Carbohydrate for endurance athletes in competition questionnaire (CEAC-Q): validation of a practical and time-efficient tool for knowledge assessment

Purpose Despite unequivocal evidence demonstrating high carbohydrate (CHO) availability improves endurance performance, athletes often report under-eating CHO during competition. Such findings may be related to a lack of knowledge though currently there are no practical or time-efficient tools to as...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sport sciences for health 2022-03, Vol.18 (1), p.235-247
Main Authors: Sampson, G., Pugh, J. N., Morton, J. P., Areta, J. L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Carbohydrates
Dietitians
Human Physiology
Hypoglycemia
Knowledge
Liver
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Metabolic Diseases
Metabolism
Nutrition research
Original Article
Questionnaires
Sports Medicine
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Despite unequivocal evidence demonstrating high carbohydrate (CHO) availability improves endurance performance, athletes often report under-eating CHO during competition. Such findings may be related to a lack of knowledge though currently there are no practical or time-efficient tools to assess CHO knowledge in athletes. Accordingly, we aimed to validate a novel questionnaire to rapidly assess endurance athletes’ knowledge of competition CHO guidelines. Methods The Carbohydrate for Endurance Athletes in Competition Questionnaire (CEAC-Q) was created by research-active practitioners, based on contemporary guidelines. The CEAC-Q comprised 25 questions divided into 5 subsections (assessing CHO metabolism, CHO loading, pre-event meal, during-competition CHO and recovery) each worth 20 points for a total possible score of 100. Results A between-group analysis of variance compared scores in three different population groups to assess construct validity: general population (GenP; n  = 68), endurance athletes (EA; n  = 145), and sports dietitians/nutritionists (SDN; n  = 60). Total scores were different (mean ± SD) in all pairwise comparisons of GenP (17 ± 20%), EA (46 ± 19%) and SDN (76 ± 10%, p  
ISSN:1824-7490
1825-1234
DOI:10.1007/s11332-021-00799-8