Total energy expenditure of collision team sports players measured using doubly labeled water: a systematic review

Article information

Phys Act Nutr. 2023;27(1):066-075
Publication date (electronic) : 2023 March 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.20463/pan.2023.0009
1Department of Physical Education, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
*Corresponding author : Jonghoon Park, Ph.D. Department of Physical Education, Korea University, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea. Tel: +82-2-3290-2315 E-mail: jonghoonp@korea.ac.kr
Received 2023 March 22; Revised 2023 March 29; Accepted 2023 March 29.

Abstract

[Purpose]

Total energy expenditure (TEE) is crucial for energy balance and recovery in athletes who participate in collision team sports with high training volumes. This study aimed to review the existing evidence on TEE measured using the doubly labeled water (DLW) technique in soccer, basketball, and rugby players. Furthermore, this systematic review summarized the training volume, match details during the measurement period, and body composition of the athletes.

[Methods]

This systematic review used the PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Only articles presenting objectively measured data on the TEE of adolescent and adult collision team sports players were included, as measured using the DLW method. The measurement period, training, match information, and body composition data were also obtained. The search strategy identified 1497 articles, of which 13 met the selection criteria.

[Results]

The 13 studies included four rugby players, six soccer players, and three basketball players; six of the 13 studies involved young players. The TEE measured using the DLW method was 3862.3–5783.9 kcal/day for rugby, 2859–3586 kcal/day for soccer, and 4006–4921 kcal/day for basketball players.

[Conclusion]

The TEE of collision sports players varies depending on the training or match load, body composition, and measurement period. Individual approaches to nutritional prescriptions for collision sports players should also account for different periods, anthropometric profiles, training, and game loads. This review provides evidence for developing nutritional guidelines to optimize the recovery and performance of collision team players.

INTRODUCTION

Total energy expenditure (TEE) consists of the resting metabolic rate (RMR), diet-induced thermogenesis (10% of TEE), and physical activity energy expenditure [1]. Energy balance refers to the equality between the TEE and energy intake according to the first law of thermodynamics. This concept is important for athletes who consume large amounts of energy [2]. A negative energy balance in sports can ultimately lead to decreased performance and delayed recovery [3]. Since an athlete’s amount of training or matches varies based on the season and body composition, there is a large variation in TEE among athletes.

High-intensity intermittent team sports, such as rugby, soccer, and basketball, use enormous amounts of energy in matches or training [4,5]. These team sports have high intermittent exercise intensity, but collisions and tackles during matches require even more energy. In a study by Costello et al., TEE measured using the doubly labeled water (DLW) technique, the gold standard for estimating TEE [6-8], was significantly higher for collision activities than that for non-collision activities (4542.5 ± 796.0 vs. 4316.5 ± 810.8 kcal/day; p < 0.05) [9]. Collision-related muscle damage also requires considerable energy to restore the body9. Accurate measurement of TEE for athletes involved in collision sports is crucial for developing appropriate nutritional strategies and training load recovery.

The TEE of athletes varies significantly based on their amount of training and period [10-12]. Silva et al. reported that the TEE of junior national basketball players was significantly higher during the competitive period than during the pre-season (4243.1 ± 937.1 vs. 3810 ± 1503.3 kcal/day; p < 0.05) [10]. In Costello et al. study, the TEE of professional rugby players was lower during the in-season than that during the pre-season (3862.3 ± 184.0 kcal/day, 4385.8 ± 726.6 kcal/day, respectively) [11]. The pre-season training and match loads (14 days; 10 resistance-training sessions, 10 field sessions) were higher than those during the in-season (7 days; 1 competitive match, 3 resistance training sessions, 3 field sessions, 1 captain run) [11]. Therefore, players have different training and match loads according to the period, which may affect their TEE. It is necessary to review TEE for players’ energy balance and adjust nutritional strategies accordingly based on the various periods and training loads.

