Coaches Say Lighter Is Better, but at What Cost? A Qualitative Exploration of the Lingering Impact of Body Image on Disordered Eating in Retired Elite Women Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women athletes often experience body dissatisfaction and disordered eating, contributing to a heightened risk of developing an eating disorder throughout their athletic career. Yet, the experiences of body image and disordered eating are not understood in retirement from sport. A qualitative description study with semi-structured interviews was used to describe body image and disordered eating in eight retired elite women athletes from various sports. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, analyzed inductively, and organized into three themes. The first theme "Social influences and instigators of disordered eating while competing in sport" reflects motivators of disordered eating with sub-themes: (a) coaches are uncaring and unqualified, (b) parents set the "tone," for better or for worse, and (c) peers are not always friends, though some show support. The second theme "The pinnacle of disordered eating" depicts behaviors and feelings experienced at the peak of career with sub-themes: (a) losing weight by any means necessary and (b) the physical and emotional tolls. The third theme "Reshaping the self and compensatory behaviors" describes participants' experiences after ceasing competition with sub-themes: (a) changes in identity and (b) compensatory eating and exercise. The results highlight diverse social-cultural factors influencing body dissatisfaction and disordered eating onset. Ultimately, results may help inform intervention strategies that will improve the overall health and well-being of women athletes both during sport and into retirement.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".