Abstract
Collegiate athletes practice year-round and must alter intake to compensate for changes in energy expenditure during high and low-volume training. Although adequate intake is needed to optimize performance, pressures in the sporting environment regarding body image may lead to low energy availability (LEA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine relationships between energy availability (EA) and eating disorder (ED) risk, body composition, and stress in Division I athletes. One hundred current student-athletes, 18-25 years of age, were recruited for the study. Daily energy intake (DI) and exercise energy expenditure (ExEE) were assessed over three days (two weekdays and one weekend day) using accelerometer (ActiGraphGT3X+) and physical activity logs, while DI was recorded using an online dietary recall (ASA24®). Bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition (fat mass, FM; lean body mass, LBM) were assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). EA was calculated using the following equation: (DI - ExEE) kcal/kg of LBM/day and categorized into low (30 kcal/kg of LBM/day), reduced (30-45 kcal/kg of LBM/day), and adequate EA (45 kcal/kg of LBM/day). Descriptive statistics were performed on dependent variables using measures of central tendency, variability, and frequencies. A Chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the interaction between EA category and sex. A Fisher’s exact test was used to determine differences in ED risk by sex. Independent t-tests were used to compare differences in EA, body composition, and stress by sex. Pearson correlations were performed to assess relationships between EA and ED risk, body composition, and stress in male and female athletes. Significance was accepted at p<0.05. Eighty-one participants (M: n=38, age 20.0±1.4 years; F: n=43, age 19.7±1.2 years) completed the study. Demographics were assessed by sex including height (M: 1.8±0.1 m; F: 1.7±0.1 m), weight (M: 94.2±25.3 kg; F: 65.0±10.7 kg), and body mass index (M: 27.5±6.8 kg/m2; F: 22.3±2.7 kg/m2). No differences were observed in EA by sex (p=0.995), however both fell into the reduced category on average (M: 41.1±13.7 kcal/kg of LBM/day; F: 41.1±12.6 kcal/kg of LBM/day). In addition, no significant interaction was found between EA category and sex ((2) =2.286, p=0.319). Males (10.5%) and females (9.3%) had similar occurrence of increased ED risk (=1.000). Differences were observed by sex in FM (M: 20.5±7.7%; F: 26.9±5.2%; p=0.001), LBM (M: 75.7±7.3%; F: 69.4±5.2%; p=0.001), BMD (M: 1.4±0.1 g/cm2; F: 1.2±0.1 g/cm2; p=0.001), and stress (M: 13.7±6.0; F: 16.9±6.2; p=0.021). Among males, there was a negative correlation between EA and FM% (r=-0.336, r2=0.112, p=0.039) and a positive correlation between EA and LBM% (r=0.337, r2=0.114, p=0.038). EA was not significantly correlated with any of the dependent variables in females. In conclusion, although EA did not differ by sex, 68% of males and 58% of females had low or reduced EA (45 kcal/kg of LBM/day), suggesting a greater need for EA assessment. Special attention should be dedicated to identifying, treating, and preventing LEA in college athletes.