MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387036504 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106812

Best practice recommendations for body composition considerations in sport to reduce health and performance risks: a critical review, original survey and expert opinion by a subgroup of the IOC consensus on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs)

2023· review· en· W4387036504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersInternational Olympic Committee
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyGerontologyFamily medicineApplied psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The assessment of body composition (BC) in sport raises concern for athlete health, especially where an overfocus on being lighter or leaner increases the risk of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) and disordered eating. METHODS: We undertook a critical review of the effect of BC on performance (29 longitudinal, prospective or intervention studies) and explored current practice related to BC considerations via a follow-up to a 2013 internationally distributed survey. RESULTS: The review found that a higher level of body fat was negatively associated with endurance performance, while a gain in muscle mass resulted in performance benefits across sports. BC did not contribute to early talent identification, and no unique cut-off to signify a performance advantage for BC was identified. BC appears to be one of an array of variables impacting performance, and its influence should not be overstated. The survey (125 practitioners, 61 sports and 26 countries) showed subtle changes in BC considerations over time, such as an increased role for sport dietitian/nutrition practitioners as BC measurers (2013: 54%, 2022: 78%); less emphasis on reporting of body fat percentage (2013: 68%, 2022: 46%) and reduced frequency of BC assessment if ≥every fourth week (2013: 18%, 2022: 5%). Respondents remained concerned about a problematic focus on BC (2013: 69%, 2022: 78%). To address these findings, we provide detailed recommendations for BC considerations, including an overview of preferable BC methodology. CONCLUSIONS: The 'best practice' guidelines stress the importance of a multidisciplinary athlete health and performance team, and the treatment of BC data as confidential medical information. The guidelines provide a health focus around BC, aiming to reduce the associated burden of disordered eating, problematic low energy availability and REDs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.298 · 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