| Literature DB >> 31540535 |
Maria Heikkilä1, Mikko Lehtovirta2, Ossi Autio3, Mikael Fogelholm4, Raisa Valve5.
Abstract
Athletes often have significant gaps in their nutrition knowledge. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate whether young Finnish endurance athletes' nutrition knowledge and dietary intake can be improved through an education intervention with or without a mobile food application. Seventy-nine endurance athletes, 18.0 years (SD: 1.4), participated in this randomized, controlled intervention. We compared the effects of participatory nutrition education sessions alone (group EDU) to those including the use of a mobile food application (group EDU + APP) for four days after each session. Both groups attended three 90-min education sessions fortnightly. The participants completed a validated nutrition knowledge questionnaire in Weeks 0, 5, and 17, and a three-day food diary in Weeks 0 and 17. The education plan was based on the Self-Determination Theory and the concept of meaningful learning process. The EDU group's nutrition knowledge scores were: 78 (week 0), 85 (week 5), and 84 (week 17) and the EDU + APP group's 78, 86, and 85, respectively. Nutrition knowledge increased significantly (main effect of time (p < 0.001)), but we observed no significant group × time interaction (p = 0.309). The changes in dietary intakes were minor (p > 0.05). The amount of carbohydrates was below endurance athletes' recommendations throughout the intervention. The reported energy intakes were also below the estimated energy expenditures. In conclusion, nutrition knowledge improved significantly after only three education sessions and food diary feedback, but the mobile app did not improve learning further. However, the nutrition education intervention alone was not enough to change dietary intake.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; carbohydrates; dietary habits; endurance sports; energy intake; intervention; nutrition knowledge; sports nutrition
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31540535 PMCID: PMC6770376 DOI: 10.3390/nu11092249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Setting and schedule of the intervention.
Figure 2The meaningful learning process. The figure is inspired by Autio [21] and Engeström [22] and is based on Davydov’s concept of developmental teaching [23]. In this intervention, challenges and problems refers to: how to improve the nutrition knowledge among the athletes, learning content to: nutrition knowledge, and learner to: the endurance athletes.
Background information on athletes presented as numbers and percentages of participants in group.
| Group EDU ( | Group EDU + APP ( | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| female | 18 (49%) | 17 (40%) |
| male | 19 (51%) | 25 (60%) |
|
| ||
| cross-country skiing | 15 (41%) | 18 (43%) |
| biathlon | 5 (14%) | 8 (19%) |
| orienteering | 8 (22%) | 5 (12%) |
| endurance running and race-walking | 9 (24%) | 9 (21%) |
| triathlon | 0 (0%) | 2 (5%) |
|
| ||
| Lecture 1 (Week 0) | 36 (97%) | 42 (100%) |
| Lecture 2 (Week 2) | 31 (84%) | 39 (93%) |
| Lecture 3 (Week 4) | 30 (81%) | 29 (69%) |
|
| ||
| 1st questionnaire (Week 0) | 37 (100%) | 42 (100%) |
| 2nd questionnaire (Week 5) | 31 (84%) | 35 (83%) |
| 3rd questionnaire (Week 17) | 29 (78%) | 38 (90%) |
|
| ||
| 1st food diary (Week 0) | 33 (89%) | 40 (95%) |
| 2nd food diary (Week 17) | 30 (81%) | 37 (88%) |
Figure 3Mean nutrition knowledge scores with SD at baseline, after nutrition education and after follow-up. Black line with squares refers to the EDU + APP group (education sessions + the use of mobile food app) and dotted line with circles to the EDU group (education sessions only). p = 0.309 for group × time interaction, p < 0.001 for main effect of time, and p = 0.309 for main effect of group.
