Elite Male Volleyball Players Are at Risk of Insufficient Energy and Carbohydrate Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elite volleyball athletes experience significant physical and psychological demands during the competitive season. The aim was to compare the dietary intake of male volleyball athletes with recommendations for sport and health, and to examine the association of physique traits and knee health on eating behaviours and of eating behaviours on reported dietary intake. Using a retrospective cross-sectional design, 22 male athletes from a national indoor volleyball program underwent anthropometric, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and resting metabolic rate testing, 4-day dietary intake and hematological analysis, and also completed the three-factor eating questionnaire-R18 for eating behaviours and the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-patellar tendon (VISA-P) questionnaire for knee health. Most players under-consumed energy compared to reference guidelines, secondary to under-consuming carbohydrate for exercise. The primary eating behaviour was cognitive restraint, which was associated with body mass index and ectomorphy. Emotional eating behaviour was associated with VISA-P. Differences in emotional and cognitive restraint eating behaviours did not impact dietary intake. The findings suggest that players are at risk of an impaired ability to adapt to and recover from training during an important segment of the competitive season. Future work should explore the presence of low energy availability in elite male volleyball players.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".