Can a contemporary dietary assessment tool or wearable technology accurately assess the energy intake of professional young rugby league players? A doubly labelled water validation study

Dietary Intakes of Elite Male Professional Rugby Union Players in Catered and Non-Catered Environments

In professional rugby union, it is common for players to switch between catered and non-catered dietary environments throughout a season. However, little is known about the difference in dietary intake between these two settings. Twelve elite male professional rugby union players (28.3 ± 2.9 y, 188.9 ± 9.5 cm, 104.1 ± 13.3 kg) from the New Zealand Super Rugby Championship completed seven-day photographic food diaries with two-way communication during two seven-day competition weeks in both catered and non-catered environments. While no significant differences were observed in relative carbohydrate intake, mean seven-day absolute energy intakes (5210 ± 674 vs. 4341 ± 654 kcal·day^-1), relative protein (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3 g·kgBM·day^-1) and relative fat (2.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.5 ± 0.3 g·kgBM·day^-1) intakes were significantly higher in the catered compared to the non-catered environment (respectively) among forwards (n = 6). Backs (n = 6) presented non-significantly higher energy and macronutrient intakes within a catered compared to a non-catered environment. More similar dietary intakes were observed among backs regardless of the catering environment. Forwards may require more support and/or attention when transitioning between catered and non-catered environments to ensure that recommended dietary intakes are being achieved.

Mobile applications for the sport and exercise nutritionist: a narrative review

Mobile technology is widespread in modern society, and the applications (apps) that they run can serve various purposes. Features such as portability, ease of communication, storage, and relative low cost may make such technology attractive to practitioners in several fields. This review provides a critical narrative on the existing literature for apps relevant to the field of sport and exercise nutrition. Three main areas are discussed: (1) dietary analysis of athletes, (2) nutrition education for athletes, (3) estimating body composition. The key purpose of the review was to identify what literature is available, in what areas apps may have a benefit over traditional methods, and considerations that practitioners should make before they implement apps into their practice or recommend their use to coaches and athletes.

Competition Nutrition Practices of Elite Male Professional Rugby Union Players

Thirty-four elite male professional rugby union players from the New Zealand Super Rugby championship completed dietary intakes via the Snap-N-Send method during a seven-day competition week. Mean seven-day absolute energy intake was significantly higher for forwards (4606 ± 719 kcal·day⁻¹) compared to backs (3761 ± 618 kcal·day⁻¹; p < 0.01; d = 1.26). Forwards demonstrated significantly higher mean seven-day absolute macronutrient intakes compared to backs (p < 0.03; d = 0.86–1.58), but no significant differences were observed for mean seven-day relative carbohydrate (3.5 ± 0.8 vs. 3.7 ± 0.7 g·kg·day⁻¹), protein (2.5 ± 0.4 vs. 2.4 ± 0.5 g·kg·day⁻¹), and fat (1.8 ± 0.4 vs. 1.8 ± 0.5 g·kg·day⁻¹) intakes. Both forwards and backs reported their highest energy (5223 ± 864 vs. 4694 ± 784 kcal·day⁻¹) and carbohydrate (4.4 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.0 g·kg·day⁻¹) intakes on game day, with ≈62% of total calories being consumed prior to kick-off. Mean pre-game meal composition for all players was 1.4 ± 0.5 g·kg⁻¹ carbohydrate, 0.8 ± 0.2 g·kg⁻¹ protein, and 0.5 ± 0.2 g·kg⁻¹ fat. Players fell short of daily sports nutrition guidelines for carbohydrate and appeared to “eat to intensity” by increasing or decreasing energy and carbohydrate intake based on the training load. Despite recommendations and continued education, many rugby players select what would be considered a “lower” carbohydrate intake. Although these intakes appear adequate to be a professional RU player, further research is required to determine optimal dietary intakes.

An Assessment of the Validity of the Remote Food Photography Method (Termed Snap-N-Send) in Experienced and Inexperienced Sport Nutritionists

The remote food photography method, often referred to as "Snap-N-Send" by sport nutritionists, has been reported as a valid method to assess energy intake in athletic populations. However, preliminary studies were not conducted in true free-living conditions, and dietary assessment was performed by one researcher only. The authors, therefore, assessed the validity of Snap-N-Send to assess the energy and macronutrient composition in experienced (EXP, n = 23) and inexperienced (INEXP, n = 25) sport nutritionists. The participants analyzed 2 days of dietary photographs, comprising eight meals. Day 1 consisted of "simple" meals based around easily distinguishable foods (i.e., chicken breast and rice), and Day 2 consisted of "complex" meals, containing "hidden" ingredients (i.e., chicken curry). The estimates of dietary intake were analyzed for validity using one-sample t tests and typical error of estimates (TEE). The INEXP and EXP nutritionists underestimated energy intake for the simple day (mean difference [MD] = -1.5 MJ, TEE = 10.1%; -1.2 MJ, TEE = 9.3%, respectively) and the complex day (MD = -1.2 MJ, TEE = 17.8%; MD = -0.6 MJ, 14.3%, respectively). Carbohydrate intake was underestimated by INEXP (MD = -65.5 g/day, TEE = 10.8% and MD = -28.7 g/day, TEE = 24.4%) and EXP (MD = -53.4 g/day, TEE = 10.1% and -19.9 g/day, TEE = 17.5%) for both the simple and complex days, respectively. Interpractitioner reliability was generally "poor" for energy and macronutrients. The data demonstrate that the remote food photography method/Snap-N-Send underestimates energy intake in simple and complex meals, and these errors are evident in the EXP and INEXP sport nutritionists.