Long-distance race car drivers are classified as athletes. The sport is physically and mentally demanding, requiring long hours of practice. Therefore, optimal dietary intake is essential for health and performance of the athlete. The aim of the study was to evaluate dietary intake and to compare the data with dietary recommendations for athletes and for the general adult population according to the German Nutrition Society (DGE). A 24-h dietary recall during a competition preparation phase was obtained from 16 male race car drivers (28.3 ± 6.1 years, body mass index (BMI) of 22.9 ± 2.3 kg/m2). The mean intake of energy, nutrients, water and alcohol was recorded. The mean energy, vitamin B2, vitamin E, folate, fiber, calcium, water and alcohol intake were 2124 ± 814 kcal/day, 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/day, 12.5 ± 9.5 mg/day, 231.0 ± 90.9 ug/day, 21.4 ± 9.4 g/day, 1104 ± 764 mg/day, 3309 ± 1522 mL/day and 0.8 ± 2.5 mL/day respectively. Our study indicated that many of the nutrients studied, including energy and carbohydrate, were below the recommended dietary intake for both athletes and the DGE.

The starting point of this contribution is the potential risk to health and performance from the combination of elite sporting careers with the pursuit of education. In European sport science and politics, structural measures to promote dual careers in elite sports have been discussed increasingly of late. In addition to organisational measures, there are calls for educational-psychological intervention programmes supporting the successful management of dual careers at the individual level. This paper presents an appropriate intervention programme and its evaluation: stress-resistance training for elite athletes (SRT-EA). It comprises 10 units, each lasting 90 minutes. It is intended for athletes and aims to improve their resistance to chronic stress. The evaluation was carried out in a quasi-experimental design, with three points of measurement (baseline, immediately after, and three months after) and two non-randomised groups: an intervention group (n = 128) and an untreated control group (n = 117). Participants were between 13 and 20 years of age (53.5% male) and represented various Olympic sports. Outcome variables were assessed with questionnaires. Significant short- and mid-term intervention effects were explored. The intervention increased stress-related knowledge, general self-efficacy, and stress sensitivity. Chronic stress level, stress symptoms, and stress reactivity were reduced. In line with the intention of the intervention, the results showed short- and mid-term, small to medium-sized effects. Accordingly, separate measurements at the end of the intervention and three months later showed mostly positive subjective experiences. Thus, the results reinforce the hope that educational-psychological stress-management interventions can support dual careers.

Autologous chondrocyte implantation for treatment of isolated cartilage defects of the knee has become well established. Although various publications report technical modifications, clinical results, and cell-related issues, little is known about appropriate and optimal rehabilitation after autologous chondrocyte implantation. This article reviews the literature on rehabilitation after autologous chondrocyte implantation and presents a rehabilitation protocol that has been developed considering the best available evidence and has been successfully used for several years in a large number of patients who underwent autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee.

There is growing evidence to support change in the rehabilitation strategy of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) from traditional quadriceps strengthening exercises to inclusion of hip musculature strengthening in individuals with PFPS. Several studies have evaluated effects of quadriceps and hip musculature strengthening on PFPS with varying outcomes on pain and function. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize outcomes of pain and function post-intervention and at follow-up to determine whether outcomes vary depending on the exercise strategy in both the short and long term. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, Pedro database, Proquest, Science direct, and EBscoHost databases were searched for randomized control trials published between 1st of January 2005 and 31st of June 2015, comparing the outcomes of pain and function following quadriceps strengthening and hip musculature strengthening exercises in patients with PFPS. Two independent reviewers assessed each paper for inclusion and quality. Means and SDs were extracted from each included study to allow effect size calculations and comparison of results. Six randomized control trials met the inclusion criteria. Limited to moderate evidence indicates that hip abductor strengthening was associated with significantly lower pain post-intervention (SMD −0.88, −1.28 to −0.47 95% CI), and at 12 months (SMD −3.10, −3.71 to −2.50 95% CI) with large effect sizes (greater than 0.80) compared to quadriceps strengthening. Our findings suggest that incorporating hip musculature strengthening in management of PFPS tailored to individual ability will improve short-term and long-term outcomes of rehabilitation. Further research evaluating the effects of quadriceps and hip abductors strengthening focusing on reduction in anterior knee pain and improvement in function in management of PFPS is needed.

