A total number of 260 adolescent trainee athletes from different sports department of BKSP participated in this research. All the participants were below 19 years of age. The mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) age of our participant was 15.50 ± 1.83 with a range of 12–19 years. Most of the participants were male (n = 224, 86.2%), while few were female (n = 36, 13.8%). Moreover, according to the religious category, Muslim (n = 233, 89.6%) were predominant followed by Hindu (n = 21, 8.1), Christians (n-5, 1.92%) and Buddhists (n = 1, 0.38%). We did not find any other religions such as tribal group or ethnic people among our participants. Most of the participant were school-going (Secondary school) adolescents (n = 161, 61.9%) followed by the college (Higher Secondary) (n = 98, 37.7%) and degree or university students (n = 1, 0.4%) (Table 1). Since all students were residents at BKSP, we did not ask them about their house of residence or habitats.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of respondents (n = 260)
Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage |
Age (15.50 ± 1.83) years ≤ 15 > 15 | 131 129 | 50.4 49.6 |
Gender Male Female | 233 27 | 89.62 10.38 |
Religion Islam Hindu Buddhist Christian | 233 21 5 1 | 89.62 8.08 1.92 0.38 |
BMI Classification (Cut-off) Underweight (< 18.50) Normal (18.50-24.99) Overweight (≥ 25) Obese (≥ 30) | 53 204 3 0 | 30.4 78.5 1.2 0 |
Educational Level (Current) High school (Secondary) College (Higher Secondary) Degree/ University (Bachelors) | 161 98 1 | 61.9 37.7 0.4 |
Department of Training | | |
Cricket | 42 | 16.2 |
Football | 36 | 13.8 |
Athletics | 37 | 14.2 |
Basketball | 25 | 9.6 |
Volleyball | 20 | 7.7 |
Archery | 27 | 10.4 |
Table Tennis | 21 | 8.1 |
Karate | 10 | 3.8 |
Wushu | 14 | 5.4 |
Taekwondo | 8 | 3.1 |
Hockey | 20 | 7.7 |
BKSP has 17 distinct departments where athletes were being trained according to their capacity and guidance from the coach. In this research, we have collected information from 11 departments following the inclusion criteria using a convenient sampling technique. Most of our participants were from the department of Cricket (n = 42, 16.2%) followed by Athletic (n = 37, 14.2%), Football (n = 36, 13.8%), Archery (n = 27, 10.4%) and so forth. Due to the limitation of time, we could not reach all the departments. The number of participants, according to the departments of sports, are shown in Table 1.
Participants who had their training period in BKSP of 1 or more than 1 year were only included in the study. The mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) of their training was 3.67 ± 2.29 years ranging from 1 to 13 years. Most of our participants were young trainee athletes (Table 2). Majority of our participants had their training period in their corresponding sports department equal to 5 years or less (n = 206, 79.2%). Nearly 21 per cent of respondents received training for more than five years.
Table 2
Nutrition education among survey respondents (n = 260)
| Frequency | Percentage |
Number of nutrition training Once Twice Thrice ≥ 4th time Never | 15 6 6 0 233 | 5.8 2.3 2.3 0 89.6 |
Duration of Training (Years) ≤ 5 > 5 | 206 54 | 79.2 20.8 |
Time since last training was received (n = 27) 1 month ago 3 months ago 6 months ago 1 year ago | 3 10 8 6 | 1.2 3.8 3.1 2.3 |
Source of Information Book Magazine Newspaper Teachers Coach Trainer Doctor Nutritionist Parents Teammates Internet Others No source | 97 5 9 27 78 3 7 13 10 4 6 1 0 | 37.3 1.9 3.5 10.4 30.0 1.2 2.7 5.0 3.8 1.5 2.3 0.4 0 |
Anthropometric Details
The mean ± SD weight of our respondents was 57.31 ± 9.41 kilograms ranging from 25 to 83 kilograms. The mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) height of the participants was 5.47 ± 0.38 feet ranging from 4.10 to 6.50 feet. In this study, the mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) BMI was 20.07 ± 2.05 ranging from 13.80 to 25.70. Most of our participants belong to the healthy category of BMI (n = 204, 78.5%). Around one-third of the participant were underweight (n = 53, 30.4%), however only 3 (1.2%) were overweight and no obese individuals (Table 1). The mean ± SD (Standard Deviation) body fat percentage (%) of all respondents was 9.06 ± 4.59 ranging from 4.10 to 25.
