Weight Loss Practices of College Wrestlers · weight loss methods such as saunas and rubber/plastic...

Weight Loss and Wrestlers / 29

R.A. Oppliger is with Iowa Wrestling Research, 1903 Grantwood St., Iowa City, IA52240. S.A. Nelson Steen is with Husky Sports Nutrition, Department of IntercollegiateAthletics at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105. J.R. Scott is with theMovement Science Department at Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, 49401.

29

Weight Loss Practices of College Wrestlers

Robert A. Oppliger, Suzanne A. Nelson Steen,and James R. Scott

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the weight manage-ment (WM) behaviors of collegiate wrestlers after the implementation of theNCAA’s new weight control rules. Methods: In the fall of 1999, a survey wasdistributed to 47 college wrestling teams stratified by collegiate division (i.e., I,II, III) and competitive quality. Forty-three teams returned surveys for a total of741 responses. Comparisons were made using the collegiate division, weightclass, and the wrestler’s competitive winning percentage. Results: The mostweight lost during the season was 5.3 kg ± 2.8 kg (mean ± SD) or 6.9% ± 4.7% ofthe wrestler’s weight; weekly weight lost averaged 2.9 kg ± 1.3 kg or 4.3% ±2.3% of the wrestler’s weight; post-season, the average wrestler regained 5.5 kg± 3.6 kg or 8.6% ± 5.4% of their weight. Coaches and fellow wrestlers were theprimary influence on weight loss methods; however, 40.2% indicated that thenew NCAA rules deterred extreme weight loss behaviors. The primary meth-ods of weight loss reported were gradual dieting (79.4%) and increased exercise(75.2%). However, 54.8% fasted, 27.6% used saunas, and 26.7% used rubber/plastic suits at least once a month. Cathartics and vomiting were seldom used tolose weight, and only 5 met three or more of the criteria for bulimia nervosa.WM behaviors were more extreme among freshmen, lighter weight classes,and Division II wrestlers. Compared to previous surveys of high school wres-tlers, this cohort of wrestlers reported more extreme WM behaviors. However,compared to college wrestlers in the 1980s, weight loss behaviors were lessextreme. Conclusions: The WM practices of college wrestlers appeared to haveimproved compared to wrestlers sampled previously. Forty percent of the wres-tlers were influenced by the new NCAA rules and curbed their weight losspractices. Education is still needed, as some wrestlers are still engaging indangerous WM methods.

Key Words: weight cutting, making weight

In 1967, a banner headline on the front page of the Des Moines, Iowa Registernewspaper proclaimed “Heath Peril in Wrestling” (6). The “health peril” referred tothe practice of losing weight for competition, “cutting weight.” Since 1970, several

International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2003, 13, 29-46© 2003 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

30 / Oppliger, Nelson Steen, and Scott

surveys (8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15) have been conducted to document weight management(WM) patterns among high school and college wrestlers. A position statement bythe American Medical Association (3) and two by the American College of SportsMedicine (2, 10) have advocated against these unhealthy weight loss practices.

Four surveys (8, 11, 14, 15) of high school wrestlers, conducted over a periodof 30 years, documented similar patterns in weight cutting. For example, threesurveys (11, 14, 15) found that wrestlers typically lose 3.2 kg to 3.3 kg at thebeginning of the season to make their initial weight class and regain 5 kg to 6 kg postseason. In two studies (11, 14), weight lost weekly prior to competition, and re-gained after the competition, averaged 1.6 kg to 1.9 kg. All four studies (8, 11, 14,15) reported that 13–38% of the wrestlers restricted food and fluid three times perweek or more. In these same surveys, wrestlers used saunas (3–5%) and rubber/plastic sweat suits (9–20%). Bulimic behaviors were present in 9% of the highschool wrestlers (11).

Only limited data exists that documents WM behaviors among collegiatewrestlers. Not surprisingly, Steen and Brownell (14) reported that weight-cuttingbehaviors were more extreme among collegiate wrestlers than high school wres-tlers. For example, the most weight lost (MWL) during the season averaged 7.2 kgamong college wrestlers versus 5.4 kg among the high school wrestlers. Averagepost-season weight gain (PSG) was 7.6 kg for the college wrestlers versus 5.2 kg forhigh school wrestlers. The Steen and Brownell survey reported that the use of someweight loss methods such as saunas and rubber/plastic suits were more prevalentamong collegiate wrestlers, but fasting and fluid restriction were of similar fre-quency among college and high school wrestlers.

In the fall of 1997, three collegiate wrestlers died trying to cut weight forcompetition ( 5). As a result of the three deaths, the NCAA made significant changesin collegiate wrestling rules and instituted new rules designed to curb excessiveweight cutting (16). In brief, the rule changes: (a) added 6 lbs. to each of the 10weight classes (e.g., 119 lbs. became 125 lbs.), (b) weigh-ins were moved closer tothe start of competition, and (c) body fat was assessed at the beginning of the season,a minimum competitive weight determined, and the wrestlers given until earlyDecember to reach his competitive weight. These new rules were fully implementedat the beginning of the 1998–1999 season.

