Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview of all studies included in the review

From: Weight-control behaviour and weight-concerns in young elite athletes – a systematic review

Author

Age in years(mean, SD)

Gender

Sample size total

Sample size athletes

Sample size controls

Sports type

Competition level

Controls

Outcome

Instruments

Results

Anderson et al., 2011 [18]

19.14 +/− 1.86

females only

414

414

0

gymnastics, swimming/ diving

NCAA Division-I

n/a

WC, WCB

Body Parts Satisfaction Scale, Dietary Intent Scale

No significant difference between athletes competing in leanness and non-leanness sports.

Arroyo et al., 2008 [30]

19.6 +/− 1.3

males only

56

28

28

soccer

Professional soccer team

age- and BMI-matched students; engagement in recreational sports <3hrs/week

WC

Somatomorphic matrix test

No significant difference between athletes and controls

Artioli et al., 2010 [4]

19.3 +/− 5.3 not specified according to gender

607 male, 215 female

822

822

0

judo

national and international

n/a

WCB

Rapid Weight Loss Questionnaire

Athletes were engaged in several forms of pathogenic weight control behaviour. No gender differences could be found. An earlier start of using weight-control methods leads to more aggressive variants.

Ferrand et al., 2005 [32]

athletes: 15.4 +/− 1.2 (swimmers) and 16.5 +/− 0.93 (rest) controls: 16.3 +/− 1.1

not specified; only the swimmers included males

132

82

50

synchron. swimming, non-leanness sports (basketball, handball, soccer, volleyball)

national

non-athlete college students; no further elaboration about their sports activities

WC, WCB

Canadian-French version of Body-Esteem Scale, French version of Eating Attitudes Test

Athletes showed more weight concerns but not more weight-control behaviour than controls. No significant difference between athletes competing in leanness and non-leanness sports.

Galli et al., 2009 [47]

23 +/− 0.68

males only

10

10

0

baseball, diving, football, golf, lacrosse, skiing, swimming

national and international

n/a

WC, WCB

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews

Athletes did show some weight concerns.

Greenleaf et al., 2009 [19]

20.16 +/− 1.31

females only

204

204

0

basketball, cheerleading cross-country, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, rowing, skiing, soccer, softb., swimming, synchron. swimming, tennis, track&field, volleyball

NCAA Division-I

n/a

WCB

Adapted version of Questionnaire of Eating Disorder Diagnosis, Bulimia Test-Revised

No significant difference between athletes competing in leanness and non-leanness sports.

Johnson et al., 1999 [44]

19.9 20.1 (male), 19.6 (female); no SD given

883 male, 562 female

1445

1445

0

basketball, tennis, cross-country, football, gymnastics, nordic skiing, swimming, volleyball, wrestling

NCAA Division-I

n/a

WC, WCB

Self-created questionnaire including subscales from EDI-2, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Body Cathexis Scale

No significant difference between athletes competing in leanness and non-leanness sports. Female athletes have more pathogenic weight concerns and weight-control behaviour than male ones.

Marshall et al., 1996 [31]

20.8 +/− 3.8 (juniors 17.1 +/−0.9 and seniors 22.5 +/− 3.2)

not specified

111

111

0

field hockey

national and international

n/a

WC, WCB

EDI

Athletes did show weight concerns. No difference in pathogenic weight concerns and weight-control behaviour in connection with age.

Martinsen et al., 2010 [13]

15-16 (range) no mean given not specified according to gender

athletes: 389 male, 217 female controls: 197 male, 158 female

961

606

355

50 different sports types, classified into leanness and non-leanness sports

students at elite sport schools, no further elaboration of competition level

age-matched 1st year high school students; no further elaboration about their sports activities

WC, WCB

EDI-2

Controls used pathogenic weight-control behaviour significantly more often than athletes. Different reasons for weight control. No significant difference between athletes competing in leanness and non-leanness sports. Female athletes have more pathogenic weight concerns and weight-control behaviour than male

Parks and Read, 1997 [42]

14-18 (range) no mean given

males only

74

74

0

cross-country running, football

national

n/a

WC, WCB

Body Esteem Scale, Body Size Drawings, Eating Attitudes Test, Reason for Exercising Inventory

Athletes competing in leanness sports showed more pathogenic weight concerns and weight-control behaviour than athletes competing in non-leanness sports.

Pietrowsky and Straub, 2008 [41]

rowers: 22.00 +/− 2.00 (heavyweight) and 22.06 +/− 2.89 (lightweight) handball: 28.25 +/− 3.91

males only

164

132

32

rowing

national and international

non-athletes; engagement in recreational sports less than once a month; handball players from national team

WC, WCB

Silhouettes similar to the Body Image Assessment, Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire

Controls and athletes lightweight rowers had a more weight concerns if hungry, whereas heavyweight rowers and handball players showed more weight concerns in satiety. All athletes showed weight-control behaviour.

non-athletes: 25.56 +/−4.47 (restraint eating group) and 28.00 +/− 4.29 (unrestraint eating group)

Reinking and Alexander, 2005 [33]

athletes: 19.7 +/− 1.1

females only

146

84

62

swimming, cross-country, basketball, volleyball, soccer, softball, field hockey

NCAA Division-I

undergraduate students; no further elaboration about their sports activities other than “not athletes in collegiate sports”

WC, WCB

EDI-2

Controls showed more weight concerns and weight-control behaviour than athletes. Athletes competing in leanness sports showed more pathogenic weight concerns and weight-control behaviour.

controls: 20.2 +/− 1.2

Rosendahl et al., 2009 [34]

14-18 (range) no mean given

athletes: 366 male, 210 female controls: 122 male, 169 female

867

576

291

26 different sports: technical, endurance, aesthetic, weight class, ball game, power, antigrav. sports

national and international

students from non-Elite Sports Schools; no further elaboration about their sports activities

WC, WCB

Eating Attitude Test, Silhouettes

Controls more often showed a history of weight-control behaviour than athletes, only significant in females. Athletes competing in leanness sports scored higher for weight control than athletes competing in non-leanness sports. Gender differences in intention.

not specified according to gender

Rouveix et al., 2007 [35]

athletes: 16.5 +/− 0.5 (male) and 17.2 +/− 1.1 (female) controls: 21.8 +/− 1.8 (male) and 20.2 +/− 3.0 (female)

athletes: 12 male, 12 female

55

24

31

judo

national

random sample with participants not training more than 3hrs/week

WC, WCB

Self-administered questionnaire, French version of Eating Attitudes Test, Body Esteem Scale

No significant difference between athletes and controls concerning weight concerns. Significant difference in weight-control behaviour. There was a gender difference in used methods and ideal body.

Thiel et al., 1993 [45]

21.1 +/− 2.4

males only

84

84

0

rowing, wrestling

national

n/a

WC, WCB

Self-created questionnaire, EDI-2

Athletes did not show pathogenic weight-control behaviour.

  1. WC = weight concerns, WCB = weight-control behaviour.