Nutrition Education
Participants were asked if they had any previous training or attended in seminar/workshop on nutrition. Round 9 out of 10 participants replied that they never had any nutritional education or training during their sports training period (n = 233, 89.6%). Only 10 percent replied of positive of having nutritional training before. Participants, who had prior nutrition training, were further asked details about training like them how long ago they had their last training or education in nutrition. Only 27 participants (10.4%) had previous exposure to nutrition training; among them, only ten participants had their training three months ago. Six of them have had their previous nutrition training one year before (Table 2).
Source Of Information On Nutrition
Participants were asked about their most common source of information regarding nutritional knowledge and dietary practices. Nearly forty per cent of respondents replied that they got information about nutrition from the textbooks (n = 97, 37.3%). Thirty per cent of them replied that coaches were the primary source of information (n = 78), followed by teachers (n = 27, 10.4%). Very few of them have mentioned about other reliable sources such as doctors, nutritionists, trainers, health magazines. Details distribution hare shown in Table 2.
Nutrition Knowledge
The mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) nutrition knowledge score for the entire sample was 12.77 ± 2.17 (Fig. 1). The highest score was 18, while the lowest score was 5. The knowledge scores were divided into two categories as good and poor based on the median score of the participants. More than half of the participants had good nutrition knowledge (n = 149, 57.3%) whereas nearly forty-three percent of respondents had reduced knowledge level on nutrition (n = 111, 42.7%).
Age had a significant relationship with nutrition knowledge score (Table 3). Participants, more than 15 years of age, had better level of knowledge than their juniors (p = 0.007). Their mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) knowledge score was 13.13 ± 2.13, which was higher than the other age group (< 15 years) (Table 3). Boys had significantly better nutrition knowledge than girls (p = 0.004 with an average knowledge score of 12.92 ± 2.12 (Table 3). The educational level of the participants did not show any significant influence on their nutritional knowledge. Participants who were studying in schools has a similar level of mean knowledge score with those who are studying in college (p = 0.619). There was also a significant relationship between knowledge score, and the department of training (p = 0.003). Cricket, Football, and Wushu trainee adolescents had a relatively higher level of knowledge on nutrition than the other group of participants.
Table 3
Bivariate Analysis of Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (n = 260)
Variables | Knowledge | Attitude | Practices |
mean ± SD | P value | mean ± SD | P value | mean ± SD | P value |
Age group ≤ 15 > 15 | 12.40 ± 2.16 13.13 ± 2.13 | 0.007* | 37.81 ± 3.18 38.19 ± 3.45 | 0.361 | 11.11 ± 1.81 10.43 ± 1.77 | 0.003* |
Gender Male Female | 12.92 ± 2.12 11.81 ± 2.35 | 0.004* | 38.11 ± 3.35 37.33 ± 3.08 | 0.193 | 10.82 ± 1.85 10.41 ± 1.61 | 0.206 |
Educational Level High school (Secondary) College (Higher Secondary) Degree/ University | 12.71 ± 2.24 12.87 ± 2.08 11.00 ± 0.00 | 0.619 | 37.81 ± 3.36 38.31 ± 3.25 38.00 ± 0.00 | 0.500 | 10.86 ± 1.88 10.61 ± 1.71 11.00 ± 0.00 | 0.541 |
Department of Training Archery Athletics Basketball Cricket Football Hockey Karate Table Tennis Taekwondo Volleyball Wushu | 11.9 ± 1.80 12.4 ± 2.67 12.0 ± 1.86 13.5 ± 1.98 13.0 ± 1.80 12.9 ± 1.83 12.6 ± 2.32 12.8 ± 2.14 12.9 ± 1.46 12.2 ± 2.80 14.6 ± 1.70 | 0.0034 | 38.2 ± 3.47 38.5 ± 3.54 37.8 ± 2.68 37.5 ± 3.07 37.8 ± 3.62 38.1 ± 4.46 37.3 ± 3.27 38.0 ± 3.02 37.4 ± 2.00 38.9 ± 1.86 38.3 ± 4.61 | 0.929 | 10.7 ± 1.54 10.7 ± 1.81 11.0 ± 2.17 10.6 ± 1.87 11.1 ± 1.81 11.0 ± 1.17 9.6 ± 1.35 11.2 ± 1.81 10.8 ± 1.91 11.0 ± 2.00 9.79 ± 2.04 | 0.256 |
