Annals of Applied Sport Science

Background. Physical activity (PA) is a keystone of diabetes management, but although self-exercise is beneficial, supervised exercise (SE), adapted to individual characteristics, and is more effective.
Objectives. The main research goal is to compare SE patterns among diabetic and non-diabetic Portuguese adults.
Methods. A total of 484 participants (85 diabetics, 399 non-diabetics), aged 41-90 years old (mean=58.9; SD=11.9) were interviewed. PA level was assessed using short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Attendance in different SE programs was evaluated across three kinds of PA programs providers: gym/health-clubs; swimming pools and other club/ sports facilities. Itens like Barriers to Exercise; Intention to participate; Importance of the structure and PA information sources were also evaluated. Independent t-tests were used to examine the difference between the group means, and Levene’s test was used to check the homokedasticity of the groups’ variances.
Results. PA level of diabetics (32% low; 25% moderate; 44% high) and non-diabetics (29% low; 33% moderate; 39% high) display no differences. 90% of diabetics do not attend SE. The main barrier for diabetics’ non-participation is the perception that the exercise is not adequate to their health. Doctors are the preferred information source for diabetics and they rely less on information provided by the Internet, with may impair on-line campaigns.
Conclusion. Promoting exercise in diabetics should shift the focus from "promoting physical activity" to "promoting SE".

Background. The increasing prevalence and incidence of type 2 Diabetes has turned it into a worldwide epidemic. Although Physical Activity (PA) may play an essential role in the prevention and management of this disease, sedentary lifestyles continue to increase among diabetics. Besides, there is evidence to believe that diabetics and non-diabetics show different patterns of PA behavior, perceptions and information seeking.
Objectives. This study aims to analyze diabetics and non-diabetics differences regarding (1) PA patterns (level, barriers, goals/expectations and preferred activities); (2) PA-related information sources and (3) evidenced perception on the need and importance of PA.
Methods. Using data from 485 Portuguese subjects aged between 41 and 90 years old, differences between diabetics (n=85) and non-diabetics (n=400) were analyzed with Pearson’s chi-square and independent t-test.
Results. The study concludes that 32% of diabetics that are physically inactive. Their attitude toward PA is not much different from non-diabetics. Nevertheless, the importance given to the time available and the schedules of activities as well as exercising with friends were more relevant for diabetics. Diabetics considered that the exercise is not safe for their health condition and present lower expectation towards exercise. Regarding information seeking behavior about PA, diabetics use as leading information source doctors and less online information.
Conclusion. Diabetics and non-diabetics give different importance to PA. Results establish a foundation for the development of effective tailored communication strategies to promote PA among the diabetics.

Background. Misconduct in sport science research is a detrimental practice, as it affects data reliability and decreases the validity of all research in the long run.
Objectives. The objective of this narrative review is to identify the main problems of misconduct in sport science research and point out effective prevention methods.
Methods. A literature search was undertaken in "Web of Science" and "PUBMED" databases, where several terms identified a priori and related to Boolean operators were combined, resulting in a total of 181 records and 19 documents found by cross-references that were subsequently selected.
Results. As a result, we found that most abusive behavior consists of results fabrication, manipulation, and plagiarism. It is noted that, in modern times, there is more pressure on data publication, also, easy Internet access seems to have increased misconduct behaviors. Meanwhile, there are several studies focused on identifying misconduct and ensure research validity, such as students/professors' characteristics; analysis of academic and national procedures; action procedures, and strategies when identified abusive behavior.
Conclusion. The present investigation has relapsed a lot on the identification of profiles of researchers who carry out misconduct and have used mostly one methodology, in this case, questionnaires, of which one can question the validity of the answers given due to the susceptibility of the subject itself. Therefore, we believe that the focus of the investigation to solve this problem must be changed and who can answer the following question: how can we identify data manipulation, fabrication, or falsification during its collection or treatment?