Dietary Quality and Nutrient Intakes of Elite Paracyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutrient requirements for para-athletes will be influenced by a variety of factors secondary to their impairment and, therefore, recommendations for para-athletes cannot be drawn directly from that of able-bodied athletes. Information on the dietary intakes of para-athletes is lacking and therefore needs to be examined. This study assessed the nutrient intakes and diet quality of 31 paracyclists via food frequency questionnaires. Based on the dietary reference intakes, most paracyclists consumed intakes above the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) or adequate intake (AI). Recommendations were not met for iodine (males = 87% RDA; females = 62% RDA) or fibre in males (84% AI). A 26% risk of inadequacy was noted for vitamins D and E in females. A total of 42% of females and 75% of males did not meet fibre recommendations (14 g/1000 kcal), and only three athletes (all females) consumed fatty acids in the recommended omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 4:1 or less. Athletes consumed grains, fruits, and vegetables frequently, though whole grains, pulses, and oily fish were generally consumed less often. Paracyclists appear to be consuming intakes at or above recommendations for most nutrients, though several nutrients were consumed below the recommended amounts; therefore, increasing the variety of foods consumed is suggested.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".