Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 46Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorEating Disorders and BehaviorsDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The effect of nutrition education sessions on energy availability, body composition, eating attitude and sports nutrition knowledge in young female endurance athletes

Open access
Tektunalı Akman, Cansu, Gönen Aydın, Canan, Ersoy, Gülgün·2024·Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract

Nutrition knowledge plays a pivotal role in shaping dietary habits and food choices, particularly in the realm of sports nutrition. This study investigates the effects of a series of nutrition education sessions conducted by a registered dietitian on energy availability, various anthropometric measurements, eating attitudes, and sports nutrition knowledge in young female endurance athletes aged 15–18 years (football, basketball, volleyball) who engage in training for more than 10 h per week ( n = 83). Participants were randomly divided into two groups with 45 individuals receiving six physical nutrition education lectures, and the remaining 38 participants receiving no nutrition education. Participants completed the low energy availability in females questionnaire (LEAF-Q), Eating Attitude Test (EAT-26), and Sports Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (SNKQ). Energy and nutrient intakes were evaluated through 3-day food records, while exercise energy expenditure was assessed using 3-day activity logs. All of the questionnaires were repeated after 6 months. At baseline, the prevalence of LEA among athletes was determined to be 63.8%. In the intervention group, energy availability (EA) and SNKQ scores increased, and LEAF-Q scores decreased significantly ( p < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in EAT-26 scores between the two groups. Energy intake, weight, fat-free mass, and resting metabolic rate have been increased significantly in the intervention group ( p < 0,05). These findings suggest that nutrition education proves beneficial in enhancing dietary intake, positively influencing body composition, and improving nutrition knowledge, ultimately contributing to increased energy availability in female athletes over the short term.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In a randomized controlled trial with 83 adolescent female team-sport athletes, six dietitian-led nutrition education sessions improved sports nutrition knowledge and energy availability and lowered LEAF-Q risk scores over 6 months, but did not change EAT-26 eating-attitude scores. Baseline low energy availability prevalence was high (63.8% overall).

Key findings

  • Baseline LEA prevalence was 63.8% overall; by group, 73.3% in the intervention and 52.6% in the control. After the intervention, LEA fell to 46.7% (n = 21) in the intervention group, while the text reports it remained 52.6% (n = 22) in the control group.
  • In the intervention group, energy availability increased from 24.11 ± 10.69 to 32.24 ± 12.14 kcal/kg FFM, SNKQ scores increased from 29.18 ± 8.60 to 35.29 ± 7.17, and LEAF-Q scores decreased from 8.57 ± 4.36 to 6.82 ± 3.72 (p < 0.05). EAT-26 showed no significant group-by-time interaction (F = 0.21, p = 0.65).
  • Energy intake increased in the intervention group from 1739.7 ± 396.6 to 2046.1 ± 448 kcal; protein from 70.66 ± 22.06 to 84.76 ± 22.53 g; carbohydrate from 184.36 ± 54.65 to 228.04 ± 57.09 g; and fat from 76.52 ± 33.64 to 82.80 ± 25.91 g. BMI and fat mass showed significant group-by-time increases in the intervention group: BMI 20.81 ± 2.16 to 21.23 ± 1.99, and fat mass 11.64 ± 4.59 to 12.05 ± 4.65 kg.
  • SNKQ improvement was reported as 7.2%; post-intervention scores remained below 50% in both groups (discussion reports control 27.0/32.5% and intervention 35.3/34.9%, with a total score of 78, though methods state a maximum total score of 83).

Methods

  • Randomized clinical trial (NCT06116097) with a control group, conducted in Istanbul, Turkey; data collection occurred from August 2019 to February 2020. Of 100 initially included adolescent female athletes, 17 were excluded, leaving 83 analyzed, aged 15–18 years (mean 17.2 ± 2.0; football n = 34, basketball n = 16, volleyball n = 33) who trained more than 10 h per week. Participants were randomly assigned to six weekly 60-min face-to-face nutrition education sessions led by a registered dietitian (n = 45) or no nutrition education (n = 38 per abstract/Table 1; methods text says n = 33).
  • Measures included the LEAF-Q, EAT-26, and SNKQ; 3-day food records; 3-day activity logs; and bioelectrical impedance for body composition. Energy availability was calculated as (EI − EEE) / FFM, and resting metabolic rate was estimated using the Cunningham equation. Main analysis used mixed-model ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons and partial eta-squared effect sizes.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: self-reported dietary intake may be underreported, potentially overestimating LEA prevalence; the 3-day monitoring period may not reflect normal dietary habits and activity levels across the season; exercise energy expenditure was estimated from MET-based activity logs rather than indirect calorimetry or accelerometers; future work should also assess trainers’ nutrition knowledge.
  • Evident from the text: the control-group size is inconsistent (abstract/Table 1 n = 38 vs methods text n = 33); the post-intervention control LEA percentage is inconsistent (text 52.6% vs Table 4 EA ≤ 30 row 57.8%); the SNKQ maximum total score is inconsistent (methods 83 vs discussion 78); and the abstract reports significant increases in weight, fat-free mass, and resting metabolic rate in the intervention group, but Table 2 shows no significant group-by-time interaction for FFM or RMR (RMR time p = 0.07).

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1289448

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Trial CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 1 Trial CONSORT flow diagram.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 21 Not checked · 64 Own results and interpretations

55 more claims

Create a free account to see all 85 claims and to verify the 30 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16

Create a free account to see these claims.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

13 more claims about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 81) = 7.55reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .007

    “F (1,81) = 7.55, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 81) = 6.71reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .011

    “F (1,81) = 6.71, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 81) = 6.48reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .013

    “F (1,81) = 6.48, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 81) = 6.17reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .015

    “F (1,81) = 6.17, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 81) = 10.35reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .002

    “F (1,81) = 10.35, p < .05”

5 of 6 · the rest aren’t loaded

1 more recomputed test

Create a free account to see every test the Stats check recomputed.

See all tests — free account

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2004, Nutrition data base software

Cited by

See all 46

Metadata

Authors
Tektunalı Akman, C., Gönen Aydın, C., & Ersoy, G.
Affiliations
Istanbul Medipol University (TR)
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2024-03-14
Volume
12
Pages
1289448-1289448
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392814340
Cited by
46
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4
FWCI
10.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
nutrition education, energy availability, low energy availability, female athletes, endurance athletes, eating attitudes, sports nutrition knowledge, body composition, fat-free mass, resting metabolic rate, energy intake, youth athletes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Body Composition, Energy Intake, Female, Humans, Sports, Athletes

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.