Previous studies reported a correlation between TEE and body composition. Silva et al. showed a significant correlation between fat-free mass (FFM) and TEE in youth basketball players during in-season and pre-season (r = 0.812, p = 0.004; r = 0.805, p = 0.005, respectively)10. The TEE and RMR increases were attributed to changes in FFM in the athletes.

However, no systematic review has examined TEE measured using the DLW method with the measurement period, training or match the load, and body composition in collision team sports athletes. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to provide comprehensive data, including body composition and period, for the energy balance of collision team sports players with high energy expenditure, based on data measuring TEE using the DLW method.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of inclusion process for the systematic review.

This systematic review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for searching process, selecting study, collecting data, and analyzing data.

METHODS

Search strategy and eligibility criteria

This systematic review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for searching, selecting, collecting, and analyzing data13. We identified studies through PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases, published until November 2022. Our review focused solely on published articles, and we did not contact authors regarding unpublished articles or results. The search items included a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH terms) and free-text words, consisting of the following: (1) DLW, or doubly labeled water; (2) total energy expenditure, total daily energy expenditure, TEE, or TDEE; and (3) sports, athletes, or players.

The inclusion criteria for the review were as follows: (1) original research articles, (2) studies that measured TEE using the DLW method, (3) participants who were collision sports athletes of either sex, and (4) studies published in English. The exclusion criteria were (1) studies that included players in non-collision team sports and (2) studies that did not assess TEE using the DLW method.

Study Selection

Two independent, experienced, systematic reviewers performed the search and study selection. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion. Additionally, the titles and abstracts of the studies were searched and screened, and during the second screening step, the two independent reviewers evaluated the full texts of the articles for inclusion.

Data Extraction and Conversions

Two authors independently extracted the data. A second reviewer double-checked the extracted data and resolved discrepancies through a consensus meeting discussion. The characteristics of the extracted study data included the year of publication, number of participants, participant characteristics (age, sex, weight, height, FFM, team standards, and position), measurement period, training information during measurement, and TEE. However, only studies using the DLW technique were selected as the TEE evaluation method, and those using convenient prediction methods such as accelerometers and heart rates were excluded. All data were expressed as kilocalories (kcal), and data published in kilojoules (kJ) or megajoules (MJ) were converted to kcal.

Study identification and selection

After searching the four databases, 1,497 studies were identified. After reviewing the title and abstracts of the databases, 1,156 were excluded. After eliminating duplicates and review articles, 327 studies were excluded; after excluding two wherein DLW values were not presented and one study with data duplication, 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Thirteen studies involving approximately 200 individuals published between 2002 and 2022 were included in the final analysis. Most included studies were published after 2010, except for one [4].

RESULTS

Study characteristics

The participants of this review were male and female rugby, soccer, and basketball players (12–27 years). However, in the search, no study had measured TEE using the DLW method for ice hockey or field hockey players, which are also collision sports. The 13 studies consisted of four rugby [5,9,11,14], six soccer [4,15-19], and three basketball [10,20,21] players. All four studies included male rugby players [5,9,11,14]. One of the six studies evaluated the TEE of female soccer players [15]. The three basketball player studies were conducted on males and females [10,20,21]. Two of the four rugby studies involved young players [9,11], and one included youngsters and adults [5]. However, the rugby study did not report age data [14]. In soccer, only one study evaluated adolescent players [16], whereas the other five studies evaluated adult players [4,15,17-19]. All three basketball studies were conducted on junior players [10,20,21].