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the WM behaviors ofa stratified random sample of collegiate wrestlers after the implementation of theNCAA’s new weight control rules. The current investigation provides a referencefor WM patterns among college wrestlers since the rule changes were adopted.These data can be compared to the limited number of previous studies that evaluatedchanges in WM behaviors and to future surveys after the new rules have been inplace for several years.

Methods

Sample

In the fall of 1999, 243 colleges sponsored wrestling programs, including 94 atDivision I (D1), 43 at Division II (D2), and 106 at Division III (D3). The primarycriteria used to select participants for the survey was a random sample of teams from


each division. We also sampled a range of programs in terms of winning success.Approximately 60% of the schools selected had not scored points at the 1999 Divi-sional Championships, and approximately 25% were not among the top 15 teams inpoints scored. The remaining 15% of the teams invited to participate in the surveywere among the top 15 teams in points scored at the national championship meet.

The target sample size was 52 schools. A total of 55 programs were randomlyselected and invited to participate in the survey. Forty-seven agreed to participatefor a recruitment rate of 85%, and 43 returned surveys for a response rate of 91%. Thefour schools not returning surveys included two D1 and one each from D2 and D3.

The surveys were distributed by the team trainers and voluntarily completedanonymously by team members. The coach did not participate in the disseminationof surveys. Because wrestlers were instructed to think about the previous season(i.e., 1998–1999), surveys from freshmen reflect their experiences as high schoolseniors. Heavyweight wrestlers were excluded from the analysis because they rarelycut weight for competition. The response rate by team ranged from 6 wrestlers to 39wrestlers and averaged 19.4 responses per team. Response rates were higher amongD3 schools (21.4 ± 8.6).

The survey (see the appendix) received approval from the NCAA Committeeon Competitive Safe Guards and Medical Aspects of Sports. Team trainers receiveda copy of the survey at the time they were invited to participate in the investigation.Because participating schools and wrestlers returned the survey, it was assumed thatthey approved of the research project.

Survey Tool

The survey tool evaluated four areas including:

a. demographic information,b. competitive performance and the extent of weight loss,c. weight loss methods and sources of information on weight cutting, andd. assessment of eating behaviors related to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

of Mental Disorders (4) criteria for bulimia nervosa (BN).

The current survey items were adapted from previous survey instrumentsdeveloped by Lakin, Steen, and Oppliger (9), Steen and Brownell (14), and Hawkinsand Clements (7). Efforts have been made to determine the reliability and contentvalidity of the survey. Test-retest reliability coefficients reported by Steen andBrownell (14) ranged from 0.94–1.0 for demographic and competitive performanceinformation, 0.74–0.99 for weight change items, 0.77–1.0 for weight loss methods,and 0.65–0.85 for assessment of eating behaviors. Hawkins and Clements (7) re-ported test-retest reliability of .88 for items on binging.

Because the survey had been used previously, we were confident in its valid-ity; however, using guidelines from the American Educational Research Associa-tion Standards (1), evidence for content validation of the survey included reviews bymembers of the NCAA’s Committee on Competitive Safe Guards and MedicalAspects of Sports, the chair of the USA Wrestling Research and Education Commit-tee, and several trainers and college wrestling coaches. With few modifications, thereviewers accepted the survey as a valid method for evaluating weight loss methodsamong this population.


Some terms used in the tables and text deserve special explanation. Cutting ormaking weight refers to the process of losing weight to qualify for a weight classbelow the wrestler’s natural weight. This may occur acutely over several days orover a more prolonged period. Most weight lost was the self-reported response to anitem asking for the greatest amount of weight lost prior to a weigh-in. This may haveoccurred over several weeks or months and frequently occurs early in the season aswrestlers begin training (e.g., between the start of practice in the fall and the firstmatch). Weekly weight lost was the self-reported response to the amount of weightlost in the 5 days prior to a weigh-in. This weight is typically regained during severaldays after the weigh-in and before the process is repeated. This is also referred to ascycling weight, and is accomplished in part through dehydration. Frequency ofcutting was the self-reported number of times wrestlers repeated a weekly weightloss cycle.

Statistical Analysis

Mean comparisons and contingency tables were used to compare samples for thestratifying variables. Means were statistically tested using a general linear model(GLM), and Chi-square analysis was employed for the contingency tables. GLMwas employed instead of ANOVA because of the disparity in size between thestratified samples. ANOVA requires approximately equal size among treatmentgroups. In the present study, this was never the case and the magnitude of differencein the comparisons groups was frequently large. A Scheffe follow-up test was usedto test for pairwise differences when the GLM demonstrated significant main ef-fects or interactions. For the follow-up test, the significance level was adjusted toaccount for the number of comparisons. Power for type II error exceeded 0.73 for allcomparisons, and because of the large sample size, 0.90 for many of the compari-sons. The data were analyzed using the SAS Version 6 (13) statistical software.