Body Fat (%) (9.055 ± 4.59) Male (8.99 ± 4.54) Better (7.62 ± 2.58) Good (16.78 ± 1.95) Overweight (22.39 ± 1.49) Female (9.53 ± 5.16) Acceptable (23.4 ± --) Better (8.041 ± 2.96) Good (20.5 ± 2.12) | 12.97 ± 2.09 11.84 ± 2.95 12.8 ± 1.93 13 ± -- 11.83 ± 1.99 11.5 ± 0.707 | 0.4352 0.2419 | 38.21 ± 3.29 36.31 ± 2.16 39.8 ± 3.88 40 ± -- 36.95 ± 3.55 35.5 ± 3.53 | 0.060 0.568 | 10.91 ± 1.81 10.36 ± 1.42 10 ± 1.49 10 ± -- 10.42 ± 2.18 8.5 ± 0.71 | 0.059 0.3706 |
BMI Underweight Normal Overweight | 12.81 ± 1.95 12.72 ± 2.22 15.33 ± 2.08 | 0.116 | 37.54 ± 3.22 38.12 ± 3.34 38.00 ± 3.60 | 0.534 | 11.50 ± 1.50 10.58 ± 1.85 10.33 ± 1.33 | 0.004* |
Duration of Training ≤ 5 years > 5 years | 12.63 ± 2.22 13.29 ± 1.91 | 0.004* | 38.30 ± 3.14 37.62 ± 3.24 | 0.353 | 10.84 ± 1.85 10.48 ± 1.69 | 0.186 |
Nutrition Training Once Twice Thrice or more Never | 13.26 ± 2.08 13.33 ± 1.05 13.67 ± 6.07 12.69 ± 2.19 | 0.481 | 39.26 ± 3.95 38.16 ± 1.72 39.83 ± 2.71 37.87 ± 3.30 | 0.481 | 10.26 ± 1.44 11.33 ± 2.06 10.66 ± 1.63 10.79 ± 1.84 | 0.620 |
*= Significant, P value < 0.05 | | |
BMI of our participant was not significantly corelated with their nutrition knowledge (p = 0.116) (Table 3). Nutrition knowledge score was not significantly different among participants with different level of different body fat percentage and this level of insignificant was also true for both male and female athletes as well (Table 3) (0.4352 and p = 0.2419). Duration of training received by participant had a significant relationship with the nutrition knowledge score (p = 0.044). Participants with more than five years of training had a higher level of knowledge in nutrition than the participant who had less than or equal to 5 years of training. Whereas, previous training on nutrition did not have any significant influence on the nutrition knowledge of our respondents (p = 0.481) (Table 3).
Attitude Towards Nutrition
The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements concerning attitudes toward nutrition; the highest possible score was 55 while the lowest possible score was 11. The mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) score for attitude towards nutrition for the entire sample was 38.00 ± 3.32. The highest score was 46, whereas the lowest score was 28. The attitude score was also divided into two categories, such as positive and negative, based on the median value (Fig. 1). Less than half of our participants had a positive attitude towards nutrition (n = 114, 43.8%), while fifty-six per cent of participants had a negative attitude towards nutrition (n = 146) (Fig. 1).
Unlike knowledge score, attitude score was not significantly different among participants of different age group (p = 0.361, Table 3). Though participants more than 15 years of age had a better level of attitude score than their juniors. Moreover, boys had a better attitude towards nutrition than girls, but the finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.193). The educational level of the participants did not have any influence on their attitude towards nutrition. A participant who is studying in college had a higher level of mean attitude score than those who are studying in schools, but the relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.500). There was no significant relationship between attitude score and department of training (p = 0.929). BMI of our participant also did not show any significant relationship with their attitude towards nutrition (p = 0.534). Body fat percentage (BF %) and attitude score also follow the similar insignificant relationship (p = 0.902). Moreover, the duration of training received by participants and attitude scores shown to have insignificant relation (p = 0.353). Previous training on nutrition did not have any significant influence on attitude towards nutrition of our respondents (p = 0.225) (Table 3).
