Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 33Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorEating Disorders and BehaviorsObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 44 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Assessment of Dietary Intake and Eating Attitudes in Recreational and Competitive Adolescent Rock Climbers: A Pilot Study

Open access
Michael, Marisa K., Joubert, Lanae, Witard, Oliver C.·2019·Frontiers in Nutrition

Abstract

The dietary intake patterns and eating attitudes of adolescent climbers has not been studied. To fill this gap, we administered three surveys to 22 rock climbers (13 males, 9 females, age 14.21.9 years): climbing ability, three-day dietary recall, and Eating Attitude Test-26 (EAT-26). The majority (82%) of climbers did not meet their target energy intake (target = 2471493 kcalday-1; actual = 1963 581 kcalday-1) (p=0.003) and 86% of climbers consumed below their target carbohydrate intake (target = 28367 gday-1; actual intake = 22672 gday-1) (p=0.009). Average dietary protein intake was 95  51 gday-1, with the majority of climbers meeting their target intake of 8821 g (p=0.580). Seventy-three percent of climbers consumed below their target dietary fat intake (target = 9021 gday-1; actual = 6920 gday-1) (p=0.001). Average EAT-26 scores were 5.3± 4.1, indicating minimal risk of disordered eating attitudes/behaviors. There were no significant differences in boulderers vs. top rope climbers for energy/macronutrient intake, BMI, and EAT-26 score. There were no associations between energy intake and EAT-26 score (R2= 0.245, p=0.271) or climbing ability and EAT-26 score (R2=, p=0.217). These data suggest that adolescent climbers fail to meet target dietary intakes except protein, and exhibit minimal risk of disordered eating.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In a pilot study of 22 adolescent rock climbers, most failed to meet target energy, carbohydrate, and fat intakes, while protein intake generally met or exceeded targets. EAT-26 scores indicated minimal risk of disordered eating, with no significant differences by climbing type or ability for most intake variables.

Key findings

  • 82% consumed below target energy intake (target 2,471 ± 493 kcal/day; actual 1,963 ± 581 kcal/day; p = 0.002 in Results/Table 2; abstract reports p = 0.003). 86% consumed below target carbohydrate intake (target 283 ± 67 g/day; actual 226 ± 72 g/day; p = 0.009), and 73% consumed below target fat intake (target 90 ± 21 g/day; actual 69 ± 20 g/day; p = 0.001).
  • Protein intake was generally adequate: 23% consumed below target (target 88 ± 21 g/day; actual 95 ± 51 g/day; p = 0.584).
  • Average EAT-26 score was 5.3 ± 4.1, indicating minimal risk of disordered eating attitudes/behaviors; only 1 participant met criteria for disordered eating attitude/behavior (prevalence 4.5%). Males had higher EAT-26 scores than females (6.8 ± 4.3 vs. 5.3 ± 4.1 as reported in text; p = 0.031; Table 3 reports female score 3.2 ± 2.8).
  • No significant differences were found between boulderers and top rope climbers for energy/macronutrient intake, BMI, or EAT-26 score. Elite/advanced climbers consumed more protein than intermediate/low grade climbers (1.8 vs. 1.7 g/kg/day, p = 0.043), with no other intake differences. No associations were found between energy intake and EAT-26 score (R² = 0.245, p = 0.271) or climbing ability and EAT-26 score (R² = 0.274, p = 0.217).

Methods

  • Pilot cross-sectional study of 22 adolescent rock climbers (13 males, 9 females; age 14.2 ± 1.9 years) from two climbing gyms. Participants completed health history, climbing ability, 3-day dietary recall, and EAT-26 surveys under supervision of a registered dietitian.
  • Dietary intake was analyzed with Nutritics Professional Edition. Target energy needs were estimated using the Schofield equation for resting metabolic rate multiplied by an activity factor of 1.6 for males and 1.5 for females; target carbohydrate was 5 g/kg/day, protein 1.6 g/kg/day, and fat 20–35% of total energy.
  • Statistical analysis used independent and paired-samples t-tests and Pearson correlations, with significance set at p < 0.05; data presented as means ± SD.

Limitations

  • Stated: anthropometric data were self-reported; self-reported dietary recalls may introduce under- or over-reporting; self-reported climbing ability may vary from actual ability, though coaches assisted with classification.
  • Stated: as a pilot study, the small sample and cross-sectional design limit generalizability, and larger-scale follow-up studies are warranted. The authors also note it was not possible to discern whether the high-protein, energy-restricted pattern was intentional or by chance.
  • Evident from the text: the study lacked physiological measures of low energy availability/RED-S, body composition, growth, bone density, and menstrual status, which the authors identify as areas for future research.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnut.2019.00064

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Percentage of males vs. females (A), advanced vs. intermediate/low grade (B), and boulderers vs. top rope (C) climbers that met dietary intake targets.
Figure 1 Percentage of males vs. females (A), advanced vs. intermediate/low grade (B), and boulderers vs. top rope (C) climbers that met dietary intake targets.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 37 Not checked · 67 Own results and interpretations

40 more claims

Create a free account to see all 104 claims and to verify the 43 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 38
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

Create a free account to see these claims.

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.

5 of 10 · the rest aren’t loaded

5 more findings

Create a free account to see every finding of this check.

See all findings — free account

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Michael, M. K., Joubert, L., & Witard, O. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • Northern Michigan University (US)
Corresponding author
Joubert, Lanae
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Published
2019-05-10
Volume
6
Pages
64-64
ISSN
2296-861X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2939106940
Cited by
33
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
rock climbing, youth athletes, dietary intake, eating attitudes, energy intake, macronutrient intake, disordered eating, climbing ability, protein intake, carbohydrate intake, dietary fat intake

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

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.