Objectives: To clarify what information is provided from non-significant findings and explain possible additional/alternative tests to help make these findings more informative. Design & Methods: The design of this manuscript was to first clarify what information is provided from non-significant find ings and detail why this may be different than what is commonly thought. Next, information is given as to why it may be particularly important for non-significant findings to be further examined within the field of exercise science given that small sample sizes are often employed. Lastly, a brief overview of two possible ways in which researchers can make non-significant findings more informative is provided. Results & Conclusions: Non-significant findings alone do not provide strong support that a given intervention did not have an effect. Researchers may wish to instead use a Bayesian statistical approach capable of quantifying evidence for both the null and alternative hypotheses. For researchers who prefer to use frequentist statistical approaches, a test for statistical equivalence may be used when there is no statistical difference present. These approaches may provide more insight into whether non-significant findings are due to uncertainty in the data or support for the null hypothesis.

Objective: To compare performance times of a sled drag shuttle event over natural grass, synthetic turf, and sand surfaces in order to determine if one surface consistently produces faster performance times than the others. Design & Methods: Using a block randomized design, 25 active duty U.S. Army Soldiers performed one trial of the 250m sled drag shuttle event on each of the three testing surfaces; natural grass, synthetic turf, and sand. Total Event Time, Sled Drag Time and event time minus sled time (Event-Sled Time) were compared across the three surfaces. ANOVA with blocking and post hoc analysis were used to determine if there were significant differences in performance times between the three conditions. The alpha level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Both Sled Drag Time and Total Event Time were statistically faster when performed on synthetic turf (0.31 ± 0.05 min and 1.40 ± 0.11 min, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in performance time when sled time was eliminated from the total event time (p = 0.15). Conclusions: Testing surface does impact performance time in a sled drag shuttle event as performed in this study. If using such an event to assess and track physical performance or proficiency, it is recommended that subsequent testing take place on the same testing surface that was used for the baseline assessment. This will eliminate any performance advantages resulting from the varied testing environment.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of both known (“honest”) and unknown (“dishonest”) placebo ingestion on VO_2peak to see if placebo ingestion would influence the test outcome by influencing the psychological compo nent of this test. A secondary purpose was to examine these effects on isometric handgrip strength. We hypothesized that placebo (honest or dishonest) ingestion prior to a VO_2peak test would increase VO_2peak compared to a control condition. We further hypothesized that isometric handgrip strength would be greater during both conditions of acute placebo ingestion compared to a control condition. Design: In a randomized, cross-over, counterbalanced design, subjects performed three trials: exercise tests with honest place bo, exercise tests with dishonest placebo, exercise tests only (control condition). Method: 41 subjects (28 males) aged 24 ± 7 years were tested. RM ANOVAs (3 × 1) were used to analyze VO_2peak and handgrip strength across conditions. RM ANOVAs (3 × 1) were used to determine if test order influenced VO_2peak and handgrip strength. (Alpha = 0.05.)Results: No differences were found across conditions for either VO2peak (p = 0.360) or handgrip strength (p = 0.474). Further, no differences were found for trial order for either VO2peak (p = 0.766) or handgrip strength (p = 0.067). Conclusions: Administration of both an honest and a dishonest placebo immediately prior to VO_2peak and handgrip testing resulted in no differences in performance compared to each other or a control trial. The VO_2peak test is a robust exercise test not influenced by immediately-prior pre-workout supplement consumption.

Previous research has shown that fatigue is associated with decreases in performance and may result in joint instability that is associated with injury. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine if lightly loaded jumps could simulate fatigue from a lower body kine matic perspective. Design and Methods: Seventeen NCAA DI baseball players (height 1.8 m ± 0.7, body mass 87.5 kg ± 7.9) performed unloaded and lightly loaded (20 kg) squat jumps, while 3D motion capture data were collected via six infrared cameras and reflective markers. Kinematic data included range of motion (ROM), peak angular velocity (PV), position at PV (PPV), peak angular acceleration (PA), and position at PA (PPA) for both the hip and knee as well as jump height (JH). Comparisons between conditions were completed with paired samples t tests, along with Cohen’s d effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Statistical differences were noted between condition’s PV at both joints (hip (p = 0.00, d = 0.63); knee (p = 0.000, d = 0.65) and for PA of the hip (p = 0.002, d = 0.55). A decrement in JH was also noted (p = 0.000, d = 1.13). Conclusions: The results of the current investigation indicate that a 20 kg load is enough to cause jump performance changes similar to those seen with previous research associated with fatigue. This may be particularly useful for coaches and sport scientists seeking to understand how athletes will perform while fatigued.