Bernal-Orozco, MF, Posada-Falomir, M, Quiñónez-Gastélum, CM, Plascencia-Aguilera, LP, Arana-Nuño, JR, Badillo-Camacho, N, Márquez-Sandoval, F, Holway, FE, and Vizmanos-Lamotte, B. Anthropometric and body composition profile of young professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 1911–1923, 2020—The purpose was to describe the anthropometric and body composition profile of young professional soccer players and to compare the players profiles between different competitive divisions and playing positions. A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out with anthropometric data obtained from the records of soccer players of Club Deportivo Guadalajara, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) in the under-17, under-20, second, third, and fourth division categories. Body mass, height, sitting-height, skinfolds, girths, and bone breadths were measured by certified anthropometrists from September 2011 to March 2015, following the procedures recommended by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. Body composition was determined using the 5-way fractionation method. Comparisons between playing positions in each division and between divisions were performed using analysis of variance, and Bonferroni's post-hoc analyses (SPSS version 22 for Windows, p < 0.05 considered as significant). Data from 755 subjects were analyzed. The mean age was 18.1 ± 1.7 years old (minimum 14.8, maximum 23.2). The under-20 division registered higher anthropometric and body composition values than all other competitive divisions. In addition, goalkeepers were taller, heavier, and obtained the highest values for adipose mass, whereas forwards presented higher percentages of muscle mass. These tables can be used during nutritional assessment and nutritional monitoring of players to establish body composition goals. In addition, the strength and conditioning practitioner may also use these data to design effective and specific training programs most suitable to the anthropometric and body composition profile of each player, taking into consideration his competitive division and playing position.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of studies for the validation of semiquantitative FFQ (SFFQ) that assess food intake in adults. Design: The authors conducted a systematic search in PubMed for articles published as late as January 2020 in Spanish, English, French and Portuguese. Individual searches (twelve in total) paired three hyphenated and non-hyphenated variations of ‘semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire’ with both ‘validity’ and ‘validation’ using the ‘all fields’ and the ‘title/abstract’ retrieval categories. Independent extraction of articles was performed by four authors using predefined data fields. Setting: We searched for original SFFQ validation studies that analysed general diet composition (nutrients with or without food groups or energy analysis) in healthy adults, in any setting, and that also reported correlation coefficients. Participants: Healthy adults. Results: Sixty articles were included. The preferred comparison standard for validation was food records (n 37). The main correlation coefficients used were Pearson’s (n 41), and validity coefficients varied from −0·45 to 1. Most correlation coefficients were adjusted by energy (twelve studies presented only crude values). The elements mentioned most frequently were energy, macronutrients, cholesterol, SFA, PUFA, fibre, vitamin C, Ca and Fe. Conclusions: Although all these SFFQ are reported as validated, coefficients may vary across groups of foods and nutrients. Based on our findings, we suggest researchers to consult our revision before choosing a SFFQ and to review important issues about them, such as their validation, number of items, number of participants, etc. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO number CRD42017064716. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42017064716.

Emotional eating (EE) is food consumption in response to feelings rather than hunger. EE is related to unhealthy food intake and abdominal obesity (AO). However, little evidence exists about the association between EE and dietary patterns (DPs) and EE–AO interaction related to DPs. DPs allow describing food combinations that people usually eat. We analyzed the association of EE with DPs in adults (≥18 years) with AO (WC ≥ 80/90 cm in women/men, respectively; n = 494; 66.8% women;) or without AO (n = 269; 74.2% women) in a cross-sectional study. Principal component analysis allowed identifying four DPs from 40 food groups (validated with a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire). Among the subjects presenting AO, being “emotional/very-emotional eater” (emotional eating questionnaire) was negatively associated with the “Healthy” DP (fruits, vegetables, olive oil, oilseeds, legumes, fish, seafood) (OR:0.53; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.88, p = 0.013) and positively with the “Snacks and fast food” DP (sweet bread, breakfast cereal, corn, potato, desserts, sweets, sugar, fast food) (OR:1.88; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.03, p = 0.010). Emotional eaters with AO have significantly lower fiber intake, folic acid, magnesium, potassium, vitamin B1, and vitamin C, while they had a higher intake of sodium, lipids, mono and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and saturated fats. In non-AO participants, EE was not associated with any DP (p > 0.05). In conclusion, EE is associated with unhealthy DPs in subjects with AO.

The aim of the present study was to validate a food photograph album (FPA) as a tool to visually estimate food amounts, and to compare this estimation with that attained through the use of measuring cups (MC) and food models (FM). We tested 163 foods over fifteen sessions (thirty subjects/session; 10-12 foods presented in two portion sizes, 20 -24 plates/session). In each session, subjects estimated food amounts with the assistance of FPA, MC and FM. We compared (by portion and method) the mean estimated weight and the mean real weight. We also compared the percentage error estimation for each portion, and the mean food percentage error estimation between methods. In addition, we determined the percentage error estimation of each method. We included 463 adolescents from three public high schools (mean age 17·1 (SD 1·2) years, 61·8 % females). All foods were assessed using FPA, 53·4 % of foods were assessed using MC, and FM was used for 18·4 % of foods. The mean estimated weight with all methods was statistically different compared with the mean real weight for almost all foods. However, a lower percentage error estimation was observed using FPA (2·3 v. 56·9 % for MC and 325 % for FM, P,0·001). Also, when analysing error rate ranges between methods, there were more observations (P, 0·001) with estimation errors higher than 40 % with the MC (56·1 %), than with the FPA (27·5 %) and FM (44·9 %). In conclusion, although differences between estimated and real weight were statistically significant for almost all foods, comparisons between methods showed FPA to be the most accurate tool for estimating food amounts.