Summary of outcomes

TEE measured using the DLW method of rugby players

Table 1 summarizes the TEE measured in male rugby players using the DLW method. When reviewing the four studies, the mean TEE of male rugby players was found to be 4484.23 kcal/day (range: 3862.3–5783.9 kcal/day). In the study conducted by Costello et al., the TEE of young European super league professional rugby players during the pre-season was 4385.8 ± 726.6 kcal/day, and TEE during the in-season was 3862.3 ± 184.0 kcal/day. The mean TEE of all four rugby studies of adolescent players was 4224.2 kcal/day (range: 4010–4544.5 kcal/day), and the mean TEE of adult players was 4587.5 kcal/day (range: 4414–4761 kcal/day). Smith et al. reported the TEE of aged U16, U20, and U24 professional rugby league (RL) and Championship Rugby union (RU) players during the in-season. However, despite ~400 kcal day/day differences between consecutive age groups, the TEE of U16, U20, and U24 did not differ significantly (4010 ± 744 kcal/day, 4414 ± 688 kcal/day, 4761 ± 1523 kcal/day, respectively) [5]. The TEE of young professional rugby players with collision intervention (20 full-contact collisions divided into 10 one-on-one tackles and 10 one-on-one hit-ups) was significantly higher than that of rugby players without collision intervention (4544.5 kcal/day vs. 4318.4 kcal/day, respectively) [9].

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in rugby players.

TEE measured using the DLW method of soccer players

A summary of the TEE measured using the DLW method in soccer players is presented in Table 2. When reviewing the TEE of five studies [4,16-19], the mean TEE of male soccer players was 3250.1 kcal/day (range:2859 to 3586 kcal/day) during the in-season. No previous studies have examined the TEE of male soccer players during the pre-season. The mean TEE of adolescent soccer players across the five studies was 3158 kcal/day (range: 2859–3586 kcal/day), and the mean TEE of adult soccer players was 3319.25 kcal/day (range: 2894–3566 kcal/day). Only one study evaluated the TEE of female soccer players using the DLW method during a training camp [15]. The TEE of female soccer players during the training camp was reported to be 2693 kcal/day.

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in soccer players.

TEE measured using the DLW method of basketball players

The TEE values measured for basketball players using the DLW method are presented in Table 3. A review of three studies on young basketball players [10,20,21] revealed that the mean TEE of young male basketball players was 4530.5 kcal/day (range: 4006–4921 kcal/day). The TEE of young male rugby players was 4400.3 kcal/day (range: 4006–4622 kcal/day) during the pre-season and 4921.1 kcal/day during the in-season. Regarding young female basketball players, the mean TEE was 3374.8 kcal/day (range: 3046–3564 kcal/day), with a TEE of 3311.8 kcal/day (range: 3046–3494 kcal/day) during the pre-season and 3563.8 kcal/day during the in-season.

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in basketball players.

Period of TEE measurements for collision team sports players

The TEE measurement period for collision sports players was classified into in-season and pre-season periods. One rugby study reported TEE during the pre-season [9], and two studies measured TEE during the in-season [5,14]. Costello et al. reported TEE during pre- and in-season periods [11]. Five soccer studies were conducted during the in-season [4,16-19], while one was conducted during an international training camp [15]. Two basketball studies assessed TEE during the pre-season [20,21], and one was conducted during both the pre-season and competitive periods [10].

Body composition of collision team sports players

In rugby studies, adolescent players (aged 15.6–18.3 y) were reported to weigh 85.1 to 90.5 kg, have a height of 176.8 to 182.1 cm, and have FFM ranging from 62.2 to 68.9 kg. The body composition of adult rugby players (aged 23 y) was reported as having a weight of 98.3 to 99.4 kg, height of 184.4 to 184.7 cm, and FFM of 77.5 to 82.1 kg. In soccer studies, male youth players (aged 12.2-17.5 y) were reported to weigh 43.0 to 73.1 kg, have a height of 157.1 to 181.2 cm, and have FFM ranging from 31.1 to 57.2 kg [16]. The body composition of adult soccer players (aged 21.0-27.0 y) was reported as having a weight of 69.8 to 89.6 kg, height of 175.0 to 191.0 cm, and FFM of 60.4 to 78.5 kg. The body composition of male adolescent basketball players (aged 16.0-17.0 y) was reported as having a weight of 74.5 to 80.9 kg, height of 189.9 to 195.0 cm, and FFM of 67.0 to 72.5 kg.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to present evidence of TEE measured via the DLW technique for team collision sports players, including soccer, rugby, and basketball players, across the training information and body composition. This systematic review showed that the TEE varies according to the period, training volume, and body composition.

