Qualitative study reveals severe distress and performance decline from rapid weight cutting in elite wrestlers, highlighting the need for scientific nutritional support.
Background Rapid weight loss (RWL) is a deeply ingrained practice in elite Greco-Roman wrestling, frequently leading to health risks such as Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) and compromised performance. Aims This study explores the dietary habits, weight management strategies, and psychosocial experiences of elite Turkish wrestlers, focusing on the intersection of traditional sports culture and modern nutritional science. Methods A qualitative descriptive design was employed. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 elite male Greco-Roman wrestlers (all university graduates) from the Turkish Olympic Preparation Center. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework. Results Five main themes emerged: (1) seasonal variations in eating habits, (2) RWL strategies, (3) psychosocial stressors and social influences, (4) systemic barriers in education and support, and (5) sustainability of health and performance. Results indicate that athletes frequently employ severe carbohydrate and fluid restriction, resulting in significant performance declines, fatigue, and psychological distress, including anxiety and low motivation. Systemic deficiencies, specifically limited access to sports dietitians and the dominance of traditional coaching over scientific guidance, exacerbate these unsustainable practices. Conclusions Elite wrestlers’ practices are heavily influenced by a combination of competitive pressures and a lack of integrated professional support. To mitigate RED-S risks and ensure long-term athlete health, it is essential to implement personalized nutrition counseling and multidisciplinary support systems that bridge the gap between traditional practices and sports science. Clinical trial number Not applicable; this study was not a clinical trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Göbel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: