Rapid Weight Loss in Competitive Judo and Taekwondo Athletes: Attitudes and Practices of Coaches and Trainers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fasting, skipping meals, and dehydration are common methods of rapid weight loss used prior to competition in weight category sports. This study examines coaches' attitudes, perceptions, and practices regarding rapid weight loss among judo and taekwondo athletes. A convenience sample of experienced coaches and trainers (n = 68) completed structured questionnaires. Participants in this study were 33.8 ± 9.3 years old; 57 were males and 11 were females; and 59% were certified coaches, with 71% reporting over 20 years of involvement in sports and 68% having more than 10 years of teaching experience. The majority (90%) reported that they usually supervised athletes through the weight loss process. Interventions for weight loss began at 12.7 ± 1.9 years of age, with a recommended precompetition weight loss duration of 16.2 ± 8.2 days and an average reduction of 1.5 ± 0.7 kg. The majority of the responders (92%) recommended that their athletes practice gradual weight loss methods using a combination of dehydration or increased physical activity (80.3%), sweat suits (50.8%), restricted fluid intake (39.3%), training in heated rooms (27%), and sauna (26.2%). Recommendations of spitting (27.8%) or using laxatives, diuretics, diet pills, or vomiting (21.3%) were also reported. Coaches and trainers often encouraged athletes to cut weight before competition. The methods recommended are potentially harmful with severe health risks, including compromised nutritional status and diminished athletic performance. This is of particular concern in young athletes who are still growing and developing physically. Enhancing knowledge and awareness for coaches, athletes, and parents regarding potential dangers, along with improved nutrition education, is critical for reducing the magnitude and misuse of rapid weight loss methods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".