Coverage: September 26–October 2, 2026, using online-first publication dates. This week produced useful clinical confirmation rather than practice-changing evidence. The calf-injury review is the best clinical read. The ACL study provides another strong warning against calendar-based clearance, while the nutrition trial is intriguing but commercially conflicted and much less definitive than its headline suggests. 1. Calf Injuries: An Anatomy-Based Approach to Diagnosis, Management and Return to Sport Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, September 26, 2026 Type: Clinical and anatomical narrative review Article and DOI Methods and findings: The authors synthesize recent imaging, anatomical, rehabilitation, and return-to-sport literature concerning gastrocnemius, soleus, and associated myoconnective injuries. Ultrasound and MRI can distinguish more specific injury patterns than the traditional label “calf strain,” including which muscle, aponeurosis, fascial interface, or tendon-adjacent structure is involved. However, evidence connecting these anatomical distinctions with prognosis remains predominantly observational. No validated calf-specific rehabilitation or return-to-sport battery currently exists. Evidence strength: Moderate for the anatomical and diagnostic framework; low for prognosis and treatment selection. This is an expert synthesis rather than a systematic review, and the proposed rehabilitation continuum has not been prospectively validated. Practical implications: Imaging can help define the injured structure and identify complications, but it should inform rather than dictate loading or prognosis. Rehabilitation still needs to progressively restore: - Isometric and isotonic plantar-flexor capacity - Soleus and gastrocnemius function across relevant knee positions - Elastic and reactive capacity - Running volume, speed, acceleration, and fatigue tolerance - Sport-specific high-force and high-rate loading