Examining the Relationship between Exercise Dependence, Disordered Eating, and Low Energy Availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both dietary and exercise behaviors need to be considered when examining underlying causes of low energy availability (LEA). The study assessed if exercise dependence is independently related to the risk of LEA with consideration of disordered eating and athlete calibre. Via survey response, female (n = 642) and male (n = 257) athletes were categorized by risk of: disordered eating, exercise dependence, disordered eating and exercise dependence, or if not presenting with disordered eating or exercise dependence as controls. Compared to female controls, the likelihood of being at risk of LEA was 2.5 times for female athletes with disordered eating and >5.5 times with combined disordered eating and exercise dependence. Male athletes with disordered eating, with or without exercise dependence, were more likely to report signs and symptoms compared to male controls-including suppression of morning erections (OR = 3.4; p < 0.0001), increased gas and bloating (OR = 4.0–5.2; p < 0.002) and were more likely to report a previous bone stress fracture (OR = 2.4; p = 0.01) and ≥22 missed training days due to overload injuries (OR = 5.7; p = 0.02). For both males and females, in the absence of disordered eating, athletes with exercise dependence were not at an increased risk of LEA or associated health outcomes. Compared to recreational athletes, female and male international caliber and male national calibre athletes were less likely to be classified with disordered eating.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".