Search

This review discusses the potential value of tracking interstitial glucose with continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in athletes, highlighting possible applications and important considerations in the collection and interpretation of interstitial glucose data. CGMs are sensors that provide real time, longitudinal tracking of interstitial glucose with a range of commercial monitors currently available. Recent advancements in CGM technology have led to the development of athlete-specific devices targeting glucose monitoring in sport. Although largely untested, the capacity of CGMs to capture the duration, magnitude, and frequency of interstitial glucose fluctuations every 1–15 min may present a unique opportunity to monitor fueling adequacy around competitive events and training sessions, with applications for applied research and sports nutrition practice. Indeed, manufacturers of athlete-specific devices market these products as a “fueling gauge,” enabling athletes to “push their limits longer and get bigger gains.” However, as glucose homeostasis is a complex phenomenon, extensive research is required to ascertain whether systemic glucose availability (estimated by CGM-derived interstitial glucose) has any meaning in relation to the intended purposes in sport. Whether CGMs will provide reliable and accurate information and enhance sports nutrition knowledge and practice is currently untested. Caveats around the use of CGMs include technical issues (dislodging of sensors during periods of surveillance, loss of data due to synchronization issues), practical issues (potential bans on their use in some sporting scenarios, expense), and challenges to the underpinning principles of data interpretation, which highlight the role of sports nutrition professionals to provide context and interpretation.

To characterise the assessment and management practices employed by Sports Dietitians when assessing and managing athletes at risk of low energy availability (LEA).55 Sports Dietitians participated in an online questionnaire that captured the typical methods used to identify and manage LEA in athletic populations.The questionnaire consisted of 27 questions which explored common methods used to identify and manage LEA, as well as dietary methods employed and barriers experienced by Sports Dietitians.Broadly, the top 3 nutrition-related priorities for respondents were nutrition strategies to support training, competition, and recovery while 'LEA' was ranked fifth. 'Dietary intake', 'menstrual function' and 'training load (km/week)' were the primary methods used to assess LEA and respondents were 'confident' in their ability to correctly identify athletes at risk. Among support personnel, coaches were rarely a referral source for management of LEA but did present frequent communication difficulties. Respondents indicated athletes have concerns about undesirable changes in body composition when providing recommendations of increased energy intake for LEA management.Sport Dietitians appear to recognise and prioritise LEA management in athletes, but assessments are limited to dietary intake and training load (km/week); with collaborative approaches to LEA management lacking. Sports Dietitian may be overconfident in their ability to identify LEA as only a limited number of assessment methods are commonly used. Access to reliable assessments methods and collaborative management approaches are needed to improve athlete care when suspected of LEA.