In an attempt to better identify and inform the energy requirements of elite soccer players, we quantified the energy expenditure (EE) of players from the English Premier League (n = 6) via the doubly labeled water method (DLW) over a 7-day in-season period. Energy intake (EI) was also assessed using food diaries, supported by the remote food photographic method and 24 hr recalls. The 7-day period consisted of 5 training days (TD) and 2 match days (MD). Although mean daily EI (3186 ± 367 kcals) was not different from (p > .05) daily EE (3566 ± 585 kcals), EI was greater (p < .05) on MD (3789 ± 532 kcal; 61.1 ± 11.4 kcal.kg -1 LBM) compared with TD (2956 ± 374 kcal; 45.2 ± 9.3 kcal.kg -1 LBM, respectively). Differences in EI were reflective of greater (p < .05) daily CHO intake on MD (6.4 ± 2.2 g.kg -1 ) compared with TD (4.2 ± 1.4 g.kg -1 ). Exogenous CHO intake was also different (p < .01) during training sessions (3.1 ± 4.4 g.h -1 ) versus matches (32.3 ± 21.9 g.h -1 ). In contrast, daily protein (205 ± 30 g.kg -1 , p = .29) and fat intake (101 ± 20 g, p = .16) did not display any evidence of daily periodization as opposed to g.kg -1 , Although players readily achieve current guidelines for daily protein and fat intake, data suggest that CHO intake on the day before and in recovery from match play was not in accordance with guidelines to promote muscle glycogen storage.

No abstract

Professional soccer players from the first team (1st team, n = 27), under twenty-one (U21, n = 21) and under eighteen (U18, n = 35) squads of an English Premier League soccer team were assessed for whole body and regional estimates of body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Per cent body fat was lower in 1st team (10.0 ± 1.6) compared with both U21 (11.6 ± 2.5, P = 0.02) and U18 (11.4 ± 2.6, P = 0.01) players. However, this difference was not due to variations (P = 0.23) in fat mass between squads (7.8 ± 1.6 v. 8.8 ± 2.1 v. 8.2 ± 2.4 kg, respectively) but rather the presence of more lean mass in 1st team (66.9 ± 7.1 kg, P < 0.01) and U21 (64.6 ± 6.5 kg, P = 0.02) compared with U18 (60.6 ± 6.3 kg) players. Accordingly, fat mass index was not different (P = 0.138) between squads, whereas lean mass index was greater (P < 0.01) in 1st team players (20.0 ± 1.1 kg · m(-2)) compared with U18 players (18.8 ± 1.4 kg · m(-2)). Differences in lean mass were also reflective of higher lean tissue mass in all regions, for example, upper limbs/lower limbs and trunk. Data suggest that training and nutritional interventions for younger players should therefore be targeted to lean mass growth as opposed to body fat loss.

No abstract

The onset of injury and subsequent period of immobilization and disuse present major challenges to maintenance of skeletal muscle mass and function. Although the characteristics of immobilization-induced muscle atrophy are well documented in laboratory studies, comparable data from elite athletes in free-living conditions are not readily available. We present a 6-month case-study account from a professional soccer player of the English Premier League characterizing rates of muscle atrophy and hypertrophy (as assessed by DXA) during immobilization and rehabilitation after ACL injury. During 8 weeks of inactivity and immobilization, where the athlete adhered to a low carbohydrate-high protein diet, total body mass decreased by 5 kg attributable to 5.8 kg loss and 0.8 kg gain in lean and fat mass, respectively. Changes in whole-body lean mass was attributable to comparable relative decreases in the trunk (12%, 3.8 kg) and immobilized limb (13%, 1.4 kg) whereas the nonimmobilized limb exhibited smaller declines (7%, 0.8 kg). In Weeks 8 to 24, the athlete adhered to a moderate carbohydrate-high protein diet combined with structured resistance and field based training for both the lower and upper-body that resulted in whole-body muscle hypertrophy (varying from 0.5 to 1 kg per week). Regional hypertrophy was particularly pronounced in the trunk and nonimmobilized limb during weeks 8 to 12 (2.6 kg) and 13 to 16 (1.3 kg), respectively, whereas the previously immobilized limb exhibited slower but progressive increases in lean mass from Week 12 to 24 (1.2 kg). The athlete presented after the totality of the injured period with an improved anthropometrical and physical profile.