Results

Table 1 shows the age, height, and weight of the subjects by division. D3 wrestlersshowed a small significant difference in age from D2 wrestlers and were signifi-cantly taller than the D1 cohort. The sample included 227 freshman, 226 sopho-mores, 159 juniors, and 129 seniors. There were 275 D1 wrestlers, 167 D2 wrestlers,and 299 D3 wrestlers. Among the nine weight classes, there were 43 to 91 wrestlers.The fewest were at the 197-pound weight class and the most were at the 165-poundweight class.

Wrestlers competed in 27.8 ± 3.0 matches and won 65.8 ± 24.4% (Table 1).Wrestlers in D3 competed in more matches than both D1 and D2 wrestlers, but wona significantly lower percent of their matches than D1 wrestlers during the previousseason. Freshmen competing as high school seniors competed in significantly morematches (37.5 ± 8.4) than upperclassmen (22.8 ± 12.2) and won a greater percentage(85.7 ± 13.0% vs. 55.5 ± 22.8%). On average, wrestlers had competed in 151.4 ±50.8 matches during their career and won 77.4 ± 11.7%. There were no differencesin the number of matches over the careers of wrestlers at all three division; however,DI wrestler’s had the highest career winning percentage. Likewise DI and D2 wres-tlers began wrestling at a significantly younger age than D3 wrestlers, but there wasno significant difference between D1 and D2 wrestlers.


The MWL to make weight averaged 5.3 ± 2.8 kg (Figures 1). D2 and D3wrestlers had a greater MWL at some time during the season than D1 wrestlers, andas shown in Figure 2, D2 wrestlers lost a greater percent of their weight (MWL%)than D1 and D3 wrestlers. The MWL for 28.4% of the wrestlers was 2.3 kg (5 lbs.) orless and greater than 6.8 kg (15 lbs.) for 17.6%. However, among D2 wrestlers, only14.5% of the wrestlers lost less than 2.3 kg, and 25.2% lost greater than 6.8 kg.Likewise, while the MWL% for almost half of the D1 and D3 wrestlers was less than5% of their weight (D1 48.5%, D3 49.0%), only 35.7% of the D2 wrestlers lost lessthan 5% of their weight. Conversely, 28.0% of D2 wrestlers lost more than 10% oftheir weight, while only 16.2% of D1 and 17.3% of D3 wrestlers lost more than 10%of their weight.

Freshmen in all three divisions had a greater MWL and MWL% than upper-classmen (Figures 3 and 4). Freshmen, as high school seniors, lost 5.8 ± 3.1 kgcompared to 5.0 ± 2.2 kg for upperclassmen or expressed as a percent, 8.3 ± 5.1%compared to 6.2 ± 4.4%. MWL and MWL%, as well as other weight loss behaviors,were not different among sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

Weekly weight lost (WWL) averaged 2.9 ± 1.3 kg (Figure 1) or expressed as apercent (WWL%) 4.3 ± 2.2% (Figure 2). Overall, WWL% for 21.4% of the wres-tlers was less than 2% of their weight. D2 wrestlers were more extreme in bothWWL and WWL%. When expressed as WWL%, 22.9% of D2 wrestlers cycledmore than 6% of their weight, while 12.1% of D1 wrestlers and 12.9% of D3wrestlers were that extreme. As shown in Figures 3, WWL among freshmen was

Table 1 Physical Characteristics and Performance History Among CollegeWrestlers (Excluding Heavyweights) By Division (Mean ± SD)

Division

Variable I II III All

Age (y) 20.0 ± 1.5 20.2 ± 1.6 19.8 ± 1.6+ 20.0 ± 1.6Weight (kg) 72.4 ± 9.9 73.9 ± 9.4 73.6 ± 11.0 73.2 ± 10.2Height (cm) 173.2 ± 6.9 173.9 ± 6.5 175.0 ± 7.0* 174.1 ± 6.9Matches 26.6 ± 13.9 26.2 ± 12.9 29.7 ± 2.0*+ 27.8 ± 13.0

98/99 seasonWinning % 98/99 69.2 ± 23.4 63.9 ± 24.6 63.7 ± 25.0* 65.8 ± 24.4

seasonCareer matches 155.8 ± 48.0 155.0 ± 56.0 145.1 ± 49.7 151.4 ± 50.8Career winning % 82.1 ± 9.1 76.7 ± 11.2* 73.5 ± 12.5* 77.4 ± 11.7Age began 8.9 ± 3.7 8.8 ± 3.7 10.3 ± 3.5*+ 9.4 ± 3.7

wrestling (y)Age began cutting 13.6 ± 3.5 13.8 ± 2.7 13.9 ± 3.7 13.7 ± 3.4

weight (y)

Note. *Significantly different (p < .016) from Division I; +significantly different (p < .016)from Division II.


Figure 1 — Weight loss behaviors among college wrestlers by division. *Significantlydifferent from Division I, p < .016. +Significantly different from Division II, p < .016.

Figure 2 — Relative weight loss behaviors among college wrestlers by division. *Signifi-cantly different from Division I, p < .016. +Significantly different from Division II, p <.016.

equivalent to that of upperclassmen, but when expressed as a percent (Figure 4),freshmen were more extreme (4.5 ± 2.4%) than upperclassmen (4.1 ± 2.2%). Almosttwice as many freshmen (21.2%) as upperclassmen (11.0%) cycled 6% or more oftheir weight on a weekly bases.