Nutrition Practices
The maximum practice score was 15, while the minimum was 6, and the practice score was calculated based on 15 statements on nutrition practice. The mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) of practice score was 10.77 ± 1.82. Practice score was also divided into two categories, such as good or poor and this categorization was also done based on the median score. More than half of the athletes had good level of practices (n = 150, 57.7%) while 42.3% (n = 110) had the practice score level poor (Fig. 1).
Age had a significant relationship with nutrition practice score of our participants. Participants, less than 15 years of age, had a better level of practices than their seniors which was significant statistically (p = 0.003). In this research, we did not find any significant difference in nutrition practices between male and female participants (p = 0.206). The educational level of the participants did not have any influence on their practices of nutrition (p = 0.541). Moreover, there was no significant relationship between practice score and department of training (p = 0.256). BMI of our participant had a significant relationship with their practices of nutrition (p = 0.004). We didn’t find any significant correlation between body fat percentage (BF %) and practice score of the participants ((p = 0.059 for male and p = 0.3706 for female). We did not find any significant relationship between duration of training received by participants with the nutrition practice score (p = 0.186). Previous training on nutrition also did not have any significant influence on practice towards nutrition among our respondents (p = 0.620). Table 4 summarizes the detail.
Table 4: Unadjusted and Adjusted Odd Ratio of the association of different variables
with knowledge, attitude and practice score.
| Knowledge Score (Good vs Poor) | Attitude Score (Positive vs Negative) | Practice Score (Good vs Poor) |
Factors | Unadjusted OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI) | Unadjusted OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI) | Unadjusted OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI) |
Gender Female (Ref) Male | 1 2.11(0.94–4.75) | 1 2.037 (0.847–4.901) | 1 1.51(0.68–3.36) | 1 1.676 (0.715–3.929) | 1 2.56 (1.12–5.83)* | 1 2.91 (1.149–7.373) * |
Age ≥ 15 vs < 15 | 1.78(1.08–2.92)* | 1.119 (0.594–2.106) | 1.12(0.69–1.86) | 0.996 (0.529–1.875) | 0.59 (0.36–0.96) | 0.609 (0.316–1.175) |
Weight (kg) | 1.02(0.99–1.05) | 1.59 (1.14–2.207)* | 1.02 (0.99–1.05) | 0.962 (0.733–1.262) | 0.98 (0.95-1.0) | 1.021 (0.75–1.391) |
Height (Inch) | 0.99(0.93–1.05) | 0.489(0.291–0.822)* | 1.05 (0.99–1.12) | 1.131 (0.735–1.742) | 0.97 (0.92–1.03) | 0.887 (0.536–1.466) |
BMI | 1.12(1.0-1.24)* | 0.31 (0.126–0.766)* | 1.02 (0.92–1.14) | 1.129 (0.529–2.411) | 0.92 (0.82–1.02) | 0.926 (0.386–2.225) |
Body Fat (%) | 0.97(0.92–1.03) | 0.967 (0.904–1.035) | 1.01 (0.95–1.06) | 1.019 (0.953–1.089) | 0.9 (0.85–0.95)* | 0.895 (0.83–0.96) * |
Dept. of Training Cricket (Ref) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Football | 0.79 (0.31,1.99) | 0.63 (0.23–1.727) | 0.76 (0.31–1.87) | 0.778 (0.302–2.006) | 2.36 (0.92–6.1) | 1.694(0.602–4.7679) |
Wushu | 3.0 (0.59,15.29) | 2.21 (0.405–12.058) | 1.22 (0.35–4.29) | 1.12 (0.304–4.117) | 0.91 (0.27–3.05) | 1.051 (0.291–3.796) |
Hockey | 0.75 (0.25,2.26) | 0.508 (0.154–1.674) | 1.02 (0.34–3.02) | 0.939 (0.302–2.921) | 2.12 (0.68–6.58) | 2.045 (0.601–6.961) |
Archery | 0.46 (0.17,1.25) | 0.571 (0.2 -1.634) | 0.99 (0.37–2.65) | 1.058 (0.382–2.929) | 0.979 (0.372–2.5768) | 1.003 (0.349–2.883) |
