Search

Backgroud: Despite the evidence of an elevated prevalence of low bone mass in adolescent endurance runners, reports on dietary intake in this population is limited. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate energy availability (EA) and dietary intake among 72 (n = 60 female, n = 12 male) high school cross-country runners. Methods: The sample consisted of a combined dataset of two cohorts. In both cohorts, the Block Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ; 2005 & 2014 versions) assessed dietary intake. Fat free mass was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Results: Mean EA was less than recommended (45 kcal/kgFFM/day) among male (35.8 ± 14.4 kcal/kg FFM/day) and female endurance runners (29.6 ± 17.4 kcal/kgFFM/day), with 30.0% of males and 60.0% of females meeting criteria for low EA (<30 kcal/kgFFM/day). Calorie intake for male (2,614.2 ± 861.8 kcal/day) and female (1,879.5 ± 723.6 kcal/day) endurance runners fell below the estimated energy requirement for "active" boys (>3,100 kcal/day) and girls (>2,300 kcal/day). Female endurance runners' relative carbohydrate intake (4.9 ± 2.1 g/kg/day) also fell below recommended levels (6-10 g/kg/day). Male and female endurance runners exhibited below-recommended intakes of calcium, vitamin D, potassium, fruit, vegetables, grains, and dairy. Compared to male endurance runners, female endurance runners demonstrated lower relative intakes of energy (kcal/kg/day), protein (g/kg/day), fat (g/kg/day), fiber, vegetables, total protein, and oils. Conclusion: This study provides evidence of the nutritional risk of adolescent endurance runners and underscores the importance of nutritional support efforts in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific advances can improve the lives of adults with intellectual disability, yet concerns that research participation may impose harm impede scientific progress. What counts as harmful can be subjective and perceptions of harm may vary among stakeholders. We studied perspectives on the harmfulness of research events among adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found considerable variance. For example, adults with intellectual disability see exclusion from research as more harmful, but most psychosocial harms as less significant than others. All stakeholders agree that having someone else make the participation decision is harmful. Findings provide insights into the concept of harm and ethical research with adults with intellectual disability.

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and institutional review board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.