Digitalization in sports is often discussed in terms of opportunities or risks associated with particular technologies. From a sociocultural perspective, however, digital technologies appear as profoundly ambivalent artefacts whose significance cannot be determined solely by assessing their functionality or classifying their effects. Instead, technologies are embedded in ongoing processes through which people make sense of themselves, others, and the world, while negotiating normative understandings of bodies, health, ability, or participation in sports. Drawing on studies of health- and fitness-related social media content on Instagram (Höger, 2024) and digital assistive technologies (DATs) for blind and visually impaired (BVI) students in physical education (Höger et al., submitted; Höger & Meier, 2025; Meier et al., 2023), this keynote examines two interrelated dimensions of these processes. First, it explores how hegemonic understandings of bodies, health, and ability become embedded in digital representations, technological imaginaries, and material arrangements. On Instagram, young, slim, fit, and non-disabled bodies function as implicit standards against which other bodies are classified as desirable, normal, or in need of intervention. Fitness thereby becomes closely associated with discipline, responsibility, and self-management. In ball games involving BVI students, standardized rules, spatial arrangements, and sporting materials similarly establish apparently self-evident prerequisites for legitimate participation. DATs do not necessarily unsettle these requirements, but instead relocate the responsibility for fulfilling them from bodies to technologies imagined as adaptive, anticipatory, and infallible. Second, the keynote demonstrates that young people do not simply adopt these meanings. They negotiate, appropriate, and sometimes resist them in situated and embodied ways. Their engagements with social media images reveal ambivalent positionings between critical distance from normative body ideals and their continuing affective appeal. Likewise, the meanings assigned to DATs shift across different situations of play. What enables participation in one situation may become distracting, restrictive, or dangerous in another. Meanings and effects, therefore, do not reside intrinsically in technologies but emerge within sociocultural and material–discursive configurations. Building on this argument, the keynote asks how we can move beyond functionalist as well as technologically optimistic or pessimistic perspectives. It discusses how critical-reflexive educational processes might enable us to examine the norms embodied in digital technologies, reflect on their unequal and situated implications, and imagine alternative relations between technologies, bodies, and participation. References Höger, B. (2024). #fitspiration: Körperideale und -devianzen in sportbezogenen sozialen Medien. In T. Bindel, F. Ott, H. Rudi, & C. Theis (Eds.), Schulsport in der Jugendphase (pp. 357–375). Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Höger, B., & Meier, S. (2025). Exploring Marginalized Perspectives: Participatory Research in Physical Education With Students With Blindness and Visual Impairment. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 44(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2023-0325 Höger, B., Sandbichler, B., Weiß, K., Giese, M., & Meier, S. (submitted). “Stay on the ball”: Negotiating meanings of digital assistive technologies in Physical Education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Meier, S., Höger, B., & Giese, M. (2023). “If only balls could talk…”: Barriers and opportunities to participation for students with blindness and visual impairment in specialized PE. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, 1286909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1286909
Introduction and Theoretical Background The correctional laws of various jurisdictions stipulate that imprisoned people should have the opportunity to regularly engage in sports. In Germany, approximately half of all male prisoners in closed prisons regularly participate in organized sports programmes (Müller & Mutz, 2023). Within the German correctional system, organized prison sport is primarily justified by its presumed contribution to rehabilitation. Official guidelines and institutional documents describe sport as an essential component of rehabilitative imprisonment and socio-therapeutic treatment, contributing to one of the central objectives of incarceration. In the academic literature, this understanding has been conceptualized as treatment-oriented sport (Müller & Schröder, 2023). Building on these functions externally attributed to sport, a multi-year research project reconstructed the subjective meaning that male prisoners attribute to sport in closed correctional facilities (Müller, 2024). The study is grounded in social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann, 1993) and informed by prison sociology, particularly Goffman’s (1973) concept of the total institution and Sykes’ (1958/1974) concept of the pains of imprisonment, which served as the main theoretical framework. Methods An ethnographic research design was employed. Over three years, data were collected through participant observation, ethnographic group conversations, and 19 semi-structured interviews with male prisoners serving sentences ranging from 18 months to 11 years. Access to the field was gained through a sports programme conducted by the researcher. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory coding procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1996). Results and Discussion The findings show that prisoners primarily experience sport as a coping strategy that alleviates the pains of imprisonment by creating moments of perceived freedom and helping them cope with fear, loneliness, boredom, and psychological distress. Sport also serves as a means of constructing masculinity, enhancing self-esteem, and negotiating social status within the prison hierarchy. In contrast, none of the participants associated prison sport with social learning, personal development, or rehabilitation. Rather, prisoners assign meanings to sport that are closely tied to the realities of imprisonment and largely independent of the functions officially attributed to it. The findings therefore reveal a marked discrepancy between institutional expectations and prisoners’ subjective experiences of sport. The presentation discusses this discrepancy and its implications. References Berger, L.B. & Luckmann, T. (1993). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Fischer. Goffman, E. (1973). Asyle. Über die soziale Situation psychiatrischer Patienten und anderer Insassen. Suhrkamp. Müller, J. (2024). Sport in der totalen Institution. Eine Gefängnisethnographie. Springer VS. Müller, J. & Mutz, M. (2023). Sport und Gesundheit im hessischen Strafvollzug. Abschlussbericht. Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen. Müller, J. & Schröder, J. (2023). Behandlung im Strafvollzug: Sportmaßnahmen. In J. Endres & S. Suhling (Hrsg.), Behandlung im Strafvollzug. Ein Handbuch für Praxis und Wissenschaft (S. 563-576). Springer VS. Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Beltz. Sykes, G.M. (1958/1974). The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton University Press.
