The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 4 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Does diet and bone health predict injury in masters distance runners?
Open accessAbstract
Distance running offers many health benefits, yet injuries are common. In long-distance runners (> 20 km/week), a previous running-related injury (RRI) is the strongest predictor of injury (1) . In females, menstrual dysfunction and low bone mineral density (BMD) increases bone stress injury (BSI) risk (2) . A recent meta-analysis of diet-related risk factors found lower total energy and fat intakes in injured female runners, and a lower fibre intake in both sexes combined with a BSI (3) . Of the four studies contributing to these findings, all involved younger trained or highly trained athletes, with only one including females up to 53 years. Older runners may be at increased risk due to age-related physiological changes and nutrient deficiencies, but prospective studies are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between bone health, diet, and RRI in masters distance runners. Male and female masters athletes (≥ 35 years) running ≥ 30 km/week enrolled in a 6-month prospective study. Baseline measures included demographics, diet (energy, macro- and micronutrients), and BMD (total body and site-specific). Dietary intake was compared to Australian nutrient reference values or sports recommendations. Weekly running mileage and injury occurrence were tracked for six months. Analyses were conducted for the whole cohort and by sex. Of 100 runners (n = 56 male) completing the study, 26 sustained a soft tissue injury (with one combined soft tissue and BSI). Injured runners (both sexes combined) had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge’s g = −0.51, p = 0.028), Z-score (Hedge’s g = −0.52, p = 0.032), and T-score (Hedge’s g = 0.40, p = 0.040) compared to uninjured runners. Injured females had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge’s g = −0.64, p = 0.049) compared to uninjured females, and females with whole-body T-score ≤ 1 had higher injury risk (OR = 6.4, p = 0.030). Few runners met their estimated energy requirements (24% females, 29% of males), with no difference in intake between injured and uninjured runners. Similarly, no significant relationships were observed for macronutrients. Males not meeting calcium recommendations had higher injury risk (OR = 4.0, p = 0.03). Females not meeting iron recommendations had lower injury risk (OR = 0.21, p = 0.038). Findings suggest bone health may influence soft tissue injury risk in masters distance runners, as shown by sex-specific associations between BMD and injury. No associations for energy and macronutrients may reflect overall inadequate intake. Inadequate calcium intake in males may impair soft tissue integrity and repair, increasing injury risk. The protective effect of low iron intake in females may relate to poor overall intake or use of age-based recommendations that overlook menstrual status. Larger, long-term studies using age-appropriate assessments are warranted.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
In a 6-month prospective study of 100 masters distance runners (≥35 years, ≥30 km/week), 26 sustained a soft tissue injury, and injured runners had lower dual femoral neck bone mineral density than uninjured runners. Energy and macronutrient intakes did not differ between injured and uninjured runners, though sex-specific associations were seen for calcium (males) and iron (females).
Key findings
- Of 100 runners completing the study (n = 56 male), 26 sustained a soft tissue injury, with one combined soft tissue and bone stress injury.
- Injured runners (both sexes combined) had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge's g = −0.51, p = 0.028), Z-score (Hedge's g = −0.52, p = 0.032) and T-score (Hedge's g = 0.40, p = 0.040) than uninjured runners.
- Injured females had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge's g = −0.64, p = 0.049) than uninjured females, and females with whole-body T-score ≤ 1 had higher injury risk (OR = 6.4, p = 0.030).
- Few runners met estimated energy requirements (24% of females, 29% of males) with no difference in intake between injured and uninjured runners and no significant macronutrient relationships. Males not meeting calcium recommendations had higher injury risk (OR = 4.0, p = 0.03); females not meeting iron recommendations had lower injury risk (OR = 0.21, p = 0.038).
Methods
- Prospective 6-month study of male and female masters athletes aged ≥ 35 years running ≥ 30 km/week.
- Baseline measures: demographics, diet (energy, macro- and micronutrients), and BMD (total body and site-specific); dietary intake was compared to Australian nutrient reference values or sports recommendations. Weekly running mileage and injury occurrence were tracked for six months.
