Energy expenditure, intake and availability in female soccer players via doubly labelled water: Are we misrepresenting low energy availability?

Abstract

Female soccer players have been identified as presenting with low energy availability (LEA), though the prevalence of LEA may be overestimated given inaccuracies associated with self‐reporting dietary intakes. Accordingly, we aimed to quantify total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) via the doubly labelled water (DLW) method, energy intake (EI) and energy availability (EA). Adolescent female soccer players (n = 45; 16 ± 1 years) completed a 9–10 day ‘training camp’ representing their national team. Absolute and relative TDEE was 2683 ± 324 and 60 ± 7 kcal kg−1 fat free mass (FFM), respectively. Mean daily EI was lower (P < 0.01) when players self‐reported using the remote food photography method (RFPM) (2047 ± 383 kcal day−1) over a 3‐day period versus DLW derived EI estimates accounting for body mass (BM) changes (2545 ± 518 kcal day−1) over 7–8 days, representing a mean daily Δ of 499 ± 526 kcal day−1 and 22% error when using the RFPM. Estimated EA was different (P < 0.01) between methods (DLW: 48 ± 14 kcal kg−1 FFM, range: 22–82; RFPM: 37 ± 8 kcal kg−1 FFM, range: 22–54), such that prevalence of LEA (<30 kcal kg−1 FFM) was lower in DLW compared with RFPM (5% vs. 15%, respectively). Data demonstrate the potential to significantly underestimate EI when using self‐report methods. This approach can therefore cause a misrepresentation and an over‐prevalence of LEA, which is the underlying aetiology of ‘relative energy deficiency in sport’ (REDs).Highlights What is the central question of this study?Do self‐reported dietary intakes (via remote food photography method, RFPM) overestimate low energy availability (LEA) prevalence in female soccer players compared with energy intake evaluation from the doubly labelled water (DLW) method? What is the main finding and its importance?Estimated energy availability is greater with the DLW method compared with RFPM, such that the prevalence of LEA is greater when self‐reporting dietary intakes. Accordingly, data demonstrate the potential to misrepresent the prevalence of LEA, an underlying factor in the aetiology of ‘relative energy deficiency in sport’ (REDs).