you asked my thoughts about other methods — specifically bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA — InBody), air displacement (BOD POD), 3D scanners such as the SizeStream, and ultrasound — compared to DXA. DXA’s precision is greater than any of these measures and is the gold-standard tool for bone mineral density. So if you can afford one, I say go for it. But they are expensive, require radiation and special training, and are not mobile in most cases. 

    1. BIA’s precision can be hydration dependent, but the newer InBodys provide a range for total body water, so as long as you’re scanning within that range, it is a good option that is cheaper and often portable. 

    1. The BOD POD is useful but has size limitations and is also expensive. And if your client is having a hard time getting the breathing technique down, the standardized equations for residual volume are not great in my opinion and can increase error rates. 

    1. 3D scanners are an interesting newer player to the field. With no radiation requirements, size limitations or hydration issues, they provide a quick option. Be sure to pay special attention to which regression equation you use in conjunction with the anthropometrics reported; they vary greatly. If you’re interested, please read Body Fat Assessment Techniques: Is There a Place for 3D Body Scanners? for more information about the validity of this tool. 

    1. Lastly, the use of ultrasound to estimate body fat percentage: Ultrasound provides tissue thicknesses and estimates of muscle quality (via density) and is a useful tool for any research team. However, measuring subcutaneous adipose tissue in one or two areas will not be a great tool for the estimate of total body fat. It can, however, be used to assess site-specific fat loss over time. 

    In summary, my favorite body composition tool is DXA, but that is because I am in a research setting that helps me circumvent its limitations. If you’re in the field and need something cheaper and more portable but don’t want to go the skinfold/circumference tape route, I would recommend a newer InBody from the list above. 
    line with grey, dark blue and light blue sections

    Questions regarding scanning procedures: 

    • Q: Any observations in dealing with tactical athletes or older athletes with joint replacements?
    • Q: Do you have any recommendations/best practices for using Custom RoI while performing segment-wise body composition? 
    • Q: Is it possible to mirror estimate data from left side to right side?
    • Q: Do they irradiate the skull and gonads? If so, is this necessary to calculate a body composition evaluation?
    • Q: Hi, is there a safe frequency for DXA scan? My lecturer used to say limit to four scans/year due to radiation.
    • Q: What are your thoughts on scanning tall athletes as total body less head (TBLH) to monitor longitudinally?
    • Q: Does the temperature/humidity in the room influence the test results? 

    Lots of good questions fell within the topic area of scanning procedures. Folks had questions about working with tall athletes, tactical athletes, those with joint replacements, how to create novel scanning procedures, scan frequency, radiation exposures and room conditions for scans. 

    1. When scanning anyone with orthopedic implants, the implant, regardless of synthetic material, will most likely inflate your site-specific BMC and total body aBMD Z- or T-scores. It doesn’t mean you can’t scan them. Instead, it will be more important to monitor the rates of change, as we assume the implant itself will not change from scan to scan. We often scan older adults with one or more arthroplasties, and with an inaccurate total body T-score, it is important to consider a site-specific scan (e.g., lumbar spine, hip, radius) to get a better idea of bone density measures from a clinical standpoint. 

    1. Tall and wide athletes have special scanning procedures, and as noted in the talk, it is really important that you “have a plan before you scan.” For wide individuals, 95% of the time we just take the mirrored data from the right arm or leg and use it for the left arm or leg, which nearly all DXAs will automatically provide for you on the output. For tall athletes, many procedures exist, but most have the same limitation. The key consideration is to ensure the exact same parts of the body are scanned each time to be sure the changes you see over time are indeed real and not artifacts from different positioning from scan to scan. Some folks consider cutting off the head as an option, and although the density in the skull is less likely to change drastically, many tall athletes will require their head and parts of the foot to be outside the scan area. The technique we proposed is to create a region of interest (ROI) that can be placed onto the head and will never change length so, assuming your athlete is no longer getting taller, you can be sure the same exact tissue is being scanned each time. 

    1. The DXA scan uses radiation to scan the entire body, so yes, that will include the skull and gonads, and their inclusion is part of the total body scan for the assessment of body composition. There is no way to exclude these regions from a total body scan and still get “total body fat percentage.” 

