Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of recommended dietary intake versus actual intake (n = 20)

From: Nutrient Status and perceptions of energy and macronutrient intake in a Group of Collegiate Female Lacrosse Athletes

  Actual Intake* Recommended§ Delta Intake (Actual – Recommended) p value
Total Energy Intake (kcal/d) 2161 ± 392 (1978, 2344) Low 2756 ± 403 (2567, 2945) − 595 ± 605 (− 878, − 312) <0.001
Moderate 3445 ± 504 (3209, 3681) − 1284 ± 685 (− 1604, − 963) <0.001
High 4134 ± 605 (3851, 4417) −1973 ± 771 (− 2333, − 1612) <0.001
Relative Energy Intake (kcal/kg/d) 32.1 ± 7.9 (28.4, 35.6) Low 40  
Moderate 50
High 60
Total CHO Intake (g/d) 236 ± 74 (201, 270) Low 275.6 ± 40.3 (257, 294) − 40.0 ± 83.4 (− 79, − 0.94) 0.05
Moderate 413.4 ± 60.5 (385, 442) − 178 ± 94 (− 222, − 134) <0.001
High 551.2 ± 80.7 (514, 589) − 316 ± 108 (− 366, − 265) <0.001
Relative CHO Intake (g/kg/d) 3.48 ± 1.19 (2.92, 4.03) Low 4.0  
Moderate 6.0
High 8.0
Total PRO Intake (g/d) 78.8 ± 19.6 (69.6, 88.0) Low 96.5 ± 14.1 (90, 103) − 17.7 ± 28.2 (− 31.9, − 4.5) 0.011
Moderate 110.2 ± 16.1 (103, 118) −31.4 ± 29.8 (− 45.4, − 17.5) <0.001
High 124.0 ± 18.1 (116, 133) −45.2 ± 31.4 (−59.9, − 30.5) <0.001
Relative PRO Intake (g/kg/d) 1.18 ± 0.38 (1.00, 1.36) Low 1.4  
Moderate 1.6
High 1.8
Total Fat Intake (g/d) 87.9 ± 22.8 (77.3, 98.6) Low 36.0 ± 6.5 (33.0, 39.1) 51.9 ± 19.7 (42.7, 61.1) <0.001
Moderate 60.0 ± 10.9 (54.9, 65.1) 27.9 ± 18.7 (19.1, 36.6) <0.001
High 84.1 ± 15.2 (76.9, 91.2) 3.9 ± 18.6 (−4.9, 12.6) 0.37
Relative Fat Intake (g/kg/d) 1.31 ± 0.41 (1.11, 1.50) Low 15%  
Moderate 25%
High 35%
  1. §Recommend values are derived through a combination of published review articles [1, 2] and clinical experience. Delta Intake = Actual intake – Recommended intake. All variables exhibited normal distributions using Shapiro-Wilk tests (p > 0.05). Data presented as mean ± SD with the 95% confidence interval presented in parentheses below the mean ± SD. * = As outlined in statistical analysis section, dietary intake values reported in Table 1 and Table 2 are expected to be slightly different due to the removal of three participants who failed to complete all of the required perceived nutrition assessment