Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
trans
1 Posts 1 Posters 1 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • timbray@cosocial.caT This user is from outside of this forum
    timbray@cosocial.caT This user is from outside of this forum
    timbray@cosocial.ca
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Link Preview Image
    Body composition and physical fitness in transgender versus cisgender individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis

    Objective To compare body composition and physical fitness between transgender and cisgender individuals. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and SportDiscus. Eligibility criteria Inclusion criteria comprised studies of transgender individuals comparing body composition or physical fitness pre-to-post gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or versus cisgender controls. Results 52 studies (n=6485) were included. Transgender women had similar relative fat mass (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.33, 95% CI −0.72 to 0.05, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low), relative lean mass (SMD 0.19, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.53, GRADE: low), upper-body strength (SMD 0.54, 95% CI −0.95 to 2.02, GRADE: very low), lower-body strength (SMD 0.05, 95% CI −1.31 to 1.40, GRADE: very low) and maximal oxygen consumption (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.25, GRADE: very low) in comparison to cisgender women. Transgender men exhibited higher relative fat mass (SMD 0.96, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.64, GRADE: moderate), lower relative lean mass (SMD −6.42, 95% CI −12.26 to −0.58, GRADE: moderate) and lower upper-body strength (SMD −1.46, 95% CI −2.52 to −0.40, GRADE: moderate) than cisgender men. In transgender women, GAHT was associated with increased fat mass and reduced lean mass and upper-body strength over 1–3 years. Transgender men demonstrated reduced fat mass and increased lean mass and strength following GAHT. Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024562210. Data are available upon reasonable request.

    favicon

    British Journal of Sports Medicine (bjsm.bmj.com)

    From which: “Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.”

    #trans

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    0
    • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Login or register to search.
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups