Low Energy Availability Followed by Optimal Energy Availability Does Not Benefit Performance in Trained Females.

PURPOSE: Short periods of reduced energy availability are commonly undertaken by athletes to decrease body mass, possibly improve the power-to-mass ratio, and enhance physical performance. Our primary aim was to investigate the impact of 10 d of low energy availability (LEA) followed by 2 d of optimal energy availability (OEA) on physical performance parameters in trained females. Second, physiological markers at the whole-body and molecular level related to performance were evaluated. METHODS: Thirty young trained eumenorrheic females were matched in pairs based on training history and randomized to a 10-d intervention period of LEA (25 kcal·fat-free mass (FFM) -1 ·d -1 ) or OEA (50 kcal·FFM -1 ·d -1 ) along with supervised exercise training. Before the intervention, participants underwent a 5-d run-in period with OEA + supervised exercise training. After the LEA intervention, 2 d of recovery with OEA was completed. Participants underwent muscle biopsies, blood sampling, physical performance tests, body composition measurements, and resting metabolic rate measurements. A linear mixed model was used with group and time as fixed effects and subject as random effects. RESULTS: Compared with OEA, LEA resulted in reduced body mass, muscle glycogen content, repeated sprint ability, 4-min time-trial performance, and rate of force development of the knee extensors (absolute values; P < 0.05). Two days of recovery restored 4-min time-trial performance and partly restored repeated sprint ability, but performance remained inferior to the OEA group. When the performance data were expressed relative to body mass, LEA did not enhance performance. CONCLUSIONS: Ten days of LEA resulted in impaired performance (absolute values), with concomitant reductions in muscle glycogen. Two days of recovery with OEA partially restored these impairments, although physical performance (absolute values) was still inferior to being in OEA. Our findings do not support the thesis that LEA giving rise to small reductions in body mass improves the power-to-mass ratio and thus increases physical performance.

Direct and indirect impact of low energy availability on sports performance.

Low energy availability (LEA) occurs inadvertently and purposefully in many athletes across numerous sports; and well planned, supervised periods with moderate LEA can improve body composition and power to weight ratio possibly enhancing performance in some sports. LEA however has the potential to have negative effects on a multitude of physiological and psychological systems in female and male athletes. Systems such as the endocrine, cardiovascular, metabolism, reproductive, immune, mental perception, and motivation as well as behaviors can all be impacted by severe (serious and/or prolonged or chronic) LEA. Such widely diverse effects can influence the health status, training adaptation, and performance outcomes of athletes leading to both direct changes (e.g., decreased strength and endurance) as well as indirect changes (e.g., reduced training response, increased risk of injury) in performance. To date, performance implications have not been well examined relative to LEA. Therefore, the intent of this narrative review is to characterize the effects of short-, medium-, and long-term exposure to LEA on direct and indirect sports performance outcomes. In doing so we have focused both on laboratory settings as well as descriptive athletic case-study-type experiential evidence.

Effects of a 16-Week Digital Intervention on Sports Nutrition Knowledge and Behavior in Female Endurance Athletes with Risk of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs).

Female endurance athletes are considered a high-risk group for developing Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs). Due to the lack of educational and behavioral intervention studies, targeting and evaluating the effects of the practical daily management of REDs, we developed the Food and nUtrition for Endurance athletes-a Learning (FUEL) program, consisting of 16 weekly online lectures and individual athlete-centered nutrition counseling every other week. We recruited female endurance athletes from Norway (n = 60), Sweden (n = 84), Ireland (n = 17), and Germany (n = 47). Fifty athletes with symptoms of REDs and with low risk of eating disorders, with no use of hormonal contraceptives and no chronic diseases, were allocated to either the FUEL intervention (n = 32) (FUEL) or a 16-week control period (n = 18) (CON). All but one completed FUEL, while 15 completed CON. We found strong evidence for improvements in sports nutrition knowledge, assessed via interviews, and moderate to strong evidence in the ratings concerning self-perceived sports nutrition knowledge in FUEL versus CON. Analyses of the seven-day prospective weighed food record and questions related to sports nutrition habits, suggested weak evidence for improvements in FUEL versus CON. The FUEL intervention improved sports nutrition knowledge and suggested weak evidence for improved sports nutrition behavior in female endurance athletes with symptoms of REDs.

Screening for Low Energy Availability in Male Athletes: Attempted Validation of LEAM-Q.

A questionnaire-based screening tool for male athletes at risk of low energy availability (LEA) could facilitate both research and clinical practice. The present options rely on proxies for LEA such screening tools for disordered eating, exercise dependence, or those validated in female athlete populations. in which the female-specific sections are excluded. To overcome these limitations and support progress in understanding LEA in males, centres in Australia, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden collaborated to develop a screening tool (LEAM-Q) based on clinical investigations of elite and sub-elite male athletes from multiple countries and ethnicities, and a variety of endurance and weight-sensitive sports. A bank of questions was developed from previously validated questionnaires and expert opinion on various clinical markers of LEA in athletic or eating disorder populations, dizziness, thermoregulation, gastrointestinal symptoms, injury, illness, wellbeing, recovery, sleep and sex drive. The validation process covered reliability, content validity, a multivariate analysis of associations between variable responses and clinical markers, and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of variables, with the inclusion threshold being set at 60% sensitivity. Comparison of the scores of the retained questionnaire variables between subjects classified as cases or controls based on clinical markers of LEA revealed an internal consistency and reliability of 0.71. Scores for sleep and thermoregulation were not associated with any clinical marker and were excluded from any further analysis. Of the remaining variables, dizziness, illness, fatigue, and sex drive had sufficient sensitivity to be retained in the questionnaire, but only low sex drive was able to distinguish between LEA cases and controls and was associated with perturbations in key clinical markers and questionnaire responses. In summary, in this large and international cohort, low sex drive was the most effective self-reported symptom in identifying male athletes requiring further clinical assessment for LEA.

Influence of Immune and Nutritional Biomarkers on Illness Risk During Interval Training.

Intensive training periods may negatively influence immune function, but the immunological consequences of specific high-intensity-training (HIT) prescriptions are not well defined. PURPOSE: To explore whether 3 different HIT prescriptions influence multiple health-related biomarkers and whether biomarker responses to HIT were associated with upper-respiratory-illness (URI) risk. METHODS: Twenty-five male cyclists and triathletes were randomized to 3 HIT groups and completed 12 HIT sessions over 4 wk. Peak oxygen consumption (V˙O2peak) was determined using an incremental cycling protocol, while resting serum biomarkers (cortisol, testosterone, 25[OH]D, and ferritin), salivary immunoglobulin-A (s-IgA), and energy availability (EA) were assessed before and after the training intervention. Participants self-reported upper-respiratory symptoms during the intervention, and episodes of URI were identified retrospectively. RESULTS: Fourteen athletes reported URIs, but there were no differences in incidence, duration, or severity between groups. Increased risk of URI was associated with higher s-IgA secretion rates (odds ratio = 0.90, 90% confidence interval 0.83-0.97). Lower preintervention cortisol and higher EA predicted a 4% increase in URI duration. Participants with higher V˙O2peak reported higher total symptom scores (incidence rate ratio = 1.07, 90% confidence interval 1.01-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple biomarkers were weakly associated with risk of URI, the direction of associations between s-IgA, cortisol, EA, and URI risk were inverse to previous observations and physiological rationale. There was a cluster of URIs in the first week of the training intervention, but no samples were collected at this time point. Future studies should incorporate more-frequent sample time points, especially around the onset of new training regimens, and include athletes with suspected or known nutritional deficiencies.

Impact of Menstrual Function on Hormonal Response to Repeated Bouts of Intense Exercise.

BACKGROUND: Strenous exercise stimulates the hypothalamic-pituitary (HP) axis in order to ensure homeostasis and promote anabolism. Furthermore, exercise stimulates a transient increase in the neurotrophin brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) suggested to mediate the anxiolytic effects of exercise. Athletes with secondary functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA) have been reported to have lower BDNF, and a blunted HP axis response to exercise as athletes with overtraining syndrome. AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the hormonal and BDNF responses to a two-bout maximal exercise protocol with four hours of recovery in between in FHA and eumenorrheic (EUM) athletes. METHODS: Eumenorrheic (n = 16) and FHA (n = 14) endurance athletes were recruited from national teams and competitive clubs. Protocols included gynecological examination; body composition (DXA); 7-day assessment of energy availability; blood sampling pre and post the two exercises tests. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in hormonal responses to the first exercise bout. After the second exercise bout IGFBP-3 increased more in FHA compared with EUM athletes (2.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.6 ± 0.6 µg/L, p = 0.048). There were non-significant trends toward higher increase in IGF-1 (39.3 ± 4.3 vs. 28.0 ± 4.6 µg/L, p = 0.074), BDNF (96.5 ± 22.9 vs. 34.4 ± 23.5 µg/L, p = 0.058), GH to cortisol ratio (0.329 ± 0.010 vs. 0.058 ± 0.010, p = 0.082), and decrease in IGF-1 to IGFBP-3 ratio (-2.04 ± 1.2 vs. 0.92 ± 1.22, p = 0.081) in athletes with FHA compared with EUM athletes. Furthermore, there was a non-significant trend toward a higher increase in prolactin to cortisol ratio in EUM athletes compared with athletes with FHA (0.60 ± 0.15 vs. 0.23 ± 0.15, p = 0.071). No differences in the hormonal or BDNF responses between the two exercise bouts as a result of menstrual function were found. CONCLUSION: No major differences in the hormonal or BDNF responses between the two exercise bouts as a result of menstrual function could be detected.

International Association of Athletics Federations Consensus Statement 2019: Nutrition for Athletics.

The International Association of Athletics Federations recognizes the importance of nutritional practices in optimizing an Athlete's well-being and performance. Although Athletics encompasses a diverse range of track-and-field events with different performance determinants, there are common goals around nutritional support for adaptation to training, optimal performance for key events, and reducing the risk of injury and illness. Periodized guidelines can be provided for the appropriate type, amount, and timing of intake of food and fluids to promote optimal health and performance across different scenarios of training and competition. Some Athletes are at risk of relative energy deficiency in sport arising from a mismatch between energy intake and exercise energy expenditure. Competition nutrition strategies may involve pre-event, within-event, and between-event eating to address requirements for carbohydrate and fluid replacement. Although a "food first" policy should underpin an Athlete's nutrition plan, there may be occasions for the judicious use of medical supplements to address nutrient deficiencies or sports foods that help the athlete to meet nutritional goals when it is impractical to eat food. Evidence-based supplements include caffeine, bicarbonate, beta-alanine, nitrate, and creatine; however, their value is specific to the characteristics of the event. Special considerations are needed for travel, challenging environments (e.g., heat and altitude); special populations (e.g., females, young and masters athletes); and restricted dietary choice (e.g., vegetarian). Ideally, each Athlete should develop a personalized, periodized, and practical nutrition plan via collaboration with their coach and accredited sports nutrition experts, to optimize their performance.

Energy Availability in Athletics: Health, Performance, and Physique.

The reported prevalence of low energy availability (LEA) in female and male track and field athletes is between 18% and 58% with the highest prevalence among athletes in endurance and jump events. In male athletes, LEA may result in reduced testosterone levels and libido along with impaired training capacity. In female track and field athletes, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea as consequence of LEA has been reported among 60% of elite middle- and long-distance athletes and 23% among elite sprinters. Health concerns with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea include impaired bone health, elevated risk for bone stress injury, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, LEA negatively affects recovery, muscle mass, neuromuscular function, and increases the risk of injuries and illness that may affect performance negatively. LEA in track and field athletes may occur due to intentional alterations in body mass or body composition, appetite changes, time constraints, or disordered eating behavior. Long-term LEA causes metabolic and physiological adaptations to prevent further weight loss, and athletes may therefore be weight stable yet have impaired physiological function secondary to LEA. Achieving or maintaining a lower body mass or fat levels through long-term LEA may therefore result in impaired health and performance as proposed in the Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport model. Preventive educational programs and screening to identify athletes with LEA are important for early intervention to prevent long-term secondary health consequences. Treatment for athletes is primarily to increase energy availability and often requires a team approach including a sport physician, sports dietitian, physiologist, and psychologist.

Pitfalls of Conducting and Interpreting Estimates of Energy Availability in Free-Living Athletes.

The human body requires energy for numerous functions including, growth, thermogenesis, reproduction, cellular maintenance, and movement. In sports nutrition, energy availability (EA) is defined as the energy available to support these basic physiological functions and good health once the energy cost of exercise is deducted from energy intake (EI), relative to an athlete's fat-free mass (FFM). Low EA provides a unifying theory to link numerous disorders seen in both female and male athletes, described by the syndrome Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, and related to restricted energy intake, excessive exercise or a combination of both. These outcomes are incurred in different dose-response patterns relative to the reduction in EA below a "healthy" level of ∼45 kcal·kg FFM-1·day-1. Although EA estimates are being used to guide and monitor athletic practices, as well as support a diagnosis of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, problems associated with the measurement and interpretation of EA in the field should be explored. These include the lack of a universal protocol for the calculation of EA, the resources needed to achieve estimates of each of the components of the equation, and the residual errors in these estimates. The lack of a clear definition of the value for EA that is considered "low" reflects problems around its measurement, as well as differences between individuals and individual components of "normal"/"healthy" function. Finally, further investigation of nutrition and exercise behavior including within- and between-day energy spread and dietary characteristics is warranted since it may directly contribute to low EA or its secondary problems.