TEE of collision team sports players

The TEE measured using DLW of male rugby players was 4484.23 kcal/day (range: 3862.3–5783.9 kcal/day), for male soccer players was 3250.1 kcal/day (range: 2859–3586 kcal/day), and for male basketball players was 4530.5 kcal/day (range: 4006–4921 kcal/day). Our data demonstrated significant differences in TEE between different team sports, with basketball and rugby players presenting an absolute TEE of ~1500 kcal/day, which was greater than that of soccer players. These differences in TEE according to the sport are likely because of differences in body composition or training load, although the amount of training could not be quantified. Adolescent rugby players (age=15.6 y, weight=85.4 kg, height=182.1 cm, FFM=66.4 kg, TEE=4010 kcal/day)(5)W and basketball players (age=17.0 y, weight=80.9 kg, height=192.5 cm, FFM=72.5 kg, TEE=4621.7 kcal/day)21 have higher FFM and are taller and heavier than soccer players (age=17.5 y, weight=73.1 kg, height=181.2 cm, FFM=57.2 kg, TEE=3586 kcal/day) [16]. Our review revealed that the TEE showed high fluctuations according to the amount of training, period, sex, and age. Hannon et al. reported a significant positive relationship between TEE and stature (r2 =0.41; p <0.01), body weight (r2 = 0.65; p < 0.01), FFM (r2 =0.65; p < 0.01), RMR (r2 =0.56; p < 0.01), and activity energy expenditure (r2 = 0.79; p < 0.01) in male adolescent soccer players from the English Premier League (EPL) Academy aged U12/13 to U18 [16].

Collision-related muscle damage requires considerable energy to restore the body [9]. Costello et al. reported that TEE, including collision intervention (10 one-on-one tackles and 10 one-on-one hit-ups), was significantly higher than TEE of non-collision groups (matched for kinematic demands) in young professional rugby players (4542.5 ± 796.0 kcal/day vs. 4316.5 ± 810.8 kcal/day; p < 0.05) [9]. Although the collision and non-collision groups performed the same training schedule (total distance: 9513 ± 640 m vs. 9818 ± 439 m; p = 0.105), there was a statistically significant difference in TEE. Sufficient energy intake strategies are needed because the high energy cost of collisions evidenced in interventions is likely modest compared to what athletes are exposed to [9].

Morehen et al. assessed the TEE of professional RL players over 2 consecutive weeks with the same training schedule each week (1 competitive game day, 4 training days per week); the results showed that TEE increased significantly from Week 1 to Week 2 (4278.2 ± 501.9 kcal/day vs. 5783.9 ± 812.6 kcal/day, respectively) [14]. Similar results were reported in a study of U12/13 soccer players, where the TEE was higher in Week 2 than that in Week 1 (3122 ± 364 kcal/day vs. 2702 ± 255 kcal/day; p < 0.05) [16]. Although there was no significant difference in duration and total distance during each week of training, the TEE was higher in Week 2, despite the average speed in week 1 being significantly higher than that in week 2 [16]. The TEE of Week 2 was reported higher than Week 1 because the recovery energy of the training and the game of Week 1 might have accumulated in Week 2.

The increased energy cost of collisions during training or competition may be caused by an increase in wholebody protein turnover in response to muscle damage [22]. Our review suggests that professional collision sports players require appropriate energy intake strategies to recover from muscle damage-induced collisions.

