Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport in Rock Climbers: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Tan, K and Schöffl, V. Relative energy deficiency in sport in rock climbers: a narrative review. J Strength Cond Res 39(8): 908-917, 2025-Rock climbing has experienced immense growth in popularity over the years and was incorporated into the summer Olympic program as of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Previously known as Female Athlete Triad, relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) refers to a preventable syndrome characterized by impaired physiologic functions because of low energy availability (LEA). This leads to a multitude of symptoms and compromises the health and performance of climbers. Understanding how REDs manifests in the context of climbing is important for injury prevention, ensuring safe and sustainable practices of the sport, and future research. This review comprehensively explores REDs in the setting of climbing, providing a detailed literature review including the most current research published in 2024. We shed light on the latest recommendations made by the International Olympic Committee, discuss the physiology of climbing, and review studies on anthropometry and nutrition, touching on the youth, adult, able-bodied, and para-athlete populations. Because many rock climbers take the profile of having a low BMI and body fat percentage, there is a concerning number of high-level climbers who do not meet the required nutritional status or energy requirements to sustain a moderate level of training. This article highlights the importance of implementing a multidisciplinary team-based approach in developing an individualized dietary plan for climbers with problematic LEA, underscoring the need for recognizing, diagnosing, and implementing holistic care strategies while also highlighting areas that require further advancement in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".