Dietary Intake of Young Male Ice Hockey Players 10–13 Years of Age during a Week-Long Hockey Camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study recorded the dietary intakes of young male ice hockey players (10–13 year (yr)) for 3 consecutive days while participating in a 5-day summer hockey camp. Players were categorized as older children (OC, n = 10; 10.7 ± 0.2 yr; 37.1 ± 1.5 kg; 147.9 ± 2.1 cm) and young adolescents (YA, n = 10; 12.9 ± 0.1 yr; 45.2 ± 1.5 kg; 157.0 ± 2.4 cm). Players consumed their usual daily intakes. Parents recorded food intake in the mornings and evenings, while the researchers recorded food intake at camp. Energy intake was higher in both groups when compared to data for age-matched young Canadian (CDN) males (OC, 2967 ± 211 vs. 2000 kcal/day; YA, 2773 ± 91 vs. 2250 kcal/day). Carbohydrate (CHO) (OC, 11.2 ± 0.8 vs. YO, 8.9 ± 0.5 g/kg body mass/day) and protein (OC, 3.2 ± 0.3; YO, 2.4 ± 0.1 g/kg/day) intakes were higher than reported for young CDN males (CHO, 3.6 and protein, 1.0 g/kg/day) and were within the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR; CHO, 56 ± 2.3; 57.4 ± 0.8%; protein, 16.1 ± 1.0; 15.7 ± 0.7%). Fat intake was also within the AMDR in both groups (OC, 29.8 ± 1.6%; YA, 28.3 ± 1.0%). Micronutrient intake was adequate except for Vitamin D intakes that were below the recommended 15 ug/day at 6.3 ± 0.7 (OC) and 5.0 ± 1.5 ug/day (YA). In summary, energy and macronutrient intakes of the OC (10–11 yr) and YA (12–13 yr) players were high and well above the age matched CDN norms. The older children had higher energy intakes/kg body mass than the young adolescents. Higher energy intakes allowed for micronutrients intakes to be met in these young active males, except for vitamin D 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".