Effects of Ramadan Observance on Dietary Intake and Body Composition of Adolescent Athletes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the effects of Ramadan observance on dietary intake, body mass and body composition of adolescent athletes (design: systematic review and meta-analysis; data sources: PubMed and Web of Science; eligibility criteria for selecting studies: single-group, pre-post, with or without control-group studies, conducted in athletes aged <19 years, training at least 3 times/week, and published in any language before 12 February 2020). Studies assessing body mass and/or body composition and/or dietary intake were deemed eligible. The methodological quality was assessed using ‘QualSyst’. Of the twelve selected articles evaluating body mass and/or body composition, one was of strong quality and eleven were rated as moderate. Ten articles evaluated dietary intake; four were rated as strong and the remaining moderate in quality. Continuation of training during Ramadan did not change body mass from before to the first week (trivial effect size (ES) = −0.011, p = 0.899) or from before to the fourth week of Ramadan (trivial ES = 0.069, p = 0.277). Additionally, Ramadan observance did not change body fat content from before to the first week (trivial ES = −0.005, p = 0.947) and from before to the fourth week of Ramadan (trivial ES = -0.057, p = 0.947). Lean body mass remained unchanged from before to the fourth week of Ramadan (trivial ES = −0.025, p = 0.876). Dietary data showed the intake of energy (small ES = -0.272, p = 0.182), fat (trivial ES = 0.044, p = 0.842), protein (trivial ES = 0.069, p = 0.720), carbohydrate (trivial ES = 0.075, p = 0.606) and water (trivial ES = −0.115, p = 0.624) remained essentially unchanged during as compared to before Ramadan. Continued training of adolescent athletes at least three times/week during Ramadan observance has no effect on body mass, body composition or dietary intake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".