TEE during in-Season and pre-season

A study conducted by Costello et al. showed that the TEE of adolescent professional RL players was higher during the pre-season than that during the in-season (4385.8 ± 726.6 kcal/day vs. 3862.3 ± 184.0 kcal/day; no statistical data) [11]. Since the same five players were used in each period, the difference in TEE was expected to be affected by the amount of training, not body composition. The pre-season training in Costello et al.’s study (14 days) consisted of 10 resistance training sessions and 10 field sessions, while in-season (7 days) consisted of one competitive match, three resistance training sessions, three field sessions, and one captain run [9]. No information was reported on the intensity or duration of the training or matches during the season, but the amount of training may have affected the TEE [11]. Conversely, in the basketball study [10], the TEE of Portuguese junior national basketball players was higher during the competitive period than that during the pre-season (4243.1 ± 937.1 kcal/day vs. 3810 ± 1503.3 kcal/day; p < 0.05). In this systematic review, the difference in TEE by period was expected to be because of the differences in training intensity for each sport. Further research is needed on male soccer players using pre-season data.

TEE according to age

In a study on soccer, U18 players of the Category 1 top-tier EPL soccer academy were found to have a TEE (3586 ± 487 kcal/day; range: 2542–5172 kcal/day), which was higher than both the U15 players (3029 ± 262 kcal/day; range: 2738–3726 kcal/day) and U12/13 players (2859 ± 265 kcal/day; range: 2275–3903 kcal/day) [16]. Hannon et al. reported that the differences in TEE were likely because of a combination of differences in anthropometric profiles, RMR, and physical loading (training and match). The U18 players had higher RMR and anthropometric profiles (stature, body mass, and FFM) than those of the U12/13 and U15 players. In addition, U18 and U15 players completed more distance and minutes of activity than those of U12/U13 players [16].

The TEE of the U12/13 and U15 age groups was found to be comparable to that of adult Premier League players [16-18]. However, several U18 players (3845 ± 826 kcal/day) displayed TEE values that exceeded those of adult players (goalkeeper: 2894 kcal/day; other positions: 3566 ± 585 kcal/day), despite having approximately 7 kg less FFM [16-18]. These data demonstrated that TEE progressively increased as players transitioned through the academic pathway, likely because of the influence of growth and maturation on key anthropometric parameters and increased physical loading.

In a rugby study (5), U24 players (RL, RU) presented with a TEE (4761 ± 1523 kcal/day), higher than that of U16 players (4010 ± 744 kcal/day). U24 players (Weight=98.3 ± 4.8 kg, Height=184.7 ± 2.5 cm, FFM=82.1 ± 4.8 kg; light training 8–9 days, heavy training 1 day, rugby match 0–2 days, rest 4 days) of RL were taller and heavier than U16 players (Weight=79.3 ± 17.1 kg, Height=180.8 ± 7.0 cm, FFM=62.2 ± 10.6 kg; light training 4 days, heavy training 3 days, rugby match 0–2 days, rest 8 days) and their training and match load was different. The differences in TEE between U24 and U16 are also likely because of a combination of differences in the anthropometric profile, RMR, and training and matching loads.

However, no study has yet evaluated the TEE of adult basketball players. Therefore, to evaluate the players’ TEE accurately based on age, a study is required to compare the TEE of adult players with that of growing players with similar training levels.

TEE according to gender

In our systematic review, we analyzed four TEE studies in which female team sports players consisted of three young basketball players [10,20,21] and one adult soccer player [14]. In both sports, female players had lower TEE than male players. In a study by Morehen et al., the TEE of female soccer players during an international training camp was 2693 ± 432 kcal/day. Among basketball players [21], female players had a lower TEE (3493.8 ± 241.9 kcal/day) than that of male players (4621.7 ± 681.4 kcal/day), despite having the same training schedule. The difference in TEE between male and female players is likely because of differences in the anthropometric profile, RMR, and physical load. Female athletes were shorter, lighter, and had lower RMR than male athletes.

