Evaluation of Sports Nutrition Knowledge and Recommendations Among High School Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate high school coaches' knowledge in sports nutrition and the nutritional practices they recommend to their athletes. Forty-seven high school coaches in "leanness" and "non-leanness" sports from the greater region of Quebec (women = 44.7%) completed a questionnaire on nutritional knowledge and practices. "Leanness sports" were defined as sports where leanness or/and low bodyweight were considered important (e.g., cheerleading, swimming and gymnastics), and "non-leanness sports" were defined as sports where these factors are less important (e.g., football). Participants obtained a total mean score of 68.4% for the nutrition knowledge part of the questionnaire. More specifically, less than 30% of the coaches could answer correctly some general nutrition questions regarding carbohydrates and lipids. No significant difference in nutrition knowledge was observed between coaches from "leanness" and "non-leanness" sports or between men and women. Respondents with a university education scored higher than the others (73.3% vs. 63.3%, p < .05). Coaches who participated in coaching certification also obtained better results than those without a coaching certification. The most popular source of information about nutrition used by coaches was the Internet at 55%. The two most popular nutrition practices that coaches recommended to improve athlete performance were hydration and consumption of protein-rich foods. Recommendation for nutritional supplements use was extremely rare and was suggested only by football coaches, a nonleanness sport. Findings from this study indicate that coaches need sports nutrition education and specific training.
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 | 0.002 | 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".