    1. The timing throughout the year and frequency of the scans are up to you and your team, but most of the time, scanning more than four times per year will not exceed the machine’s error rate and should not be reported. The timing of the year may change the ambient environment of the room in which the DXA is housed (e.g., summer is hot, winter is cold). It is important that your machine is housed within a room that is level, very clean and maintains a normal temperature. I would not recommend having a DXA in a space that lacks climate controls. Before you get a DXA delivered, most companies will perform a site visit to ensure the space is suitable for the machine’s successful long-term performance. 

    line with grey, dark blue and light blue sections

    Questions regarding data reporting and management: 

    • Q: When working with younger athletes (between 16 and 18 years) do you use the Z-score based on length or the Z-score based on age? Since we get both those Z-scores when we scan younger athletes.
    • Q: I appreciate Dr. Baker mentioning the issues with DXA and the Oregon track program. Could she speak more about her experience with reporting and using data/images among athletes/coaches that discourages unhealthy use of the data?
    • Q: I did not manage to register the web address with the automated DXA-result extraction ... is there any place or in any way we could get access to this?
    • Q: Hi Dr. Baker, do you compare to the NHANES database with the scans at your practice? 
    • Q: I agree with T-score reporting for those over 50 years. However, can you explain to all as to why? 
    • Q: Can you recommend a source for the most current guidelines on bone health for general populations?
    • Q: Do you think results may differ between Caucasians and Asians?
    • Q: How do you educate people that have some curvature in their spine over multiple scans and express anxiety or distress about that?
    • Q: Can DXA provide us with details about scoliosis?
    • Q: Could a difference in bone density between two legs also correlate with a difference in muscle mass?
    • Q: What is your role within the sports teams you work with? How do you organize meeting with the coaching staff?
    • Q: Did you say there was an app for DXA data?
    • Q: Would it be a good idea to use DXA for clients who have bone issues like arthritis? Would that be within the scope of practice for a personal trainer? 

    Many of you submitted great data-extraction, management and reporting questions. Below are my thoughts on the most common. 

    1. First: Clinically, Z-scores are biological sex-, age- and ethnicity-matched data that are to be used for those 50 and under (including those under the age of 20). Different ethnicities have greater or lower aBMD, so that is an important factor to consider. T-scores are the clinical tool for those over 50 years and are compared to a 30-year-old reference sample. This doesn’t mean you cannot discuss Z-scores with those over 50 years; in fact, it often helps them to put into perspective where they are. But the T-score is what needs to be used for clinical diagnosis. Your DXA will have specific databases it uses to create these scores, which are often in part of NHANES. The bone mass will be strongly correlated with lean mass and total body mass; this statistical relationship also holds true for most site-specific locations, such as increased bone in the leg with increased muscle.

      Those with osteoarthritis often have site-specific increases in bone mineral density as the damaged bone becomes sclerotic. For instance, someone with osteoarthritis in their lumbar spine will have an inflated aBMD and T-score, so instead we need to perform a scan of the hip or radius to get more accurate information regarding aBMD clinical classifications.

      Lastly, spinal deviations such as scoliosis are often evident on total body scans. The deviation may be in part due to poor positioning, muscle imbalances, or actual skeletal deviations. But unless you are a medical doctor, most states will not allow you to make a diagnosis. Encourage the subject to share their scans with their primary care physician. This last point is true for any clinical diagnosis you see: Educate them and encourage them to see their doctor. You can provide bone recommendations such as good dietary habits (e.g., calcium and vitamin D), exercise that is weight-bearing, and getting a DXA if someone is concerned — but again, be careful here. Most states do not allow you to make recommendations for bone health if you don’t hold an M.D. or D.O. 

    1. The DXA provides an immense amount of data beyond the overused and abused body fat percent, but getting these data can be cumbersome and result in transcription errors. As noted in the talk, please consider automating this process. There are many ways to do this, but we use the steps detailed in the following paper: DXA2: An Automated Program for Extraction of Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Data.

    1. Lastly, data reporting is the responsibility of the person who runs the DXA. In my case, any scans of athletes (regardless of who did the scan), are my responsibility. In our experience, the athletes want to learn about their bodies and are inherently curious, but very few people can see their images or get their BF% number and have a good response. We do not and will not provide athletes their BF% or the body composition number; instead, we take the time to educate them about their muscle and bones and how those two tissues are vital for performance and injury prevention. This procedure is something that is clearly discussed with the coaching staff well before we ever begin working together. My goal is to work in conjunction with all of the team’s support staff, not in opposition. Different entities want different data at different times, and we work to provide those data to them in a way they can easily understand and then use. My role within a team setting will be unique to each team and the relationship that has been cultivated with the coaching staff. I do not think a one-size-fits-all approach best serves the athletes or the coaches. 

    line with grey, dark blue and light blue sections

    Questions regarding precision testing: 

    • Q: I work in corporate health and wellness, so this is out of my field. But I want to ask about the error percentage. When you do a percentage test you get the error percentage, but how would you use that when gathering your data? Do you subtract that or add the % error to the data, or am I completely off?
    • Q: The least significant change and the smallest worthwhile change — are they the same?
    • Q: Hologic and GE provide default LSC values.
    • Q: I’m thinking of the CV/LSC and wonder how you interpret repeated measurements. And the changes you detect: Do you first subtract the variation and then register the change, or do you register the exact measured change?
    • Q: Can default LSC values for the DXA be used?
    • Q: How often do you do precision testing? 
    Answers: 

    1. It is ok if you have not completed a precision test of your machine yet, but if you plan on using the data to make inferences about body composition changes over time, it is 100% necessary. Two important things to consider is that the precision, or the machine’s error, is a function of both the machine and your scanning techniques. So it is not appropriate to just use the manufacturer’s cited precision values. So, when the machine undergoes major repair or someone new in the facility becomes the primary technician, it is important to repeat the test. First read the International Society for Clinical Densitometry’s recommendations. You can scan 15 folks three times or 30 folks two times and then plug in the BMC, aBMD, lean mass and fat mass data into their calculator to determine the precision of your machine. 

