MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362669577 · doi:10.3390/nu15071788

Energy Expenditure, Dietary Energy Intake, and Nutritional Supplements in Adolescent Volleyball Athletes versus Nonathletic Controls

2023· article· en· W4362669577 on OpenAlexafffund
Madison Bell, Ravneet Ghatora, Maria Ilektra Retsidou, Efthalia Chatzigianni, Panagiota Klentrou

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBrock University
KeywordsMedicineAthletesMicronutrientEnergy expenditureNutrientPhysical therapyAnimal scienceInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that athletes competing in team sports do not follow dietary recommendations. However, only few studies have investigated energy needs and supplement use in adolescent athletes, and whether they are meeting their energy requirements. This observational study examined energy expenditure, dietary energy intake, and use of nutritional supplements in 58 adolescent (14–17 years old) volleyball athletes (15 males, 43 females) and 58 age-matched nonathletic controls (13 males, 45 females). Participants completed an online survey including questions on demographic information, body mass, and a series of standardized questionnaires assessing energy expenditure, dietary energy, macronutrient, micronutrient, and supplement intake. Energy expenditure relative to body mass was higher in athletes than nonathletes by 13 kcal/kg/day (group effect, p < 0.001), and in males compared to females by 5.7 kcal/kg/day (sex effect, p = 0.004). Athletes had higher energy intake than nonathletes (+6.4 kcal/kg/day, p = 0.019) and greater consumption of fruits (p = 0.034), vegetables (p = 0.047), grains (p = 0.016), dairy (p = 0.038), meats and meat alternatives (p < 0.001), as well as higher intakes of fat (p < 0.001), carbohydrates, protein, sugar, fiber, vitamin C, calcium, and sodium (p = 0.05) compared to nonathletes. The average protein intakes exceeded the upper recommendations in all groups, suggesting that this is not a nutrient of concern for young volleyball athletes. However, athletes were only meeting 60% of the estimated energy requirements (EER) for their age, height, body mass, and physical activity score, (3322 ± 520 kcal/day), while nonathletes were meeting 74% of the EER (p < 0.001). The relative energy balance of male athletes was lower compared to both female athletes (p = 0.006) and male nonathletes (p = 0.004). Finally, more athletes reported using performance-related supplements than nonathletes, but there were no differences in the consumption of other dietary supplements. Overall, when compared to nonathletic controls, both male and female adolescent volleyball athletes were found to match their higher energy expenditure with a greater dietary energy intake; however, all adolescents were below the estimated energy requirements, a finding more profound among the volleyball 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207