Nutritional Recommendations for Divers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive diving involves grace, power, balance, and flexibility, which all require satisfying daily energy and nutrient needs. Divers are short, well-muscled, and lean, giving them a distinct biomechanical advantage. Although little diving-specific nutrition research on performance and health outcomes exists, there is concern that divers are excessively focused on body weight and composition, which may result in reduced dietary intake to achieve desired physique goals. This will result in low energy availability, which may have a negative impact on their power-to-weight ratio and health risks. Evidence is increasing that restrictive dietary practices leading to low energy availability also result in micronutrient deficiencies, premature fatigue, frequent injuries, and poor athletic performance. On the basis of daily training demands, estimated energy requirements for male and female divers are 3,500 kcal and 2,650 kcal, respectively. Divers should consume a diet that provides 3-8 g/kg/day of carbohydrate, with the higher values accommodating growth and development. Total daily protein intake (1.2-1.7 g/kg) should be spread evenly throughout the day in 20 to 30 g amounts and timed appropriately after training sessions. Divers should consume nutrient-dense foods and fluids and, with medical supervision, certain dietary supplements (i.e., calcium and iron) may be advisable. Although sweat loss during indoor training is relatively low, divers should follow appropriate fluid-intake strategies to accommodate anticipated sweat losses in hot and humid outdoor settings. A multidisciplinary sports medicine team should be integral to the daily training environment, and suitable foods and fluids should be made available during prolonged practices and competitions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.030 |
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".