Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Katelyn Barnes x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Katelyn Barnes, Lauren Ball and Ben Desbrow

Personal trainers are well placed to provide basic nutrition care in line with national dietary guidelines. However, many personal trainers provide nutrition care beyond their scope of practice and this has been identified as a major industry risk due to a perceived lack of competence in nutrition. This paper explores the context in which personal trainers provide nutrition care, by understanding personal trainers’ perceptions of nutrition care in relation to their role and scope of practice. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 personal trainers working within Australia. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. All personal trainers reported to provide nutrition care and reported that nutrition care was an important component of their role. Despite this, many were unaware or uncertain of the scope of practice for personal trainers. Some personal trainers reported a gap between the nutrition knowledge they received in their formal education, and the knowledge they needed to optimally support their clients to adopt healthy dietary behaviors. Overall, the personal training context is likely to be conducive to providing nutrition care. Despite concerns about competence personal trainers have not modified their nutrition care practices. To ensure personal trainers provide nutrition care in a safe and effective manner, greater enforcement of the scope of practice is required as well as clear nutrition competencies or standards to be developed during training.

Restricted access

Katelyn Barnes, Lauren Ball and Ben Desbrow

Personal trainers are well placed to provide nutrition care in line with their recommended scope of practice. However, providing nutrition care beyond their recommended scope of practice has been identified as an industry risk. The International Confederation of Registers for Exercise Professionals (ICREPs) have international standards for nutrition knowledge and skills that are recommended for all fitness professionals, including personal trainers. This study investigates whether the ICREPs standards align with i) national nutrition education standards and ii) national nutrition occupational standards and scopes of practice for personal trainers within ICREPs affiliated countries. Content analysis of each standard and/or scope of practice was undertaken to extract nutrition statements. Extracted statements were matched with nutrition components of the ICREPs standards to result in a score based on the number of aligned ICREPs knowledge and skills criteria. Ten countries, with 16 organizations, were identified as being involved in the development of national education standards, occupational standards, or scopes of practice for personal trainers. The educational and occupational standards varied widely among countries and had minimal alignment with the ICREPs standards. As such, the expected role of personal trainers in providing nutrition care appeared to differ between countries. Further work is required to support personal trainers to develop a level of knowledge and skills that enables the provision of safe, consistent, and effective nutrition care.

Restricted access

Ben Desbrow, Katelyn Barnes, Caroline Young, Greg R. Cox and Chris Irwin

Immediate postexercise access to fruit/fluid via a recovery “station” is a common feature of mass participation sporting events. Yet little evidence exists examining their impact on subsequent dietary intake. The aim of this study was to determine if access to fruit/water/sports drinks within a recovery station significantly alters dietary and fluid intakes in the immediate postexercise period and influences hydration status the next morning. 127 (79 males) healthy participants (M ± SD, age = 22.5 ± 3.5y, body mass (BM) = 73 ± 13kg) completed two self-paced morning 10km runs separated by 1 week. Immediately following the first run, participants were randomly assigned to enter (or not) the recovery station for 30min. All participants completed the alternate recovery option the following week. Participants recorded BM before and after exercise and measured Urine Specific Gravity (USG) before running and again the following morning. For both trial days, participants also completed 24h food and fluid records via a food diary that included photographs. Paired-sample t tests were used to assess differences in hydration and dietary outcome variables (Recovery vs. No Recovery). No difference in preexercise USG or BM change from exercise were observed between treatments (p’s > .05). Attending the recovery zone resulted in a greater total daily fluid (Recovery = 3.37 ± 1.46L, No Recovery = 3.16 ± 1.32L, p = .009) and fruit intake (Recovery = 2.37 ± 1.76 servings, No Recovery = 1.55 ± 1.61 servings, p > .001), but had no influence on daily total energy (Recovery = 10.15 ± 4.2MJ, No Recovery = 10.15 ± 3.9MJ), or macronutrient intakes (p > .05). Next morning USG values were not different between treatments (Recovery = 1.018 ± 0.007, No Recovery = 1.019 ± 0.009, p > .05). Recovery stations provide an opportunity to modify dietary intake which promote positive lifestyle behaviors in recreational athletes.

Restricted access

Ben Desbrow, Katelyn Barnes, Gregory R. Cox, Elizaveta Iudakhina, Danielle McCartney, Sierra Skepper, Caroline Young and Chris Irwin

This study assessed voluntary dietary intake when different beverages were provided within a recovery area following recreational exercise. Participants completed two 10-km runs 1 week apart. Immediately after the first run, “beer drinkers” (n = 54; mean ± SD: age = 23.9 ± 5.8 years, body mass [BM] = 76 ± 13 kg) randomly received low-alcohol beer (Hahn Ultra® [Lion Co.], 0.9% alcohol by volume) or sports drink (SD; Gatorade® [PepsiCo]), whereas “nonbeer drinkers” (n = 78; age = 21.8 ± 2.2 years, BM = 71 ± 13 kg) received water or SD. Participants remained in a recovery area for 30–60 min with fluid consumption monitored. The following week, participants received the alternate beverage. Participants recorded all food/fluid consumed for the remainder of both trial days (diary and photographs). Fluid balance was assessed via BM change and urine specific gravity. Paired t tests were used to assess differences in hydration and dietary variables. No differences were observed in preexercise urine specific gravity (∼1.01) or BM loss (∼2%) between intervention groups (ps > .05). Water versus SD: No difference in acute fluid intake was noted (water = 751 ± 259 ml, SD = 805 ± 308 ml, p = .157). SD availability influenced total energy and carbohydrate intakes (water = 5.7 ± 2.5 MJ and 151 ± 77 g, SD = 6.5 ± 2.7 MJ and 187 ± 87 g, energy p = .002, carbohydrate p < .001). SD versus beer: SD availability resulted in greater acute fluid intake (SD = 1,047 ± 393 ml, beer = 850 ± 630 ml; p = .004), which remained evident at the end of trial days (SD = 3,337 ± 1,100 ml, beer = 2,982 ± 1,191 ml; p < .01). No differences in dietary variables were observed. Next day, urine specific gravity values were not different between water versus SD. However, a small difference was detected between SD versus beer (SD = 1.021 ± 0.009, beer = 1.016 ± 0.008, p = .002). Consuming calorie-containing drinks postexercise appears to increase daily energy and carbohydrate intake but has minimal impact on next-day hydration.