Exploring adolescents’ experiences navigating the intersection of their gender, sport, and dietary identities: an interpretative phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all adolescents have positive sport experiences. Research has repeatedly identified ties between unfavorable eating patterns and food beliefs (i.e., a dietary identity) that hinder an athletes’ health and performance. Gender norms and pressures over idealized bodies (e.g., boys are muscular whereas girls are thin) play a critical role in the manifestation of unfavorable eating habits. However, most research has focused on the experiences of athlete girls in elite sport spaces (e.g., high performance), leaving gaps in our understanding of how diverse youth in high school spaces are impacted. To address this gap, we aimed to explore the intersections between adolescents’ sport, dietary and gender identities in high school. We conducted 33 interviews with high school athletes (n = 9 girls and n = 9 boys) and non-athletes (n = 4 non-binary, n = 6 boys and n = 5 girls) using methods informed by an interpretative phenomenological approach. We generated three themes capturing adolescents’ experiences: (1) De-gendering protein and muscles; (2) Food displays what I value; and (3) Being [too] masculine is bad. Athletes recognized ties between masculinity and sport, but spoke about traditionally masculine eating habits (e.g., valuing protein) and body ideals (e.g., being muscular) as part of their athletic identity, not gender. Regardless of sport involvement, adolescents altered their outward expression of their dietary habits to demonstrate pieces of their identities, like being an athlete (e.g., eating protein) or feminine (e.g., smaller bites). Adolescents also spoke about using food to pursue idealized bodies that show deviation from traditional gender norms. Finally, adolescents held conflicting views about masculinity as being both toxic and useful for competition. By understanding identity intersections, coaches, trainers, parents, and sport decisions-makers can make more informed decisions about sport policy, programs, and practice that involve dietary advice to support this population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".