Mean nutrition knowledge scores as percentages of correct answers (95% confidence intervals in parenthesis) in the different sections (n = 5) of the questionnaire.
| EDU ( | EDU + APP ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 5 | Week 17 | Week 0 | Week 5 | Week 17 | |||
| Nutrition recommendations for endurance athletes | 75.8 | 82.8 | 80.9 | 75.2 | 83.6 | 83.7 | 0.103 | <0.001 |
| (72.7 to 79.0) | (79.8 to 85.8) | (77.7 to 83.9) | (71.8 to 78.6) | (79.5 to 87.7) | (80.9 to 86.4) | |||
| Dietary supplements | 71.4 | 88.6 | 82.1 | 73.5 | 90.6 | 90.0 | 0.276 | <0.001 |
| (62.3 to 80.5) | (81.5 to 95.7) | (75.1 to 89.2) | (67.6 to 79.4) | (86.5 to 94.7) | (85.2 to 94.8) | |||
| Fluid balance and hydration | 87.2 | 91.8 | 93.4 | 87.8 | 94.5 | 94.1 | 0.689 | <0.001 |
| (82.6 to 91.9) | (89.2 to 94.5) | (90.0 to 96.7) | (84.2 to 91.4) | (91.4 to 97.7) | (90.5 to 97.7) | |||
| Energy intake and recovery | 77.3 | 86.2 | 85.7 | 77.9 | 88.2 | 85.3 | 0.648 | <0.001 |
| (72.6 to 82.0) | (82.4 to 90.0) | (81.8 to 89.6) | (73.3 to 82.6) | (84.2 to 92.2) | (81.4 to 89.2) | |||
| Association between food choices and body image | 83. | 88.1 | 86.9 | 87.9 | 88.6 | 90.8 | 0.345 | 0.142 |
| (77.8 to 88.9) | (83.6 to 92.6) | (83.2 to 90.6) | (84.1 to 91.7) | (84.6 to 92.5) | (87.5 to 94.2) | |||
p > 0.05 for main effect of group.
Energy and macronutrient intakes (95% confidence interval in parenthesis) of athletes.
| EDU ( | EDU + APP ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 17 | Week 0 | Week 17 | |
| Energy intake (kcal·day−1) | 2739 (2404 to 3074) | 2750 (2434 to 3067) | 2931 (2677 to 3184) | 3124 (2842 to 3407) |
| Carbohydrate | ||||
| g·day−1 | 320 (278 to 362) | 327 (287 to 366) | 344 (311 to 378) | 368 (327 to 409) |
| g·kg−1·day−1 | 4.9 (4.4 to 5.5) | 5.0 (4.5 to 5.6) | 5.2 (4.7 to 5.7) | 5.4 (4.9 to 6.0) |
| % of total energy | 47 (44 to 49) | 48 (46 to 50) | 47 (45 to 49) | 47 (45 to 48) |
| Protein | ||||
| g·day−1 | 121 (106 to 135) | 124 (109 to 139) | 135 (121 to 150) | 143 (130 to 156) |
| g·kg−1·day−1 | 1.9 (1.7 to 2.0) | 1.9 (1.7 to 2.1) | 2.0 (1.8 to 2.3) ‡ | 2.1 (1.9 to 2.3) ‡ |
| % of total energy | 18 (17 to 19) | 18 (17 to 19) | 18 (17 to 19) | 19 (18 to 20) |
| Fat | ||||
| g·day−1 | 98 (83 to 114) | 94 (81 to 107) | 102 (93 to 112) | 108 (98 to 118) |
| g·kg-1·day-1 | 1.5 (1.3 to 1.7) | 1.4 (1.3 to 1.6) | 1.5 (1.4 to 1.7) | 1.6 (1.5 to 1.7) |
| % of total energy | 32 (30 to 34) | 31 (29 to 32) | 31 (30 to 33) | 31 (30 to 33) |
‡ p = 0.044 for main effect of actually using the application. Male athletes’ average intakes of energy, carbohydrates, proteins and fats were significantly (p < 0.05) higher compared to female athletes’ corresponding intakes.