- Analyses were conducted for the whole cohort and by sex.
Limitations
- As stated by the authors: larger, long-term studies using age-appropriate assessments are warranted; the protective iron finding in females may relate to poor overall intake or use of age-based recommendations that overlook menstrual status, and the calcium finding in males is offered as a possible mechanism ("may impair soft tissue integrity and repair").
- Evident from the text: the positive Hedge's g reported for the T-score (0.40) alongside negative values for BMD and Z-score appears inconsistent in direction with the stated pattern of lower values in injured runners, which the abstract does not explain. The report is a conference abstract, so detailed methods, adjustment for confounders, and injury definitions are not available.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 4 Not checked · 18 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Injured runners (both sexes combined) had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge ' s g = -0.51, p = 0.028), Z-score (Hedge ' s g = -0.52, p = 0.032), and T-score (Hedge ' s g = 0.40, p = 0.040) compared to uninjured runners.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Females not meeting iron recommendations had lower injury risk (OR = 0.21, p = 0.038).”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption not shown here.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few runners met their estimated energy requirements (24% females, 29% of males), with no difference in intake between injured and uninjured runners.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Injured runners (both sexes combined) had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge ' s g = -0.51, p = 0.028), Z-score (Hedge ' s g = -0.52, p = 0.032), and T-score (Hedge ' s g = 0.40, p = 0.040) compared to uninjured runners.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, no significant relationships were observed for macronutrients.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
8 more claims
Create a free account to see all 22 claims and to verify the 4 references still open.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ E.A. Colebatch 1 , J.T. Fuller 2 , E. Mantzioris 1 and A.M. Hill 1 · p. 1
“Injured runners (both sexes combined) had lower dual femoral neck BMD (Hedge ' s g = -0.51, p = 0.028), Z-score (Hedge ' s g = -0.52, p = 0.032), and T-score (Hedge ' s g = 0.40, p = 0.040) compared to uninjured runners.”
§ E.A. Colebatch 1 , J.T. Fuller 2 , E. Mantzioris 1 and A.M. Hill 1 · p. 1
“Hedge ' s g = 0.40, p = 0.040”
Citations
Cites
Risk Factors for Stress Fracture among Young Female Cross-Country Runners
KELSEY, J. L., BACHRACH, L. K., PROCTER-GRAY, E., NIEVES, J., GREENDALE, G. A., SOWERS, M., BROWN, B. W., MATHESON, K. A., CRAWFORD, S. L., & COBB, K. L. (2007) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318074e54b · Cited by 193
Risk factors for overuse injuries in short- and long-distance running: A systematic review
van Poppel, D., van der Worp, M. P., Slabbekoorn, A., van den Heuvel, S. P., van Middelkoop, M., Koes, B. W., Verhagen, A. P., & Scholten-Peeters, G. G. M. (2020) · Journal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2020.06.006 · Cited by 164
Colebatch, E., FULLER, J. T., Mantzioris, E., & Hill, A. M. (2025) · Journal of science and medicine in sport · doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2025.02.001 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Colebatch, E. A., Fuller, J. T., Mantzioris, E., & Hill, A. M.
- Affiliations
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Macquarie University (AU)
- ORCID
- Colebatch, E.A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2026-07
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- OCE2
- ISSN
- 0029-6651 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2719
- OpenAlex
- W7167234660
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of The Nutrition Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
- Keywords
- running injuries, bone mineral density, femoral neck, dietary intake, energy intake, calcium intake, soft tissue injury, bone stress injuries, sex differences, older athletes, running mileage, injury prediction, menstrual disorders, micronutrients, macronutrients, nutritional adequacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does diet and bone health predict injury in masters distance runners? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0029665126103802
- The paper
- Colebatch, E. A., Fuller, J. T., Mantzioris, E., & Hill, A. M. (2026). Does diet and bone health predict injury in masters distance runners? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665126103802
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