When energy intake is insufficient to meet the TEE from high-intensity training, female athletes may experience energy deficiency leading to conditions such as amenorrhea and osteoporosis, collectively known as the female athlete triad [23,24]. To address problems associated with the female athlete triad, nutritional strategies corresponding to TEE should be established to balance energy intake [25]. Further research is required to identify the TEE of female team sports players.

TEE according to position

Brinkmans et al. evaluated differences in TEE among Dutch premier league soccer players based on their positions. They found that goalkeepers had significantly lower TEE kcal/kg than midfielders during the season (37.6 ± 2.9 kcal/kg vs. 44.4 ± 3.2 kcal/kg; p = 0.004) because goalkeepers have lower training and match loads compared to field positions [19]. In addition, Anderson et al. showed that the TEE of EPL professional soccer players differed between goalkeepers [17] and players in other positions [18] (center forward, wide defender, wide midfielder, central defending midfielder, central attacking midfielder, and central defender) in the season (2894 kcal/day vs. 3566 kcal/day).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the number of studies and participants included was small because of the high cost of isotopes and the scarcity of experts in the DLW technique. Second, the training loads of all the studies in our review could not be unified. However, to our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of TEE that focuses on fluctuations in the measurement period, age, position, and sex of players in collision team sports. We only included studies that used the DLW technique, the gold standard method of TEE measurement, for data accuracy. Furthermore, we investigated all studies’ measurement periods and training schedules because TEE in athletes is highly influenced by the season and training volume [12].

This systematic review provides convincing evidence that TEE, measured using the DLW method in collision team sports athletes, including soccer, rugby, and basketball, varies depending on different measurement periods, training loads, and body compositions. Therefore, it is crucial to adopt an individualized and sports-specific approach to energy prescription (energy intake based on energy expenditure) for collision team sports athletes. Such individual approaches should consider various positions, ages, sexes, training, and game loads. This review provides valuable information to improve players’ performance in collision teams.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and National Research Foundation of Korea (2019S1A5A2A01041038).