Introduction & Purpose Although mechanical traction (MT) has been used for years to treat people with lower back pain (LBP) (Cavagnaro, 2014; Werners et al., 1999), its possible acute effects are not yet well understood. Mechanical tension is supposed to decrease muscle stiffness and tonus of the muscle and should therefore decrease LBP. However, while Cheng et al. (2020) were able to measure an acute positive effect, Wegner et al. (2013) reported that MT alone or in combination with other interventions has little to no effect on pain of patients with LBP. A reason for these mixed results could be the complex nature of LBP and the missing understanding of the exact mechanical mechanism of MT. Given that the clinical efficacy of MT remains uncertain, understanding its immediate mechanical effects is particularly relevant. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the acute mechanical and functional effects of MT in healthy individuals as a first-step mechanistic assessment. Methods 22 healthy physically active participants (27,8 ± 6,79 years, recruited via personal contact) volunteered for the study and were randomized into two groups: intervention (IG, n=12) and placebo (PG, n=10). Prior to the warm-up and intervention (and following the intervention), participants were asked about current level of LBP through VAS (Bijur et al., 2001). Subsequently, the participants started with a five-minute warm-up on an ergometer with 100 Watts resistance. After the warm-up and following the intervention, we measured muscle stiffness on four measurement points of the M. erector spinae with the MyotonPRO device, maximum isometric force of the M. erector spinae with a handheld dynamometer, pain threshold with an algometer, the flexibility of the posterior chain using a sit-and-reach box, the distance between the spinous processes L4 and L5 with b-mode ultrasound (Aixplorer, Supersonic), and the elasticity of the M. erector spinae with ultrasound (US) shear wave elastography (Aixplorer Supersonic). For the intervention, the participants lay supine on a DORSI traction system (https://dorsi.at/). The intervention for the IG consisted of 10% bodyweight (BW) traction force for the first seven minutes, then one minute break following 13 minutes of 20% BW traction force. For the PG we used 5% BW traction force throughout the whole 20 minutes with a one-minute break after seven minutes. We analyzed the results using paired t-tests to identify within group changes and t-tests between groups’ changes (PRE to POST). Results All participants tolerated the MT very well. Both the IG (Pre: 34,99 ± 5,84 cm; Post: 37,05 ± 5,75 cm, p=0,01) and the PG (Pre: 30,73 ± 10,67 cm; Post: 32,11 ± 9,78 cm, p=0,03) significantly increased the flexibility of the posterior chain without any difference between the groups. The distance between the spinous processes significantly increased from Pre (2,89 ± 0,29 cm) to Post (3,06 ± 0,29 cm, p=0,01) in the IG but remained unchanged in the PG (Pre: 3,18 ± 0,25 cm; Post: 3,11 ± 0,24 cm, p=0,55). This was accompanied with a trend (p=0.07) in the comparison of group’s changes. In contrast, muscle stiffness assessed by elastography decreased in the PG (Pre: 129,31 ± 73,93 kPa; Post: 105,18 ± 58,46 kPa, p=0,01) but not in the IG (Pre: 107,72 ± 71,85 kPa; Post: 80,47 ± 52,67 kPa, p=0,08) without any difference between the groups. There was a significant difference in the group’s changes of pain threshold (p=0,04), however, this changes were not significant in either group (IG: Pre: 69,79 ± 33,91 N; Post: 74,69 ± 43,71 N, p=0,3; PG: Pre: 72,88 ± 20,77 N; Post: 63,29 ± 11,9 N, p=0,07). Muscle stiffness did not change significantly on either of the four measurement points from pre to post. Similarly, the maximum isometric force did not change significantly for the IG (Pre: 32,69 ± 6,8 N; Post: 33,61 ± 11,94 N, p=0,73) or the PG (Pre: 30,53 ± 9,41 N; Post: 29,89 ± 8,61 N, p=0,47). The acute sensation of pain did not change for the IG (Pre: 9,02 ± 18,67%; Post: 3,52 ± 6,90%, p=0,33) or the PG (Pre: 11,75 ± 13,70%; Post: 7,01 ± 10,70%, p=0,34). Neither of these results showed a difference between the groups (p>0.05). Discussion We were able to show that a MT with 20% BW traction force is well tolerated by healthy individuals. The MT significantly increased the distance between the spinous processes (p=0,01), indicating a real stretching effect of the vertebra in the IG. However, muscle stiffness measured with the MyotonPRO did not change. As expected in a healthy