PSG was 5.5 ± 3.5 kg (Figure 1), slightly greater than the MWL or 8.6 ± 5.4%of there current weight (Figure 2). Only 20.2% of the wrestlers regained less than 2.3kg, while 26.5% regained more than 10% of their current weight. PSG was signifi-cantly higher among D2 wrestlers as was PSG as a percent of their current weight


(PSG%). Among D2 wrestlers, 38.1% regained greater than 6.8 kg while 31.6% ofD1 and 27.5% of D3 regained that much.

As with the weight loss behaviors, freshmen regain a greater amount (Figure3) and percent (Figure 4) of their weight. Weight regained (PSG) averaged 6.0 ± 2.8kg among freshmen versus 5.3 ± 1.3 kg among upperclassmen and PSG% 9.5 ±6.1% for freshmen and 8.1% ± 5.1% among upperclassmen.

The wrestlers at all three division showed no significant difference in thefrequency of cutting weight (FCW) and averaged 8.6 ± 9.0 times. As indicated bythe large standard deviation, there was a wide range in FCW—16.0% did not cut

Figure 3 — Comparison of weight loss behaviors between freshmen and upperclass-men. *Significantly different from upperclassmen, p < .05.

Figure 4 — Comparison of relative weight loss behaviors between freshmen and upper-classmen. *Significantly different from upperclassmen, p < .05.


Table 2 Methods of Weight Loss Comparison Among College Wrestlers(Excluding Heavyweights) Based on Percent Ranking

InfrequentFrequent (1 � wk

Method (≥3 � wk) to 1 � mo) Never p

Gradual dieting Freshmen 74.6 12.1 13.4 .094 Upperclassmen 81.4 8.7 9.7

Restrict food Freshmen 49.8 38.7 11.6 .330 Upperclassmen 43.8 42.1 14.1

Restrict fluids Freshmen 22.8 50.0 27.2 .612 Upperclassmen 19.7 50.3 30.0

Fast Freshmen 7.1 51.3 41.5 .288 Upperclassmen 7.7 45.0 47.4

Increase exercise Freshmen 78.1 13.4 8.5 .200 Upperclassmen 73.3 18.9 7.7

Heated wrestling room Freshmen 39.1 14.2 46.7 .001 Upperclassmen 20.4 13.5 66.1

Saunas Freshmen 7.1 29.5 63.4 .001 Upperclassmen 5.8 17.9 76.2

Rubber/plastic suits Freshmen 9.4 26.8 63.8 .001 Upperclassmen 4.0 18.8 77.2

Spitting Freshmen 14.7 26.8 58.5 .001 Upperclassmen 6.8 12.3 80.9

weight, while 26.6% cut more than ten times. Freshmen cut weight significantlymore (11.9 ± 10.8 times) compared to upperclassmen (7.2 ± 7.6 times). Amongfreshmen, 40.0% cut more than ten times during the season, while only 11.6% didnot cut weight.

With one exception, methods of cutting weight were not significantly differ-ent between the three divisions. D2 wrestlers were significantly more likely to usefood restriction as a weight lost method. However, significant differences wereobserved between freshmen and upperclassmen (Table 2). Almost 80% of thewrestlers (79.5%) used gradual dieting, and 75.2% increased exercise three or more


days per week as the primary method of losing weight. Restricting food (i.e., miss-ing one or more meals a day) was used frequently by 45.5%, and restricting fluidswas used frequently by 20.5%. More extreme behaviors, including fasting and useof saunas and rubber/plastic suits, were employed frequently by 5–8% of the ath-letes and infrequently by 21 to 47% of the wrestlers. Freshmen, in contrast toupperclassmen, were significantly more likely to use a heated wrestling room,saunas, rubber/plastic suits, or spitting as weigh loss methods.

Use of cathartics (i.e. laxatives, diet pills, enemas, and diuretics) as well aspurging behaviors were uncommon. Use of diet pills was reported among 3.9% onceper month or more. Likewise, laxatives use occurred among 3.2% once per month ormore, but prevalence among freshmen (5.4%) was significantly greater than upper-classmen (2.2%). Diuretics were used by 2.8% of the wrestlers once per month ormore, vomiting 1.9%, and enemas 1.2%.

To further elucidate what types of wrestlers were more extreme in their WMbehaviors and weight control methods, we partitioned the cohort using two othervariables. In the first analysis, we subdivided the wrestlers by winning percentageduring the previous season. Wrestlers were divided into those winning 75% or moreof their matches, those winning 50–74% of their matches, and those winning lessthan half of their matches. There were no significant differences between the threegroups in WM behaviors.

In the second analysis, we assigned the wrestlers to one of three groups usingthere competitive weight class. The three lightest weight classes (i.e., 125, 133, and141 pounds) formed the light weights (LWC); the 149-, 157-, and 165-pound weightclasses, the middle group (MWC); and the three heavier weight classes (174 to 197),the heavy group (HWC). Descriptive characteristics and performance history areshown in Table 3. Compared to LWC wrestlers, HWC wrestlers were significantlyolder and less successful in career winning percent. HWC wrestlers began cuttingweight at a later age than both LWC and HWC athletes.

