Dietary intake habits and controlled training on body composition and strength in elite female volleyball players during the season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to assess dietary intake of elite female volleyball players (EFVPs, n = 22) during the first 11 weeks of the competitive season. Further, we compared findings for total energy intake and specific macronutrient distribution with the established recommendations for high-intensity athletes. Subjects also engaged in periodized training and we assessed changes in body composition (BC) and strength. Twenty-two EFVPs had dietary intake (7-day dietary recall and food-frequency questionnaire), BC (body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, fat mass, muscle mass), and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength (bench press, military press, back squat, power clean, clean and jerk, pull-over) assessed at baseline (T0, before preseason) and 11 weeks later (T11). Athletes consumed less total kilocalories and carbohydrates (CHO) compared with established recommendations (total kilocalories: 40.7 ± 5.2 kcal/(kg · day)(-1) vs. RECOMMENDATIONS: 50-80 kcal/(kg · day)(-1); CHO: 4.3 ± 0.6 g/(kg · day)(-1) vs. RECOMMENDATIONS: 5-8 g/(kg · day)(-1)). Further, subjects consumed greater protein (2.1 ± 0.4 g/(kg · day)(-1)) compared with recommendations (1.6-1.8 g/(kg · day)(-1)) and greater fat (36.1 ± 4.6% of total kilocalories) than recommendations (20%-35% of total kilocalories). There were improvements (p < 0.05) in BC from T0-T11 (body fat percentage: 17.9% ± 4.2%-16.8% ± 3.6%, -4.7% ± 7.4%; fat mass: 12.7 ± 4.2-11.9 ± 3.8 kg, -4.0% ± 9.2%; muscle mass: 42.8% ± 3.4%-43.3% ± 3.0%, +1.3 ± 3.1%) and 1RM strength (bench press: 39.1 ± 4.5-43.4 ± 4.9 kg; +11.4% ± 9.3%; clean and jerk: 29.7 ± 6.3-34 ± 5.8 kg; +17.7% ± 23.8%); however, there was no change (p > 0.05) in BMI or military press and pull-over. Back squat (p = 0.054; +33.0% ± 83.7%) and power clean (p = 0.056; +26.2% ± 49.0%) increases approached significance. Our findings indicate that EFVPs improved BC and strength despite a dietary intake different from recommendations. This is possibly due to different substrate utilization during exercise in females versus males, thus new recommendations should be considered for high-intensity athletes, which are sex-specific.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".