Evaluation of a randomized nutrition intervention combining nutrition education and cooking workshops on dietary intakes and psychosocial determinants of performance in university football athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although nutrition influences performance, many athletes, including football players, do not meet nutritional requirements for their sport. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of a nutrition intervention combining nutrition education and cooking workshops on nutrition knowledge, intention, and perceived behavioral control in the preparation of healthy meals, dietary intakes, and diet quality in male university football players. Athletes ( n = 23; age: 22 ± 1 year) were randomly assigned to an intervention (2 h/week) ( n = 13) or control group ( n = 10) over three weeks. Questionnaires were completed before (pre), immediately after (post 1), and two months after the intervention (post 2). Dietary intakes and diet quality were evaluated from three web-based 24-h dietary recalls per visit. Mixed linear models for repeated measures with Tukey’s post hoc test were performed to determine the effects of the intervention on all outcomes. There was a group by time interaction for nutrition knowledge ( p = 0.002) that was higher immediately after and two months after the intervention compared to the control group. No differences on other outcomes were observed. Combining nutrition education and cooking workshops improved nutrition knowledge, but did not affect intention and perceived behavioral control in the preparation of healthy meals, dietary intakes, and diet quality in male university football athletes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".