Show simple item record  

dc.contributor.authorSims, Stacyen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorHeather, A.K.en_NZ
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-24T02:30:12Z
dc.date.available2018-10-01en_NZ
dc.date.available2019-10-24T02:30:12Z
dc.date.issued2018en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationSims, S., & Heather, A. K. (2018). Myths and Methodologies: Reducing scientific design ambiguity in studies comparing sexes and/or menstrual cycle phases. Experimental Physiology, 103(10), 1309–1317. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP086797en
dc.identifier.issn0958-0670en_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/13029
dc.description.abstractIn recent years, the increase in scientific literature exploring sex differences has been beneficial to both clinicians and allied health science professionals, although female athletes are still significantly under‐represented in sport and exercise science research. Women have faced exclusion throughout history though the complexities of sociocultural marginalization and biomedical disinterest in women's health. These complexities have contributed to challenges of studying women and examining sex differences. One underlying complexity to methodological design may be hormonal perturbations of the menstrual cycle. The biphasic responses of oestrogen and progesterone across the menstrual cycle significantly influence physiological responses, which contribute to exercise capacity and adaptation in women. Moreover, oral contraceptives add complexity through the introduction of varying concentrations of circulating exogenous oestrogen and progesterone, which may moderate physiological adaptations to exercise in a different manner to endogenous ovarian hormones. Thus, applied sport and exercise science research focusing on women remains limited, in part, by poor methodological design that does not define reproductive status. By highlighting specific differences between phases with regard to hormone perturbations and the systems that are affected, methodological inconsistencies can be reduced, thereby improving scientific design that will enable focused research on female athletes in sports science and evaluation of sex differences in responses to exercise. The aims of this review are to highlight the differences between endogenous and exogenous hormone profiles across a standard 28–32 day menstrual cycle, with the goal to improve methodological design for studies exploring sex differences, menstrual cycle phase differences and/or endogenous versus exogenous female sex hormones.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.publisherWileyen_NZ
dc.rights© 2018 The Authors. This is the author's accepted version.
dc.subjectScience & Technologyen_NZ
dc.subjectLife Sciences & Biomedicineen_NZ
dc.subjectPhysiologyen_NZ
dc.subjectFemale athletesen_NZ
dc.subjectovarian hormonesen_NZ
dc.subjectstudy designen_NZ
dc.subjectORAL-CONTRACEPTIVE CYCLEen_NZ
dc.subjectPILL-FREE INTERVALen_NZ
dc.subjectYOUNG-WOMENen_NZ
dc.subjectEXERCISE PERFORMANCEen_NZ
dc.subjectOVARIAN HORMONESen_NZ
dc.subjectMUSCLE GLYCOGENen_NZ
dc.subjectHEPCIDIN LEVELSen_NZ
dc.subjectPLASMA-VOLUMEen_NZ
dc.subjectFLUID BALANCEen_NZ
dc.subjectBLOOD-FLOWen_NZ
dc.titleMyths and Methodologies: Reducing scientific design ambiguity in studies comparing sexes and/or menstrual cycle phasesen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.identifier.doi10.1113/EP086797en_NZ
dc.relation.isPartOfExperimental Physiologyen_NZ
pubs.begin-page1309
pubs.elements-id226884
pubs.end-page1317
pubs.issue10en_NZ
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_NZ
pubs.volume103en_NZ
dc.identifier.eissn1469-445Xen_NZ


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record