Changing the perspective sometimes offers completely new insights to an already well-known phenomenon. Exercising behavior, defined as planned, structured and repeated bodily movements with the intention to maintain or increase the physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985), can be thought of as such a well-known phenomenon that has been in the scientific focus for many decades (Dishman & O’Connor, 2005). Within these decades a perspective that assumes rational and controlled evaluations as the basis for decision making, was predominantly used to understand why some people engage in physical activity and others do not (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015). Dual-process theories (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015; Payne & Gawronski, 2010) provide another perspective, that is not exclusively influenced by rational reasoning. These theories differentiate two different processes that guide behavior “depending on whether they operate automatically or in a controlled fashion“ (Gawronski & Creighton, 2012, p. 282). Following this line of thought, exercise behavior is not solely influenced by thoughtful deliberations (e.g. concluding that exercising is healthy) but also by spontaneous affective reactions (e.g. disliking being sweaty while exercising). The theoretical frameworks of dual-process models are not new in psychology (Chaiken & Trope, 1999) and have already been used for the explanation of numerous behaviors (e.g. Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2008; Huijding, de Jong, Wiers, & Verkooijen, 2005). However, they have only rarely been used for the explanation of exercise behavior (e.g. Bluemke, Brand, Schweizer, & Kahlert, 2010; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, & Ribeiro, 2010; Hyde, Doerksen, Ribeiro, & Conroy, 2010). The assumption of two dissimilar behavior influencing processes, differs fundamentally from previous theories and thus from the research that has been conducted in the last decades in exercise psychology. Research mainly concentrated on predictors of the controlled processes and addressed the identified predictors in exercise interventions (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002). Predictors arising from the described automatic processes, for example automatic evaluations for exercising (AEE), have been neglected in exercise psychology for many years. Until now, only a few researchers investigated the influence of these AEE for exercising behavior (Bluemke et al., 2010; Brand & Schweizer, 2015; Markland, Hall, Duncan, & Simatovic, 2015). Marginally more researchers focused on the impact of AEE for physical activity behavior (Calitri, Lowe, Eves, & Bennett, 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2010; Hyde, Elavsky, Doerksen, & Conroy, 2012). The extant studies mainly focused on the quality of AEE and the associated quantity of exercise (exercise much or little; Bluemke et al., 2010; Calitri et al., 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2012). In sum, there is still a dramatic lack of empirical knowledge, when applying dual-process theories to exercising behavior, even though these theories have proven to be successful in explaining behavior in many other health-relevant domains like eating, drinking or smoking behavior (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2008). The main goal of the present dissertation was to collect empirical evidence for the influence of AEE on exercise behavior and to expand the so far exclusively correlational studies by experimentally controlled studies. By doing so, the ongoing debate on a paradigm shift from controlled and deliberative influences of exercise behavior towards approaches that consider automatic and affective influences (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015) should be encouraged. All three conducted publications are embedded in dual-process theorizing (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2014; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). These theories offer a theoretical framework that could integrate the established controlled variables of exercise behavior explanation and additionally consider automatic factors for exercise behavior like AEE. Taken together, the empirical findings collected suggest that AEE play an important and diverse role for exercise behavior. They represent exercise setting preferences, are a cause for short-term exercise decisions and are decisive for long-term exercise adherence. Adding to the few already present studies in this field, the influence of (positive) AEE for exercise behavior was confirmed in all three presented publications. Even though the available set of studies needs to be extended in prospectively studies, first steps towards a more complete picture have been taken. Closing with the beginning of the synopsis: I think that time is right for a change of perspectives! This means a careful extension of the present theories with controlled evaluations explaining exercise behavior. Dual-process theories including controlled and automatic evaluations could provide such a basis for future research endeavors in exercise psychology.