As shown in Figure 5, the three groups were similar in the MWL, WWL, PSG.However, when the weight lost or regained is computed as a percent of their currentweight (Figure 6), there were significant differences. The LWC were significantlymore extreme in the MWL%, WWL%, and PSG% than the MWC, and the MWCwere more extreme in the three measures than the HWC.

When the weight loss methods of the three groups were compared (Table 4),significant differences were apparent in the restriction of food, and the use of fast-ing, saunas, and rubber/plastic suits. About the same number of wrestlers in eachgroup participated in the weight loss method frequently; however, a greater numberof the HWC reported never using the methods. Use of extreme methods of weightloss, including vomiting, laxatives, diet pills, diuretics, and enemas, were not differ-ent among the three weight groups.The primary sources of information on weightcutting were fellow wrestlers and college or high school coaches. More than 60% ofthe wrestlers ranked fellow wrestlers as a very influential or influential source ofinformation, while coaches received an equivalent rank by more than 55% of thewrestlers. The new NCAA rules appeared to influence the weight loss behaviors of40.2% of the athletes and, not surprisingly, significantly more upperclassmen. Healthprofessionals including nutritionist, trainers and physicians were a primary sourceof information among fewer than 10% of the wrestlers.

Survey questions allowed us to assess the five criteria of bulimia. Only 1wrestler met all five criteria, and a total of 4 met three or four of the criteria.


Table 3 Physical Characteristics and Performance History Among CollegeWrestlers (Excluding Heavyweights) By Weight Class (Mean ± SD)

Weight class

Variable Light Middle Heavy All

Age (y) 19.6 ± 1.4 20.0 ± 1.5 20.3 ± 1.7+ 20.0 ± 1.6Weight (kg) 63.8 ± 4.5 74.7 ± 4.4* 86.6 ± 6.6*+ 73.2 ± 10.2Height (cm) 169.6 ± 5.5 174.8 ± 5.3* 180.5 ± 5.3*+ 174.1 ± 6.9Matches 98/99 28.5 ± 12.5 26.8 ± 13.6 28.0 ± 13.0 27.8 ± 13.0

seasonWinning % 98/99 67.7 ± 25.2 64.4 ± 24.6 64.4 ± 22.6 65.8 ± 24.4

seasonCareer matches 149.2 ± 49.1 153.0 ± 48.7 158.2 ± 58.4 151.4 ± 50.8Career winning % 79.0 ± 10.7 77.0 ± 12.1 75.0 ± 12.6* 77.4 ± 11.7Age began 9.4 ± 3.6 9.4 ± 3.7 9.7 ± 3.7 9.4 ± 3.7

wrestling (y)Age began cutting 13.9 ± 3.4 14.0 ± 2.5 13.1 ± 4.5*+ 13.7 ± 3.4

weight (y)

Note. *Significantly different (p < .016) from light-weight classes; +significantly different(p < .016) from middle-weight classes.

Figure 5 — Weight loss behaviors by weight class.


Figure 6 — Relative weight loss behaviors by weight class. *Significantly different fromlight weights, p < .016. +Significantly different from middle weights, p < .016.

Likewise, fewer than 10 considered their body image very underweight or veryoverweight, which would support the low scores on the bulimia criteria rating;however, 44.8% reported often or always dieting.

Eating “out of control” is a potential indicator of disordered eating behaviors.Some wrestlers felt their eating was out of control at times; 11.9% felt their eatingwas out of control frequently or always after a weigh-in. After a match, 9.9%responded the same way, and 10.2% responded the same way during the off-season.Prior to a match, only 3.2% respond in this way. These responses are consistent withresponses to other items pertaining to eating behaviors.

Discussion

The results of this survey found collegiate wrestlers to be more extreme in their WMbehaviors than high school wrestlers but less extreme than college wrestlers sur-veyed in the 1980s. Freshmen wrestlers, wrestlers from lighter weight classes, andD2 tended to be more extreme. A significant number, 40%, indicated that the NCAA’snew rules influenced their WM behaviors; however, upwards of 25% of the wres-tlers continue to use saunas and rubber/plastic suits, and fasting as weight losstechniques.

To generalize about college wrestlers, it was important that the schools sur-veyed be representative of the population. For that reason, wrestling teams from allthree divisions and across the spectrum of competitive quality were included. Theresults from the 2000 NCAA Championship Meets were used to validate the strat-egy for selecting teams across the range of competitive quality. Eleven teams in-cluded in the survey were among the top 15 at their 2000 Divisional Championshipmeet, and 16 placed between 16th and 40th. These numbers correspond to our originalstratification sample from the 1999 Championship Meets in which we tried to


Table 4 Methods of Weight Loss Among College Wrestlers(Excluding Heavyweights) By Weight Class

Weight Class

Method Light Middle Heavy All p

Gradual dietingFrequently 77.9 83.0 76.9 79.5 .087Infrequently 12.7 7.9 8.1 9.8Never 9.4 9.1 15.0 10.6

