ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Nutrition prescription for climbing athletes on rock or artificial surfaces: are we guessing?
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based sports nutrition recommendations for well-researched sports (i.e., running, cycling, soccer) are predominantly developed from accumulated clinical trial research. In this type of research athletes undergo diet manipulation and donate tissues in order to help inform best nutrition practices for performance success. However, these experiments are often expensive and logistically complex, with a small number of participants. Thus, observing common dietary practices of athletes are a common first step before employing clinical trial methods. In the sport of climbing (on rock and/or on artificial surfaces) no clinical trials have examined diet manipulation so evidence-based sports nutrition guidance has not yet been developed. Although, observational studies involving the dietary intake of climbers have started to accumulate. This minireview aimed to critique the methodology shortcomings of the observational dietary studies of climbers. Results unveiled 16 observational studies, most with meager methods to assess the dietary intakes of 658 climbers (43% female; ages 10-42y) with varying climbing disciplines and abilities. The majority of studies employed recall methodology with very few assessing dietary intake with weighed food records. Additionally, total energy expenditure was estimated in all studies with only three specifically measuring resting metabolic/energy rate/expenditure with indirect calorimetry. These findings emphasize the need for future nutrition climbing research to focus on gold standard methodology for dietary assessment and energy expenditure simultaneously during different training phase periods. Based on our findings, we propose recommendations to guide future research and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.