Shoulder joint injuries are common for professional firefighters. A potential cause of shoulder injury is an imbalance between anterior (push) and posterior (pull) shoulder joint musculature. Understanding what contributes to these imbalances may help to identify areas needing improvement. The purpose of this study was to investigate different push to pull (P2P) ratios and the relationships among common upper body fitness assessments, body composition, and push to pull (P2P) ratios in firefighters. Thirty-three professional firefighters completed the following testing protocol one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press, pull-up repetitions to failure, push-up repetitions to failure, and a body composition assessment. The endurance P2P (eP2P) was computed by dividing the number of push-up by pull-up repetitions, while strength P2P (sP2P) was the relative 1RM divided by pull-up repetitions. Bivariate relationships among variables were assessed with correlation coefficients and linear regression assessed association between eP2P and sP2P (p ≤ 0.05). The sP2P and eP2P were not associated (R 2 = 0.032, p = 0.99). Strength P2P was related with bench press 1RM (r = 0.80) and push-ups (r = 0.40). Endurance P2P was related with pull-up repetitions (r = -0.62), body fat percentage (r = 0.40), and fat mass index (r = 0.34). The results of the present study suggest sP2P and eP2P ratios should not be used interchangeably. To improve sP2P and eP2P for firefighters, it is recommended to improve the strength of anterior and posterior upper body musculature, respectively, and reduce total body fat mass.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of whole body percent fat (%BF) and segmental fat-free mass (FFM) using multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in college-aged adults. Sixty-two participants male (n = 32) and female (n = 30) completed MF-BIA and DEXA measurements following established pre-test guidelines. %BF and segmental FFM (right arm, left arm, trunk, right leg, and left leg) were collected and analyzed. The MF-BIA significantly (p less then 0.05) underestimated %BF for all participants, females, and males compared to DEXA. In addition, MF-BIA significantly (p less then 0.05) underestimated FFM in the arms and legs in all participants and males with the exception of the left arm in all subjects while significantly overestimating FFM in the trunk. In females, the MF-BIA overestimated FFM in the arms and trunk while significantly (p less then 0.05) underestimating FFM in the legs. Difference plots also indicated that the underestimation of FFM from MF-BIA in the arms and legs increased as the amount of FFM increased. Thus, our findings suggested that the MF-BIA may not be accurate for measuring whole %BF and segmental FFM in the college-aged population.Several studies have determined the influence of physical characteristics on strength. The present quantified the relationships between anthropometry and maximal strength. Male classic powerlifters (n=59) were measured before a championship. Two-tailed Pearson correlation analysis was used. Regorafenib concentration Powerlifters that presented higher relative maximal strength (RMS) in the squat and bench generally had higher body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), torso circumference (C), waist C/height, torso C/height (r=0.26 to 0.49, p less then 0.05), and smaller lower leg length (L)/height and forearm L/torso C (r=-0.31 to -0.45, p less then 0.05) ratios. Powerlifters with a higher % of their deadlift on their total generally presented a smaller BW, BMI, body fat percentage (BF%), waist and torso C, trunk L, waist C/height, torso C/height, trunk L/height, waist C/hip C, thigh L/lower leg L, trunk L/thigh L ratios (r=-0.26 to -0.49, p less then 0.05) and higher lower leg L, lower leg L/height, reach/height, and forearm L/torso C ratios (r=0.32 to 0.51, p less then 0.05). Stepwise regressions revealed that a bigger torso positively predicted absolute maximal strength (AMS) in the squat (β=0.41, p=0.04), the bench (β=0.77, p less then 0.01), the deadlift (β=0.88, p less then 0.01) and the total (β=0.89, p less then 0.01), that a higher torso C/height ratio positively predicted RMS in the squat(β=0.48, p less then 0.01), the bench (β=-0.87, p less then 0.01) and the total (β=0.66, p less then 0.01), and that reach/height positively predicted RMS in the deadlift (β=0.37, p less then 0.01) and it's % on the total (β=0.31, p less then 0.01), but negatively predicted RMS in the bench (β=-0.25, p=0.02) and its % on the total (β=-0.24, p=0.04) As all of the stronger correlations came from AMS, powerlifters should focus on increasing AMS (weight lifted) instead of RMS (Wilks pts).Little is known about the physiological response to the cold pressor test (CPT) when in a clinically-induced state of autonomic nervous system (ANS) imbalance, despite its utility in various disease- and injury-states. To date, research in this area is limited to acute aerobic and isometric exercise, with a paucity of research investigating the effects of anaerobic exercise on the physiological response to the CPT. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to assess the effects of the Wingate anaerobic cycle test (WAT) on cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic recovery following the CPT in a group of healthy adult males. A pre-post intervention study was conducted, whereby 10 healthy adult males (age = 29 ± 4 years, height = 182 ± 7 cm, mass = 83 ± 9 kg) completed a baseline cold pressor test (CPT-only) and a follow-up cold pressor test preceded by a Wingate anaerobic exercise test (WAT+CPT). Recovery slopes for various CV and metabolic variables, including heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and relative oxygen consumption (V̇O2) were analyzed using single-subject analysis, with celeration line slopes calculated for all participants in the CPT-only and WAT+CPT testing sessions. Celeration line slopes were compared between testing sessions using paired t-tests. No differences were identified for recovery slopes for HR (p = .295), diastolic BP (p = .300), and relative V̇O2 (p = .176) when comparing CPT-only and WAT+CPT testing sessions. Our results suggest that the CPT elicits a CV and metabolic response beyond that elicited solely by an acute bout of anaerobic exercise. As such, the CPT may be able to serve as a surrogate test for anaerobic exercise for individuals where high-intensity exercise may be contraindicated. Future research is warranted however, as the specific physiological mechanisms governing the observed responses have yet to be elucidated.