Restrict foodFrequently 48.5 44.9 41.4 45.5 .039Infrequently 39.9 44.9 38.9 41.5Never 11.6 10.2 19.8 13.0

Restrict fluidsFrequently 21.7 20.8 17.9 20.5 .154Infrequently 51.5 53.7 45.7 50.9Never 26.8 25.5 36.4 28.5

FastFrequently 8.0 6.3 8.7 7.5 .004Infrequently 49.6 52.9 34.2 47.3Never 42.4 40.8 57.2 45.2

Increased exerciseFrequently 77.5 73.8 73.5 75.2 .592Infrequently 14.6 19.5 18.5 17.3Never 8.0 6.6 8.0 7.5

Heated wrestling roomFrequently 30.6 23.5 22.2 26.0 .238Infrequently 14.2 13.7 13.6 13.9Never 55.3 62.8 64.2 60.1

SaunasFrequently 5.4 7.9 4.3 6.1 .025Infrequently 25.7 21.7 14.2 21.5Never 68.8 70.5 81.5 72.4

Rubber/plastic suitsFrequently 6.6 5.5 4.3 5.6 .048Infrequently 25.5 20.9 14.2 21.1Never 68.0 73.6 81.5 73.2

SpittingFrequently 10.1 8.7 8.6 9.3 .278Infrequently 19.9 16.5 12.4 16.9Never 69.9 74.8 79.0 73.8

Note. Frequently = >3 times/wk; infrequently = once/wk to once/mo.


recruit teams who were successful as well as a representative number of less com-petitive teams. The high response rate (>90%) also served to ensure a representativesample of wrestlers.

Not surprisingly, the college wrestlers were more extreme in their WM prac-tices than high school wrestlers surveyed in previous studies (8, 11, 14, 15). MWLfor the college wrestlers was 5.3 ± 2.8 kg compared to 3.2–3.3 kg reported for thehigh school counterparts, and WWL was 2.9 ± 1.3 kg compared to WWL of 1.6–1.9kg among the interscholastic wrestlers (11, 14, 15). However, PSG was of similarsize among the two cohorts (college, 5.5 ± 3.6 kg; high school, 5.0–6.0 kg; 11, 14,15). Weight control methods, including use of food and fluid restriction, occurredmore frequent among collage than high school wrestlers, but use of saunas andrubber/plastic suits were similar in frequency of use. These latter findings may be aresult of the NCAA ban on these weight control methods just prior to the presentsurvey.

Use of extreme weight control behaviors including fasting, vomiting, and useof cathartics was less prevalent than previously observed among high school wres-tlers. Bulimic behaviors were observed in less than 1% of the collegiate wrestlerscompared to 9% among Wisconsin high school wrestlers (10, 11). As is commonwithin the general population, use of cathartics and bulimic behaviors may beunderreported.

In contrast to the WM behaviors among college wrestlers reported by Steenand Brownell (14), the present sample of wrestlers was less extreme. Frequency ofcutting weight was a little more than half—in the present study, 8.6 ± 9.0 times; forSteen and Brownell, 15.0 ± 13.1 times. The MWL reported by Steen and Brownellwas 7.2 ± 3.2 kg compared to 5.3 ± 2.8 kg among the present sample, and the PSGamong the Steen and Brownell wrestlers was 7.6 kg versus 5.5 kg among the presentsample. Among the Steen and Brownell sample, only 13% reported WWL less than2.3 kg compared to the present sample in which 46.5% reported WWL less than 2.3kg of which 10.8% reported WWL less than 1.0 kg and 35.7% reported WWLbetween 1.0 and 2.3 kg. Among the Steen and Brownell sample, 41% reportedWWL greater than 4.6 kg compared to 5.1% among the present sample.

Weight loss methods were less extreme in the present study than among thewrestlers sampled by Steen and Brownell (14). Frequent use of food and fluidrestriction declined by 25% and 30%, respectively, compared to the Steen andBrownell sample, and frequent use of fasting decreased from 11% to 7.5%. Saunause was 9% less frequent, and use of rubber/plastic suits was much less frequent thanin the earlier survey (present study, 5.6%; Steen and Brownell, 35%). Use of laxa-tives was less prevalent (7.0% vs. 3.2%), but prevalence of vomiting and use of dietpills was of the same magnitude.

Out of control eating behaviors were lower in the present study compared toSteen and Brownell (14) the day before matches (3% vs. 10%, respectively), after aweigh-in (12% vs. 29%, respectively), and after a match (10% vs. 41%, respec-tively), but of the same magnitude (10% for both) during the off-season. Wrestlersreporting always or often dieting was also much lower (present study, 44.8% vs.Steen and Brownell, 80%).

There are several possible explanation for the difference observed betweenthe present survey and the survey of Steen and Brownell (14). First, the sampledwere significantly different in size (Steen and Brownell, n = 61; present study, n =


741) and diversity. In the present survey, our sample was diversified by geography,college division, and program success. The Steen and Brownell sample was limitedto wrestlers from the DI Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. Second, theSteen and Brownell study was completed more than 10 years prior to the presentsurvey, during which time WM behaviors may have changed.

