Dietary Protein Intake and Its Associations With Bone Properties Using Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Endurance-Trained Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Endurance athletes are at greater risk of compromised bone health due to elevated nutritional demands and high-volume training. Optimal nutritional intake is fundamental to support athlete bone health, and dietary protein is an essential nutrient for the maintenance of bone and muscle tissue. Studies of associations between dietary protein intake and advanced imaging-based measures of bone and muscle health in endurance athletes are limited. Objective To examine the relationships between dietary protein intake and volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), estimated bone strength (SSI p and BSI), areal BMD (aBMD), and muscle density, cross-sectional area (CSA), and strength in male and female endurance-trained individuals. Methods Fifty healthy young endurance-trained adults completed one-time measures. Peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) scans assessed tibial trabecular and cortical vBMD, BSI, SSI p , and calf muscle density and CSA. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans measured aBMD at the lumbar spine (LS) and proximal femur. Dietary protein intake (g·kg BM·day −1 ) was calculated from three-day 24-hour dietary recalls. Results Bivariate analyses found no correlations between total dietary protein intake and pQCT-derived bone and muscle measures. However, protein intake from animal products was correlated with SSI p at the 38% (r = 0.39, p = 0.008) and 66% site (r = 0.44, p = 0.002), cortical vBMD (r = -0.34, p = 0.02) at the 66% site, and muscle CSA (r = 0.57, p <.001). Adjusted regression analyses revealed that higher total dietary protein intake was associated with higher LS aBMD (β = 0.398, p = 0.009). Conclusion Our findings suggest that there are no relationships between total dietary protein intake and pQCT measures in endurance-trained individuals. However, positive relationships were found with protein intake from animal products and tibial SSI p and muscle CSA. Additionally, our results suggest total protein intake explains a small variance in LS aBMD. A future analysis would benefit from stratifying associations by sex.
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) | 0.001 | 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".