4.2 Article

Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) and Goldman's Dilemma: A Case Report in 42 Year-Old Woman Endurance Athlete

期刊

PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2023.2247960

关键词

RED-S; stress fracture; Goldman's dilemma; Multidisciplinary Care Team; Athletic Performance; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a case of a 42-year-old female long-distance runner with multiple pelvic stress fractures who ignored the prescribed treatment program due to her desire to continue running. This case highlights the similarities between the disregard for challenges in pursuit of success depicted in the Goldman dilemma and the behavior of the amateur athlete. The management of the patient's fractures in relation to RED-S and the importance of considering RED-S and the Goldman dilemma in not only professional but also semi-professional and amateur athletes are emphasized.
Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) defines insufficient calorie intake for the physiological and athletic functions of the athlete, and accordingly deterioration in the musculoskeletal, hormonal, cardiovascular and immune systems. Herein, we present a 42-year-old female long-distance runner with multiple pelvic stress fractures who didn't complete her prescribed treatment program and wanted to keep running despite being aware of the associated pain and risks. The Goldman dilemma refers to the unsettling reality that a significant number of professional athletes may contemplate sacrificing their lives in order to achieve Olympic glory. This disregard for the numerous challenges stemming from an obsession with success is equally applicable to the amateur athlete depicted in this case. Our patient's fractures were examined in relation to RED-S and managed through conservative treatment methods. The RED-S and Goldman dilemma should be kept in mind not only in professional but also in semi-professional, and amateur athletes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据