## 4 Discussion  
This study was set to find any impacts of EA and WDEB on performance, with objective methodology in competitive female cyclists. We found that objective measurements supported findings with the LEAF-Q--the prevalence of LEA was high. The parameter for energy conservation (mREE/pREE) was negatively correlated with endurance performance. In addition, we found that WDEB\({}_{\text{-300}}\) was associated with lactate metabolism in the incremental test. Looking for ideal body weight to improve their racing results, endurance athletes tend to lose weight or retain low body mass. This is why cycling is a sports discipline with increased LEA prevalence [1,2,26]. In the preparation period, optimal periodization demands the highest training volume. If this is not matched with EI, LEA can occur. This is in accordance with our finding that a great majority (87.5%) had EA < 30 kcal/kg FFM/day. LEA was also confirmed with the LEAF questionnaire, which failed to show an increased risk for LEA in only two subjects, who were false-negative. The analysis showed that EA was lower and EB was more negative in the LEAF- group, meaning that the results of the LEAF questionnaire successfully pointed to actual values, as measured directly on competitive cyclists. Unfortunately, in this sample, there were no significant differences in other energy- and performance-related parameters when subjects were grouped by the LEAF-Q. Competitive female cyclists are less studied than their male counterparts, and research with a greater sample size could reveal more in terms of performance differences. In addition, LEAF-Q merely finds a risk for LEA and is not a perfect tool for detecting the energy status of an athlete. This could also be the reason why we did not find any mREE, pREE, or even mREE/pREE differences across groups. This study thus failed to support the work by [PERSON] et al. that successfully showed that mREE/pREE was associated with energy deficiency. Unfortunately, only one subject reached the criteria for \"reduced mREE/pREE\" (<0.9), and no correlations were found to any other energy parameters (EI, EE, EEE, EA, or EB). All other participants had a ratio above 1. This is not in accordance with some other studies [3,5,6,27], and more research is needed to support the hypothesis that mREE/pREE < 0.9 is a possible marker for LEA. A reason for the inability to show such low values in this paper is that EPOC and related processes may have a much longer \"washout\" period than the 12 h that were a part of our procedure before measuring REE. Future research might need to include a longer activity-free period before measuring REE than the standard 12 h. We also failed to show any differences in body composition. Although groups did not differ in mREE/pREE and we failed to find any correlation to EA, this ratio was negatively associated with endurance performance, as reflected by W\({}_{\text{rel}}\). This indicates that mREE/pREE might indeed be useful. Energy conservation, as reflected by the ratio, could lead to suboptimal endurance capacity in more ways. One of them is that while EA might still be sufficient to support health, there is too little energy for optimal recovery after training (protein synthesis for muscle regeneration, replenishing energy stores, supporting hormones like IGF-1). As we lack blood markers and direct observation of glycogen stores, we can only speculate whether such data would provide some further explanations. If this ratio would prove to be useful in the early detection of performance changes before evident clinical signs like amenorrhea appear, this could be much simpler and more cost-effective than the actual measurement of EA. More studies are needed to draw any final conclusions. Finally, this study showed that WDEB\({}_{-300}\) is negatively associated with lactate values at the end of the incremental test. More time spent in energy deficiency results in lower maximal lactate.