sample, baseline pain was minimal and did not change, confirming a floor effect. A particular strength of this study is the comprehensive set of mechanical and functional measures, which allowed a differentiated characterization of the acute effects of MT. However, as the study was conducted in healthy individuals, extrapolation to patients with low back pain is limited; factors such as pain, muscle guarding, and altered tissue properties may substantially modify the response to traction.Moreover, only immediate post-intervention effects were assessed, so neither the duration nor the clinical relevance of the observed changes can be determined. Conclusion The device was well tolerated in this sample of healthy individuals and produced an immediate increase in interspinous distance. As the study addresses only acute mechanical responses, further research in patients with LBP is needed to evaluate any clinical effects. References Bijur, P. E., Silver, W. & Gallagher, E. J. (2001). Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Academic emergency medicine: official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 8(12), 1153–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb01132.x Cavagnaro, L. (2014). Lumbar Traction in the Management of Low Back Pain: A Survey of Latest Results. Journal of Novel Physiotherapies, 04(05). https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7025.1000231 Cheng, Y.‑H., Hsu, C.‑Y. & Lin, Y.‑N. (2020). The effect of mechanical traction on low back pain in patients with herniated intervertebral disks: a systemic review and meta- analysis. Clinical rehabilitation, 34(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519872528 Wegner, I., Widyahening, I. S., van Tulder, M. W., Blomberg, S. E. I., Vet, H. C. de, Brønfort, G., Bouter, L. M. & van der Heijden, G. J. (2013). Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013(8), CD003010. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003010.pub5 Werners, R., Pynsent, P. B. & Bulstrode, C. J. (1999). Randomized trial comparing interferential therapy with motorized lumbar traction and massage in the management of low back pain in a primary care setting. Spine, 24(15), 1579–1584. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199908010-00012 Wu, Z., Ye, X., Ye, Z., Hong, K., Chen, Z., Wang, Y., Li, C., Li, J., Huang, J., Zhu, Y., Lu, Y., Liu, W. & Xu, X. (2022). Asymmetric Biomechanical Properties of the Paravertebral Muscle in Elderly Patients With Unilateral Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10, 814099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.814099
Introduction & Purpose Resistance training (RT) is an important exercise modality across diverse settings and populations (Lohmann et al., 2026; Westcott, 2012). Although RT was long informed primarily by anecdotal knowledge, scientific research has expanded rapidly since 1945 (Nuzzo, 2021), with particularly strong growth in recent years. Whether this growing evidence base is effectively translated into practice and education remains unclear. Previous studies indicate that practitioners demonstrate limited knowledge of fundamental RT principles (McGladrey et al., 2014) and recreational lifters often fail to distinguish evidence-based statements from misconceptions (Unger et al., 2025). Methods To determine whether findings by Unger et al. (2025) in Carinthia (Austria) generalize to a broader audience, we conducted an international survey assessing 13 RT- related beliefs, covering topics such as flexibility, sex-based hypertrophy, and menstrual cycle-based programming. The statements were developed through discussions with researchers and practitioners. Participants responded with ‘True’, ‘False’, or ‘Generalized statement not possible’. The evidence base was derived primarily from systematic reviews published over the past 15 years; where unavailable, narrative reviews and high-quality randomized controlled trials were used. One-sided exact binomial tests assessed whether responses consistent with current evidence exceeded predefined thresholds of >50% and ≥80%, the latter reflecting the anticipated high level of knowledge within the target audience as suggested by previous research (McGladrey et al., 2014; Siegel et al., 2026). Participants were recruited through academic institutions in Europe and the Americas and via social media. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with 95% confidence intervals. Results The convenience sample included 500 participants (75.2% male, 24.6% female, 0.2% preferred not to disclose), with a mean age of 38.6±15.4 years and 12.6±12.4 years of structured RT experience. Participants resided in 43 countries, with the majority originating from Europe (n=251) and North America (n=199). Most (n=480) were actively engaged in RT, and approximately 60% (n=301) held a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or doctoral degree. Social media and video platforms (n=401) were the most frequently reported sources of scientific information, followed by scientific databases and academic journals (n=264). Although approximately 70% (9/13) of the statements were correctly identified by the majority, only 30% (4/13) were correctly identified by at least 80% of participants. Discussion The findings align with previous survey-based research on RT and suggest persistent shortcomings in translating scientific evidence into practice and education. Despite, or perhaps partly as a consequence of, the substantial growth of RT research, outdated beliefs may continue to persist even among individuals with considerable training experience and academic backgrounds. However, because more than two-thirds of participants were recruited from Germany and the United States, caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to other populations. Future studies should examine more diverse geographical and educational contexts and evaluate targeted approaches to improve the translation of scientific evidence into practice and education. Conclusion RT-related misconceptions remain prevalent, highlighting persistent challenges in translating scientific evidence into practice and education. References Lohmann, L. H., Afonso, J., Behm, D. G., Siegel, S. D., Keiner, M., Wirth, K., Blazevich, A. J., Helms, E. R., Spence, A. J., & Warneke, K. (2026). What is resistance exercise? A review of current uses and potential ways forward. European Journal of Applied Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-026-06148-2 McGladrey, B., Hannon, J., Faigenbaum, A., Shultz, B., & Shaw, J. (2014). High school physical educators’ and sport coaches’ knowledge of resistance training principles and methods. J Strength Cond Res, 28(5), 1433–1442. Nuzzo, J. L. (2021). History of Strength Training Research in Man: An Inventory and Quantitative Overview of Studies Published in English Between 1894 and 1979. J Strength Cond Res, 35(5), 1425–1448. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003959 Siegel, S. D., Afonso, J., Thomas, E., Sproll, M., Zech, A., Plöschberger, G., Konrad, A., Behm, D. G., Wilke, J., Schleip, R., & Warneke, K. (2026). Effects of foam rolling and the knowledge-to- action gap : are practitioners ’ beliefs supported by the evidence ? An international survey study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 18:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-025-01514-7 Unger, A., Mosgan, C., Wolte, C., Pettauer, S., & Wilke, J. (2025). Knowledge of gym goers on myths and truths in resistance training. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87485-8 Westcott, W. L. (2012). Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 11(4), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0b013e31825dabb8
Introduction Precise maximal strength determination is of paramount importance for practical derivations, e.g. in injury prevention (Martín-Miguel et al. 2025). Although already implemented into diagnostics, the VALDPerformance ForceFrame is insufficiently evaluated: Existing literature lacks sufficient measurement error reporting and fails to differentiate between positions for joint-specific strength tests (Arp et al. 2024; Kadlec et al. 2021), at most considering angle specificity (Ferguson et al. 2024; O' Connor et al. 2023). This study was designed to evaluate measurement errors in a test-retest design stratified for the difference of positions. Methods Twenty-eight participants (m: n=13, 22.7±3.5years, 80.8±8.6kg, 179±7.5cm; f: n=15, 22.8±2.0years, 62.1±8.5kg, 166.6±7.32cm) performed testing protocols applied for knee extension and plantar flexion strength on two days under strict adherence to manufacturer’s recommendations (VALD a, b). Muscle group and position order were randomized per participant. To determine position-specific effects knee extension at 90° was performed seated, supine and standing. Plantar flexion at 90° was performed seated and supine. