D at first before planning a long-term method, in particular just before endurance racing or strenuous physical exercise. In summary, all five diets discussed in the assessment can be applied to endurance athletes in accordance with the athletes’ HDAC11 list present metabolic demands. Just before deciding on a preferred diet plan, considering the existing metabolic and sport-specific scenario of endurance athletes will lead to healthier and much more advantageous benefits.Nutrients 2021, 13, 491 Nutrients 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW32 of 40 34 of(d)Figure 1. Feasible effective and and detrimental effects of popularendurance endurance athletes. Statementsgreen Figure 1. Possible useful detrimental effects of popular diets on diets on athletes. Statements presented in presentedshow the boxes show the beneficialwhile red boxes whilst red boxes indicate the potential risks of diets. (a): Vegetarboxes in green helpful effects of diets, effects of diets, indicate the prospective risks of diets. (a): Vegetarian diets; (b) highian diets; (c) Intermittent Fasting;Intermittent Fasting; (e) low-FODMAP diet regime. Abbreviations: URTI: Upper-respiratory tract fat diets; (b) high-fat diets; (c) (d) Gluten-free diet program; (d) Gluten-free diet program; (e) low-FODMAP diet regime. Abbreviations: URTI: Upper-respiratory tract infections; RED-S: relative energy deficiency syndrome; FA: fatty acids; KB: Ketone bodies; GI: infections; RED-S: relative energy deficiency syndrome; FA: fatty acids; KB: Ketone bodies; GI: COX-3 Molecular Weight Gastrointestinal; FODMAP: Gastrointestinal; FODMAP: fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols. fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.D.-L. and B.K., writing-original draft preparation, A.D.-L., writing–review and editing, A.D.-L., L.H., and B.K. All authors have study and agreed to Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.D.-L. and B.K., writing–original draft preparation, the published version on the manuscript. A.D.-L., writing–review and editing, A.D.-L., L.H., and B.K. All authors have study and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This analysis received no external funding.Funding: This analysis received no external conflict Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no funding.of interest.
The relevance and impact of Fusarium (Ascomycota, Hypocreales, Nectriaceae) to humankind is substantial. More than the previous one hundred years, it has attracted considerable focus from scientists as the extent of species diversity as well as the influence on agriculture and human well being became clear. Soon after an initial period of discovery and cataloguing by 19th century naturalists, its taxonomy became the target of research from a broad range of scientists, that resulted in the emergence of distinct “schools” that promoted distinctive taxonomic approaches to fusarium-like organisms. With the advent of an objective and reproducible framework for phylogenetic relationships inferred from molecular phylogenetics, it might happen to be expected that controversies would melt away, plus a stable, universally accepted taxonomy of Fusarium and its species would emerge, but this will not yet appear to become the case (Fig. 1). Nonetheless, all scientists operating with Fusarium need a stable taxonomic method, and all agree that taxonomic adjustments must be made with all the aim of promoting stability. Recently, Geiser et al. (2021), largely in response to papers published by Grfenhan et al. (2011), Schroers et al. (2011), a Lombard et al.
