Does Nutrition Knowledge and Practice of Athletes Translate to Enhanced Athletic Performance? Cross-Sectional Study Amongst Nigerian Undergraduate Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: Nutrition knowledge of an athlete, as well as practice, is expected to influence athlete's performance. The study assessed the nutrition knowledge and practice as well as athletes' performance and identified the factors predicting the athletes' performance. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey, involved 110 purposively selected undergraduate athletes (47 females, 63 males) of University of Ibadan, Nigeria, between July 2013 and December 2013. A semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire assessed the nutrition knowledge and practice. 24-hr diet recall and food frequency questionnaire were done. Anthropometric measurements were taken; body composition was determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis method. Handgrip strength (HGS), as an indirect measure of athlete performance, was assessed with the hand dynamometer. Chi-square and t-test analysis were used for the bivariate analysis. Pearson correlation and simple linear regression were used to determine relationships and predict athletic performance. The level of statistical significance was p<0.05. RESULTS: More than half (58.2%) had good nutrition knowledge (NK), and 62.7% had good nutrition practices (NP). Majority (75.4%) had normal handgrip strength (HGS). More than 70.0% frequently do not consume cereals, roots and tubers, fruits and vegetables, legumes /nuts. About 30.0-40.0% frequently do not consume eggs/milk, meat/fish. Having good NK was significantly associated with good NP (χ2=15.520, p=0.000), but not with athlete's performance (HGS). There is no significant correlation between NK, NP, and HGS. There is a significant positive correlation between HGS and lean muscle mass (LMM) (r=.670, p=0.000), weight (r=.492, p=0.000), height (r=.521, p=0.000) and energy intake (r=.386, p=0.000). There is a significant negative correlation between HGS and percentage body fat (r=-.400, p=0.000). Athletes' performance was significantly predicted by the resting metabolic rate (beta=.454 C.I=0.011 to 0.045, p=0.003), Lean muscle mass (beta=.297 C.I=.059 to 0.562, p=0.024) and the weight (beta=.228, C.I=1.852 to .489, p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Having good nutrition knowledge or practice did not directly determine athletic performance. However, there is the need for nutrition education interventions, to improve athlete's performance by promoting adequate energy intake, lean muscle mass and appropriate weight gain in athletes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".