    1. The second really good question I have gotten is how do I report my data in light of the precision test’s results? As a researcher, I run statistical tests to understand if changes over time were due to chance or the intervention, so when my significance is p < 0.05, we consider it statistically significant. But despite the p value, if the measure does not exceed the least significant change absolute value or the coefficient of variation (CV%) then those data are most likely not clinically significant and need to be reported as such. 

  • Understanding Individual Variability in Exercise Response — Key Considerations for Research and Practice

    by Caitlin Kinser | Oct 14, 2022

    AV 101822The movement to recognize exercise as medicine has incited interest in personalized exercise prescription while simultaneously exposing weaknesses in the existing exercise science literature. As a field, it is acknowledged that differences in an individual’s phenotype (observed characteristics) and genetic makeup will contribute to a marked variability in response to standardized exercise. However, the assumption that this variability in response can be readily and accurately identified and attributed to exercise alone is misguided. 

    In our study, published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise®, we performed retrospective analyses of data from three randomized controlled exercise interventions including adults with overweight and obesity. We found that less than 13% and 45% of participants improved cardiometabolic outcome measures and cardiorespiratory fitness, respectively, beyond the day-to-day variability of measurement. In other words, the individual responses for 87% and 55% of the participants, respectively, fell within the random variability of measurement for these risk factors and thus, the response may not be attributed to the exercise prescribed. These findings confirm and highlight that study design and measurement precision is critically important for interpreting individual response to exercise. 

    In the last decade, reproducibility in science has been highlighted as an area of immense concern. However, to date the exercise science field has been immune to scrutiny regarding the rigors of study designs required to help ensure the reproducibility of results. Single measures of health-related outcomes to interpret exercise efficacy that ignore the variability inherent in these measures will only serve to increase the rate of disparate findings between studies — equivocal findings that may not be the result of biological differences but rather, weak study design. 

    Our findings prompt specific recommendations for both researchers and practitioners. For researchers attempting to determine the efficacy of treatment, improvements in trial design and methodology can help reduce variability and improve the ability to assess the individual’s true response to exercise. Approaches such as including the use of a control group, reporting measurement precision and employing repeated measures of an outcome at the same timepoint should be considered. For exercise practitioners, caution should be used when inferring that the cardiometabolic and/or cardiorespiratory fitness response for a given individual is a direct consequence of exercise alone. At a minimum, practitioners should understand the measured variable’s precision (e.g., coefficients of variability for duplicate measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, anthropometric and functional fitness measures). Subsequently, they should incorporate that knowledge when interpreting a participant’s response to exercise. 

    For both the researcher and the practitioner, determination of individual response to exercise prescription is complex. However, given that we base treatment plans and follow-up according to the observed response, we need to understand the precision of our assessment tools as practitioners and employ more rigorous and reproducible study designs as investigators. 

    It is important to recognize that our findings do not argue against the established health benefits associated with adoption of exercise consistent with consensus recommendations identified in guidelines worldwide. Following guideline recommendations will be associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes for most, but not all adults. Our findings underscore the complexity associated with interpretation of individual exercise response, and strongly suggest that caution is used when attributing the observed response to the exercise dose prescribed. 

    Andrea BrennanAndrea M. Brennan is a biobehavioral research scientist at AdventHealth Research Institute in Orlando, Florida. Dr. Brennan earned her Ph.D. in clinical exercise physiology from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada under the supervision of Dr. Robert Ross. She has published several manuscripts focusing on response variability in exercise science, including three in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise®. She is trained in body composition imaging (MRI, DEXA), immunohistochemistry of skeletal muscle, and cardiometabolic risk factor assessment. Her current research interests include the interaction between nutrition and movement-based strategies for managing obesity and corresponding disease risk in special populations. 

    Robert Ross
    Robert Ross, Ph.D.
    , is currently a professor within the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies and the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, at Queen’s University. Dr. Ross is the director of the Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Research unit at Queen’s, wherein his research program focuses on the development of strategies designed to manage lifestyle-based disease. He is a fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine® (ACSM) and the American Heart Association, and is a recipient of ACSM’s Citation Award. Learn more about Dr. Ross’ research program, or contact him via email

    Viewpoints presented in SMB commentaries reflect opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent ACSM positions or policies. Active Voice authors who have received financial or other considerations from a commercial entity associated with their topic must disclose such relationships at the time they accept an invitation to write for SMB.  

...31323334353637383940...