Elite Distance Runners and Breastfeeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elite female distance runners lack guidelines regarding breastfeeding while training at a high intensity. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to understand how elite female distance runners manage breastfeeding. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 14 women who had had at least one pregnancy within the past 5 years and had achieved a minimum of the USA Track and Field 2012 Olympic Trials "B" entry standard for running for the marathon or equivalent performance for 1,500 m or longer. RESULTS: Using thematic analysis, we identified the following themes: breastfeeding as a barrier to training and competition, limited access to relevant breastfeeding information, and concerns for the baby's health. Our findings show that despite the considerable barriers with which these women contend, they breastfed at higher rates and for longer duration than members of the general public. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we argue that elite female distance runners' experiences of breastfeeding would be enhanced if more research were conducted on breastfeeding practices while training and competing at an elite level.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".