References

1. Westerterp KR. Physical activity and physical activity induced energy expenditure in humans: measurement, determinants, and effects. Front Physiol 2013;4:90–101.
2. Capling L, Beck KL, Gifford JA, Slater G, Flood VM, O’Connor H. Validity of dietary assessment in athletes: a systematic review. Nutrients 2017;9:1313–39.
3. Briggs C, James C, Kohlhardt S, Pandya T. Relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S) - a narrative review and perspectives from the UK. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 2020;71:243–8.
4. Ebine N, Rafamantanantsoa HH, Nayuki Y, Yamanaka K, Tashima K, Ono T, Saitoh S, Jones PJ. Measurement of total energy expenditure by the doubly labelled water method in professional soccer players. J Sports Sci 2002;20:391–7.
5. Smith DR, King RFGJ, Duckworth LC, Sutton L, Preston T, O’Hara JP, Jones B. Energy expenditure of rugby players during a 14-day in-season period, measured using doubly labelled water. Eur J Appl Physiol 2018;118:647–56.
6. Speakman JR. The history and theory of the doubly labeled water technique. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;68:932–8.
7. Speakman JR, Pontzer H, Rood J, Sagayama H, Schoeller DA, Westerterp KR, Wong WW, Yamada Y, Loechl C, Murphy-Alford AJ. The international atomic energy agency international doubly labelled water database: aims, scope and procedures. Ann Nutr Metab 2019;75:114–8.
8. Speakman JR, Yamada Y, Sagayama H, Berman ESF, Ainslie PN, Andersen LF, Arab L, Baddou I, Bedu-Addo K, Blaak EE, Blanc S, Bonomi AG, Bouten CVC, Bovet P, Buchowski MS, Butte NF, Camps SGJA, Close GL, Cooper JA, Creasy SA, Das SK, Cooper R, Dugas LR, Ebbeling CB, Ekelund U, Entringer S, Forrester T, Fudge BW, Goris AH, Gurven M, Hambly C, Hamdouchi AE, Hoos MB, Hu S, Joonas N, Joosen AM, Katzmarzyk P, Kempen KP, Kimura M, Kraus WE, Kushner RF, Lambert EV, Leonard WR, Lessan N, Ludwig DS, Martin CK, Medin AC, Meijer EP, Morehen JC, Morton JP, Neuhouser ML, Nicklas TA, Ojiambo RM, Pietilainen KH, Pitsiladis YP, Plange-Rhule J, Plasqui G, Prentice RL, Rabinovich RA, Racette SB, Raichlen DA, Ravussin E, Reynolds RM, Roberts SM, Schuit AJ, Sjodin AM, Stice E, Urlacher SS, Valenti G, Van Etten LM, Van Mil EA, Wells JCK, Wilson G, Wood BM, Yanovski J, Yoshida T, Zhang X, Murphy-Alford AJ, Loechl CU, Melanson EL, Luke AH, Pontzer H, Rood J, Schoeller DA, Westerterp KR, Wong WW. A standard calculation methodology for human doubly labeled water studies. Cell Rep Med 2021;2:100203.
9. Costello N, Deighton K, Preston T, Matu J, Rowe J, Sawczuk T, Halkier M, Read DB, Weaving D, Jones B. Collision activity during training increases total energy expenditure measured via doubly labelled water. Eur J Appl Physiol 2018;118:1169–77.
10. Silva AM, Santos DA, Matias CN, Rocha PM, Petroski EL, Minderico CS, Sardinha LB. Changes in regional body composition explain increases in energy expenditure in elite junior basketball players over the season. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012;112:2727–37.
11. Costello N, Deighton K, Cummins C, Whitehead S, Preston T, Jones B. Isolated & combined wearable technology underestimate the total energy expenditure of professional young rugby league players; a doubly labelled water validation study. J Strength Cond Res 2022;36:3398–403.
12. Heydenreich J, Kayser B, Schutz Y, Melzer K. Total energy expenditure, energy intake, and body composition in endurance athletes across the training season: a systematic review. Sports Med Open 2017;3:8–32.
13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6e1000100.
14. Morehen JC, Bradley WJ, Clarke J, Twist C, Hambly C, Speakman JR, Morton JP, Close GL. The assessment of total energy expenditure during a 14-day in-season period of professional rugby league players using the doubly labelled water method. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2016;26:464–72.
15. Morehen JC, Rosimus C, Cavanagh BP, Hambly C, Speakman JR, Elliott-Sale KJ, Hannon MP, Morton JP. Energy expenditure of female international standard soccer players: a doubly labeled water investigation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2022;54:769–79.
16. Hannon MP, Parker LJF, Carney DJ, McKeown J, Speakman JR, Hambly C, Drust B, Unnithan VB, Close GL, Morton JP. Energy requirements of male academy soccer players from the English Premier League. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2021;53:200–10.
17. Anderson L, Close GL, Morgans R, Hambly C, Speakman JR, Drust B, Morton JP. Assesment of energy expenditure of a professional goalkeeper from the English Premier League using the doubly labeled water method. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019;14:681–4.
18. Anderson L, Orme P, Naughton RJ, Close GL, Milsom J, Rydings D, O’Boyle A, Michele RD, Louis J, Hambly C, Speakman JR, Morgans R, Drust B, Morton JP. Energy intake and expenditure of professional soccer players of the English Premier League: evidence of carbohydrate periodization. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2017;27:228–38.
19. Brinkmans NYJ, Iedema N, Plasqui G, Wouters L, Saris WHM, van Loon LJC, Dijk JWV. Energy expenditure and dietary intake in professional football players in the Dutch Premier League: implications for nutritional counselling. J Sports Sci 2019;37:2759–67.
20. Santos DA, Silva AM, Matias CN, Magalhães JP, Fields DA, Minderico CS, Ekelund U, Sardinha LB. Validity of a combined heart rate and motion sensor for the measurement of free-living energy expenditure in very active individuals. J Sci Med Sport 2014;17:387–93.
21. Silva AM, Santos DA, Matias CN, Minderico CS, Schoeller DA, Sardinha LB. Total energy expenditure assessment in elite junior basketball players: a validation study using doubly labeled water. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27:1920–7.
22. Damas F, Phillips SM, Libardi CA, Vechin FC, Lixandrão ME, Jannig PR, Costa LA, Bacurau AV, Snijders T, Parise G, Tricoli V, Roschel H, Ugrinowitsch C. Resistance training-induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. J Physiol 2016;594:5209–22.
23. Park J. Using physical activity levels to estimate energy requirements of female athletes. J Exerc Nutrition Biochem 2019;23:1–5.
24. Brown KA, Dewoolkar AV, Baker N, Dodich C. The female athlete triad: special considerations for adolescent female athletes. Transl Pediatr 2017;6:144–9.
25. Dobrowolski H, Włodarek D. Low energy availability in group of Polish female soccer players. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig 2020;71:89–96.