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) 3,1 and random errors via mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were calculated together with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) based on 2000 resamples. Systematic effects were tested via a two-way ANOVA (exercise-by-testing- day-interaction). Bonferroni correction was used for post-hoc testing. Bland-Altman-analyses were conducted for severity of bias and corresponding limits of agreements (LoA). Results The position significantly influenced force maximum: highest knee extension forces were obtained standing (M:375N±96N) compared to seated (M:248N±111N, p<0.001) and supine (306N±96N, p=0.002) with the latter showing no significant difference (p=0.09). Plantar flexion strength was more than twofold higher seated (M:1035N±338N) than supine (M:394N±73N, p<0.001). No systematic effects for testing day were found (p=0.60-0.95). However, the systematic bias still indicated small position differences: Narrowest LoA of the knee positions were achieved standing (-2.9%±27.3%), compared to supine (-0.4%±45.4%) and seated (8.4%±63.9%). In plantarflexion supine and seated showed slightly deviating LoA (0.7%±22.9% and -1.5%±28.6%). A similar pattern was observed for MAPE: Knee extension showed similar values for supine and seated with 20.61% (CI: 12.9%-31.6%) and 20.54% (CI:13.6%-28.7%) compared to 9.6%(CI:6.4%-13.0%) for standing. Ankle showed errors of 8.38% (CI:5.7%-12.0%) for supine and 12.53% (CI: 9.6%-15.6%) for seated. In contrast, ICC indicated poor to good reliability for knee extension: Supine 0.72(CI:0,50-0,86), seated 0.65(CI:0.41-0.86) and standing 0.85(CI:0.75-0.93). For plantarflexion the ICC showed poor to excellent reliability: Supine 0.79(CI:0.48-0.93) and seated 0.90(CI:0.81-0.95). Discussion Reliability and test outcome differed depending on the measurement position. In terms of reliability for knee extension the standing position should be preferred, for plantarflexion the supine one. Overall measurement errors of at least 5.7%-31.6%, according to the confidence intervals, could overrule possible intervention induced changes. Such high random errors might be the result of standardization limitations, as the body and extremity position must be freely reconstructed every session. Conclusion The partial discrepancy between ICC and MAPE highlights the dependence of ICC on sample heterogeneity, potentially leading to an overestimation of reliability. Existing literature lacking measurement error reporting must therefore be interpreted with care. A gold standard comparison to evaluate device validity is urgently needed. References Arp, Kamilla; Frydendal, Thomas; Kjeldsen, Troels; Dalgas, Ulrik; Timm, Signe; Viberg, Bjarke et al. (2024): Validity, Agreement and Reliability of the ForceFrame Dynamometer in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. In: International journal of sports physical therapy 19 (9), S. 1068–1079. DOI: 10.26603/001c.122486. Ferguson, Jack; Gibson, Neil V.; Weston, Matthew; McCunn, Robert (2024): Reliability of Measures of Lower-Body Strength and Speed in Academy Male Adolescent Soccer Players. In: Journal of strength and conditioning research 38 (3), e96-e103. DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004639. Kadlec, Daniel; Jordan, Matthew J.; Snyder, Leanne; Alderson, Jacqueline; Nimphius, Sophia (2021): Test Re-test Reliability of Single and Multijoint Strength Properties in Female Australian Footballers. In: Sports medicine - open 7 (1), S. 5. DOI:10.1186/s40798-020-00292-5. Martín-Miguel, Iván; Torrontegi-Ronco, Elaia; Martínez-Ortega, Juan de Dios; Moreno-Martín, Adrián; Montalvo-Zenarruzabeitia, Zigor (2025): Relative Values of Maximal Isometric Strength in Lower Limbs Across Different Sports Disciplines in High-Performance Athletes. In: Journal of strength and conditioning research 39 (8), e982-e990. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000005126. O' Connor, Ciaran; McIntyre, Martin; Delahunt, Eamonn; Thorborg, Kristian (2023): Reliability and validity of common hip adduction strength measures: The ForceFrame strength testing system versus the sphygmomanometer. In: Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine 59, S.162–167. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.12.010. VALD a): ForceFrame Test Protocol – Ankle Plantar Flexion. Online verfügbar unter https://support.vald.com/hc/en-au/articles/12960659718809-ForceFrame-Test-Protocol-Ankle-Plantar-Flexion. VALD b): ForceFrame Test Protocol – Knee Extension. Online verfügbar unter https://support.vald.com/hc/en-au/articles/12962592988953-ForceFrame-Test-Protocol-Knee-Extension.