Athletics | 0.59 (0.24,1.46) | 0.61 (0.231–1.611) | 0.89 (0.36–2.19) | 0.843 (0.332–2.14) | 1.07 (0.44–2.59) | 1.17 (0.445–3.075) |
Basketball | 0.39 (0.14,1.09) | 0.18 (0.045–0.71) * | 0.87 (0.32–2.36) | 0.617 (0.176–2.1681) | 1.16 (0.43–3.13) | 1.171 (0.324–4.238) |
Karate | 0.5 (0.12,2.02) | 0.471 (0.11–2.016) | 0.45 (0.11–1.85) | 0.457 (0.109–1.92) | 0.23 (0.04–1.2) | 0.278 (0.049–1.588) |
Table Tennis | 0.67 (0.23,1.96) | 0.503 (0.154–1.648) | 1.1 (0.38–3.24) | 1.55 (0.475–5.055) | 1.48 (0.51–4.3) | 1.498 (0.448–5.01) |
Taekwondo | 0.5 (0.11,2.3) | 0.501 (0.105–2.393) | 0.1 (0.01–0.86)* | 0.095 (0.011–0.856)* | 1.52 (0.32–7.17) | 1.057 (0.213–5.241) |
Volleyball | 0.5 (0.17,1.48) | 0.311 (0.085–1.142) | 2.04 (0.62–6.67) | 1.563 (0.419–5.83) | 1.69 (0.56–5.07) | 1.88 (0.52–6.7) |
*= Significant, P value < 0.05 | | | | | |
Determinants Of Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude And Practice
The determinants of nutrition knowledge, attitude and practice score of athletes are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Bivariate analysis shows that knowledge score was significantly different between athletes categorized according to age, gender and duration of training (Table 3). Whereas, none of the category of athletes show significant difference of attitude score and practice score was only shown to have significant difference between/among athletes categorize according to age and BMI.
Multivariate logistic regression shows significant effect of age, weight, height, BMI and dept. of training on knowledge score. Athletes ≥ 15 years of age had greater chances of having good nutrition knowledge score (UAOR 1.119; 95% CI 1.08, 2.92; p < 0.05) compared to athletes < 15 years of age. However, after adjusting other variables, effect of age category became insignificant (p > 0.05). One kg increase in weight leads to 1.59-fold increase of odd of having good nutrition knowledge score (AOR 1.59; 95% CI 1.14, 2.207; p < 0.05). Unlike weight, every inch increase in height decreases the chance of having good knowledge score (AOR 0.489; 95% CI 0.291, 0.822; p < 0.05). Increase in BMI also follow the same decreasing chance of having good knowledge score (AOR 0.31; 95% CI 0.126, 0.766; p < 0.05). Athletes from the dept. of Karate shown to have around half of the odd of having good knowledge score (AOR 0.18; 95% CI 0.045, 0.071; p < 0.05) compared to athletes from the dept. of cricket.
None of the variables shown to have significant impact on the attitude score. Whereas, when practicing good nutrition habit, male was shown have around 3 times more odd of good practice score compared to the female counterpart (AOR 2.91; 95% CI 1.149, 7.373; p < 0.05). Athletes with more body fat was more likely to have less practice score (AOR 0.895; 95% CI 0.83, 0.96; p < 0.05). As the body fat percentages of athletes decreases the predicted probability of having good practice score also increases and both male and female athletes follow this trend,
The relationship between Knowledge and Attitude Score with Practices Score
The logistic regression model was developed to predict, how knowledge and attitude score increase or decrease the chance of having good practice score and shown in the Fig. 4. Athletes, those having good knowledge score were more than 2 times likely to have good practice score (AOR 2.335; 95% CI 1.405, 3.88; p = 0.001). Predicted probability of good practice score of athletes also increases as the knowledge score increases and this trend was true for both male and female athletes (Fig. 3). Attitude score didn’t show any positive of negative impact on practice score.