Finally, as indicated in the present results, these differences may reflect realchanges in WM behaviors brought about by the recent NCAA rule changes andpossibly the deaths of three college wrestlers (5). More than 40% of the wrestlers inthe presented investigation indicated that the new NCAA rules influenced theirweight cutting behaviors and their competitive weight. The goal of the NCAA rulechange was to improve WM behaviors among college wrestlers. A follow-up study(12) of high school wrestlers in Wisconsin showed significant improvements inWM behaviors 3 years after a rule similar to the NCAA’s was implemented. There-fore, it seems reasonable that the NCAA rule may have had the desired affect.

Significant differences were observed between freshmen and upperclassmenin both the amount of weight lost and the use of weight loss methods. Because newWM rules had been imposed upon the college wrestlers during the previous year, thedifferences between the freshmen and upperclassmen may reflect the positive changesin WM as a result of the new rules. After initiation of WM rules in Wisconsin, weightloss behaviors, including MWL, WWL, and PSG, showed significant improvement(12). These differences may also reflect the true behaviors of freshmen who weremotivated as high school wrestlers to make the transition to college competition andconsequently pursued more extreme weight loss behaviors.

LWC wrestlers showed greater relative weight change, MWL%, WWL%,and PSG% than heavier wrestlers, and we observed a stair-step decrease in relativeweight change among the three weight groups. These findings are consistent withthe findings of Tipton and Tcheng (15) among Iowa high school wrestlers. This is anarea of concern and should be investigated further by the NCAA.

It is not clear why D2 wrestlers were more extreme in their WM behaviors.One explanation may be the type of athletes attracted to these programs and theirmotivation to compete successfully. Perhaps wrestlers competing at D2 feel over-looked and are willing to make additional sacrifices, including rapid weight loss, tocompete successfully. It is also possible that the difference observed in these resultsare an artifact of the sampling and do not reflect true differences.

There are several limitations to this investigation. Foremost among these arethe limitations imposed by a recall survey. The athletes were surveyed at the begin-ning of the season, which was about 8 months after their last competition in 1999.Despite their anonymity, the wrestlers may not have been totally candid or accuratein their responses. Some teams returned less than 10 surveys. Wrestlers not return-ing surveys may have biased the validity of the sample. However, because teamsfrom all divisions were solicited, and teams with varied success were included, theauthors believe this sample provides a representative picture of WM behaviorsamong college wrestlers.

In summary, the results of this survey suggest the following. College wres-tlers in the present investigation are more extreme than high school wrestlers (8, 11,14, 15) but less extreme in their WM behaviors than college wrestlers surveyedpreviously (14). Little evidence existed for disordered eating behaviors among thissample. Second, freshmen wrestlers, reporting on their senior high school season,were more extreme than upperclassmen. This may reflect the limited number of


states with WM programs similar to the NCAA or, as suggested above, improve-ments brought about by the new NCAA rules. Third, WM behaviors are moreextreme among wrestlers in lighter weight classes and become less extreme at theheavier weight classes. Fourth, while wrestlers recognize the influence of the newNCAA rules on their WM behaviors, use of banned practices such as saunas andrubber/plastic suits persists among a minority of wrestlers. The National Federationof State High School Associations has mandated that all states institute WM rules by2004, and wrestlers will adapt to the NCAA rules. How this effects weight losspractices of collegiate wrestlers remains to be seen.

References

1. American Educational Research Association. Standards for Educational and Psycho-logical Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999,pp. 9-17.

2. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand on weight loss in wrestlers. Med.Sci. Sports Exerc. 8(2):xi-xiii, 1976.

3. American Medical Association Committee on the Medical Aspects of Sports. Wrestlingand weight control. JAMA 201:541-543, 1967.

4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994, pp. 549-550.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hyperthermia and dehydration-relateddeaths associated with intentional rapid weight loss in three collegiate wrestlers—NorthCarolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, November–December 1997. JAMA 279:824-825,1998.

6. Des Moines Sunday Register. Health peril in prep wrestling. Des Moines, IA: DesMoines Register, December 17, 1967.

7. Hawkins, R., and P. Clements. Development and constructive validation of a self-reportmeasure of binge eating tendencies. Addictive Behaviors 5:219-226, 1980.

8. Kinningham, R.B., and D.W. Gorenflo. Weight loss methods of high school wrestlers.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:810-813, 2001.

9. Lakin, J.A., S.N. Steen, and R.A. Oppliger. Eating behaviors, weight loss methods, andnutritional practices of high school wrestlers. J. Comm. Health Nurs. 7:223-234, 1990.

10. Oppliger, R.A., H.S. Case, C.A. Horswill, G.L. Landry, and A.C. Shetler. AmericanCollege of Sports Medicine position statement: Weight Loss in Wrestlers. Med. Sci.Sports Exerc. 28(6):ix-xii, 1996.

11. Oppliger, R.A., G.L. Landry, S.W. Foster, and A.C. Lambrecht. Bulimic behaviorsamong interscholastic wrestlers: a statewide survey. Pediatrics 91:826-831, 1993.

