Nutritional Habits of Flemish Adolescent Sprint Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE AND METHODS: To investigate dietary habits of Flemish adolescent track and field athletes using a 7-d weighed-food record. Besides adequacy for growth, development, and physical performance, dietary health aspects were considered. RESULTS: Twenty-nine girls and 31 boys, with minimum 2 yr of track and field training practice, were recruited. All participants had daily breakfast (girls 22.5% +/- 5.5% of total energy intake [TEI]; boys 19.8% +/- 7.3%). Fruit in girls and juices and sports drinks in boys were consumed mostly between meals (girls 21.3% +/- 8.1% of TEI; boys 24.3% +/- 10.1%). Soft drinks contributed considerably to energy intake between meals in both sexes. Protein intake (1.5 +/- 0.3 g . kg-1 . d-1 for both sexes) was within the recommended daily intake (RDI) for strength athletes. Mean daily carbohydrate intake in girls was lower than in boys (girls 5.1 +/- 1.1 g/kg; boys 6.0 +/- 0.9 g/kg), with mono- and disaccharides contributing 26% to TEI in both sexes. Total fat intake was above 30% of TEI in more than half the participants, and only 10 participants had a saturated-fat intake below 10% of TEI. Fiber intake (girls 23.7 +/- 7.9 g; boys 29.1 +/- 11.2 g) was far below the Belgian RDI. Intake of vitamins and minerals were generally low, despite micronutrient supplementation in 37.5% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Few athletes reached all nutrient RDIs. Unhealthy food habits with regard to refined sugars, fat, and micronutrients were observed. These adolescent sprinters should be encouraged to consume more nonsweetened beverages, fruits, and vegetables.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".