Journal article
International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2023
Bibliographic details
Source record
Stacy T. Sims, Chad M. Kerksick, Abbie E. Smith-Ryan, Xanne A.K. Janse de Jonge, Katie R. Hirsch, Shawn M. Arent, Susan Joyce Hewlings, Susan M. Kleiner, Erik Bustillo, Jaime L. Tartar, Valerie G. Starratt, Richard B. Kreider, Casey Greenwalt, Liliana I. Rentería, Michael J. Ormsbee, Trisha A. VanDusseldorp, Bill I. Campbell, Douglas S. Kalman, Jose Antonio International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete. Informa UK Limited. 20(1). 2204066.
International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete. Stacy T. Sims and colleagues. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2023. DOI: 10.1080/15502783.2023.2204066. PMID: 37221858. https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2023.2204066
Study type: Expert position stand reviewing existing research. Open access; this note is based on the full text.
How should sports nutrition account for female physiology across different life stages? This position stand brings together research on energy intake, carbohydrate, protein, hydration, and supplements. It covers natural menstrual cycles, hormonal contraception, and the transition through menopause. The authors place adequate energy availability first: enough dietary energy must remain after exercise to support the body's other functions. They also propose adjustments to nutrient timing and intake according to hormonal circumstances. These are expert recommendations drawn from a varied literature, rather than results from one trial testing the complete approach.
Hormones can influence how the body uses nutrients, but a measurable metabolic difference does not automatically establish the best eating strategy. The paper combines physiological explanations, intervention findings, and practical judgments. It acknowledges major gaps in female-specific research. Its detailed recommendations therefore should not all be read as equally certain or as proven to improve performance in every group described.
So What Does This Actually Mean for You?
Recovery involves supporting the whole body, not only replacing what a workout used. Training can leave too little energy for normal functions even when someone is focused on hitting a protein target. That makes overall food intake a useful first question before refining meal timing or considering supplements. The paper also explains why “female athlete” is a broad category: menstrual patterns, contraception, and menopause can create different circumstances. Tracking personal patterns may help inform nutrition decisions, but does not turn a cycle calendar into an exact prescription. The authors' proposals for phase-specific changes are best understood as guidance with unresolved questions. For an ordinary reader, their clearest value is showing what needs individual consideration rather than supplying one formula to follow.
Where the Evidence Runs Out
Direct studies of nutrition strategies across menstrual phases, contraceptive formulations, and menopause are sparse. Some recommendations extend from mechanisms or research in other populations. Energy availability is also difficult to measure accurately outside a laboratory. Trials comparing the proposed strategies against meaningful recovery and performance outcomes are still needed.
Why We Cite This Source
This paper broadens recovery discussions beyond a post-workout snack. It helps readers connect adequate food intake with health and training, while identifying female-specific circumstances that deserve attention. We use it as expert guidance, with its research gaps kept visible alongside its recommendations.
The Bottom Line in One Paragraph
The position stand argues for nutrition that accounts for female physiology, with sufficient energy as the foundation. It offers a useful framework, but many specific adjustments still need stronger direct testing. Its recommendations should be interpreted with that difference in certainty in mind.
Read the Original Research: DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2023.2204066 · PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37221858/ · Journal https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15502783.2023.2204066
Where this source appears