12. Oppliger, R.A., G.L. Landry, S.W. Foster, and A.C. Lambrecht. Wisconsin minimumweight program reduces weight cutting practices of high school wrestlers. Clin. J. SportsMed. 8(1):26-31, 1998.

13. SAS Institute Inc. SAS User’s Guide Version 6. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1990, pp. 891-996.

14. Steen, S.N., and K.D. Brownell. Patterns of weight loss and regain: has the traditionchanged? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22:762-768, 1990.

15. Tipton, C.M., and T.K. Tcheng. Iowa wrestling study: weight loss in high school stu-dents. JAMA 214:1269-1274, 1970.

16. Wrestling Rules Committee. NCAA Wrestling Rules. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Publica-tions, 1999.


Appendix:Survey Tool

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Current year in college: ________

2. Age: _______ yrs

3. How much do you weigh? ______ lbs.

4. How tall are you? ____ feet ____ inches

WEIGHT HISTORY AND DIETING PATTERNS

5. Last years (98–99) weight class: ________ lbs.

6. What was your record in 1998–99? _____wins ____ loses

7. What is your career record since 9th grade? _____ wins _____ losses

8. Which of the following describes your accomplishments this past season (circle allthat apply):

A. Placed in the top three at regional or league championships

B. Qualified for NCAA’s

C. Place in top 6 at NCAA’s

9. At what age did you begin wrestling? _____ yrs

10. At what age did you begin cutting weight for wrestling? ______yrs

______ never cut

11. Using the scale below, please rate the amount of influence that each individual listedbelow has had on your weight loss practices.

1 2 3 4 5Not influential unsure Very influential

_____ Fellow wrestlers _____ High school coach _____ My college coach

_____ Former wrestlers _____ Parents _____ My physician

_____ Team trainer _____ Nutritionist/Dietitian _____ NCAA rule change

_____ Other (explain)___________________________________________

12. What is the MOST WEIGHT that you cut LAST year to make weight? _____ lbs._______ never cut

13. How many times LAST year did you have to cut weight to make weight? ___ times___ never cut

14. How many pounds did your weight fluctuate every week during LAST wrestlingseason? ____ lbs.

15. What was your weight post-season in April? _____ lbs.

16. Do you consider yourself: (circle one)

1 2 3 4 5Very Underweight About right Overweight Very

underweight overweight

17. During wrestling season, do you have to consciously restrict your food intake inorder to control your weight? (circle one)

1 2 3 4 5Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always


For questions 18–21 below, circle your response. If you never binge eat, please circle A foreach question.

(Binge eating is eating much more than most people would eat, under the same circum-stances, where you feel you may not be able to stop.)

18. How often do you binge eat?

A. I never binge eatB. Once or twice a monthC. Once a weekD. Two or three times a weekE. Almost every day

If you circled D or E, how long have you been binge eating?A. One month or lessB. One or two monthsC. Three or four monthsD. Five months or more

19. Which of the following activities do you engage in after binge eating? (Circle all thatapply.)

A. I never binge eatB. VomitingC. Using laxativesD. Using diureticsE. Vigorous exerciseF. None of the above

20. How much are you concerned about your binge eating?

A. I never binge eatB. Not bothered at allC. Bothers me a littleD. Moderately concernedE.A major concern

21. Which best describes your feelings DURING a binge?

A. I never binge eatB. I rarely feel out of controlC. I sometimes feel out of controlD. I often feel out of controlE. I always feel out of control

22. Which of the following best describes your feelings AFTER a binge?

A. I never binge eatB. I feel neutral, not concernedC. I am moderately upsetD. I hate myself

23. Do you feel out of control while eating or that you won’t be able to stop eating? (Circleone for each situation.)

Days before match Never Rarely Sometimes Often AlwaysAfter weigh-in Never Rarely Sometimes Often AlwaysAfter a match Never Rarely Sometimes Often AlwaysDuring off-season Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always


24. LAST wrestling season, how often did you use the following methods to lose weight?(Check all that apply.)

FREQUENCY OF USE

3–4 times Once EveryMethod Daily per week per week 2–4 weeks Never

Gradual dieting _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Restricting food _____ _____ _____ _____ _____(skipping1 or 2 meals)

Fasting _____ _____ _____ _____ _____(not eatingall day)

Restricting fluids _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Increased exercise _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Heated wrestling _____ _____ _____ _____ _____room

Saunas _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Rubber/ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____plastic suit

Spitting _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Laxatives _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Diet pills _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Diuretics _____ _____ _____ _____ _____(water pills)

Enemas _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Vomiting _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

Thank you for your help

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the cooperation of the athletic trainers, wrestlers, and coaches from theparticipating institutions who completed and returned the surveys, and the clerical assistanceof Kelly Schaeffer. This research was funded by the NCAA Committee on CompetitiveSafeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.

Weight Loss Practices of College Wrestlers · weight loss methods such as saunas and rubber/plastic...

Documents

Transcript of Weight Loss Practices of College Wrestlers · weight loss methods such as saunas and rubber/plastic...