Article information Continued

Figure 1.

Flowchart of inclusion process for the systematic review.

This systematic review followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for searching process, selecting study, collecting data, and analyzing data.

Table 1.

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in rugby players.

Studies Subject characteristic Measurement period Body composition Training and match details during measurement period TEE (kcal)
Pre-season
Costello et al., 2022 n = 6, Age (y) = 17 ± 1 (male) Pre-season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 90.5 ± 11.4 10 resistance-training sessions, 10 field sessions, 4 rest days 4385.8 ± 726.6
Professional RL players European Super League Academy Height (cm) = 179.5 ± 8.7
Position = loose forward, prop forward, half back, hooker, full back, back row, and wing
Costello et al., 2018 n = 6, Age (y) = 17.2 ± 0.7 (male) Pre-season (5 days) Weight (kg) = 87.3 ± 14.9 1 Resistance training and intervention (1 h), 3 Resistance training and field (2 h 30 m) 4544.5 ± 796.4
COLL group (Collision)
Professional Rugby players Height (cm) = 178.2 ± 9.4 Total distance (5 days) = 9513 ± 640 m
Positions = Loose Forward, Prop Forward, Half Back, Hooker and Wing *intervention = The COLL session was comprised of 20 full contact collisions divided into 10 one-on-one tackles and 10 one-on-one hit-ups.
n = 6, Age (y) = 17.2 ± 0.7 (male) Pre-season (5 days) Weight (kg) = 87.3 ± 14.9 1 Resistance training and intervention (1 h), 3 Resistance training and field (2 h 30 m) 4318.4 ± 811.2
nCOLL group (non-Collision)
Professional Rugby players Height (cm) = 178.2 ± 9.4 Total distance (5 days) = 9818 ± 439 m
Positions = Loose Forward, Prop Forward, Half Back, Hooker and Wing *intervention = The nCOLL session replicated the COLL session exactly without collisions
In-season
Smith et al., 2018 n = 5, Age (y) = 15.6 ± 0.5 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 85.4 ± 17.3 Light training daya) = 0 - 2 4010.0 ± 744.0
Height (cm) = 182.1 ± 7.5 Heavy training dayb) = 3 - 5
U16 Elite English Rugby players Championship RU FFM (kg) = 67.8 ± 5.0 Rugby match = 0-2
FM (kg) = 17.6c) Rest day = 9 -10
n = 5, Age (y) = 15.2 ± 0.8 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 79.3 ± 17.1 Light training day = 4
Height (cm) = 180.8 ± 7.0 Heavy training day = 3
U16 Elite English Rugby players professional Super League RL FFM (kg) = 62.2 ± 10.6 Rugby match = 0 - 2
FM (kg) = 17.1c) Rest day = 8
n = 4, Age (y) = 18.3 ± 0.5 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 85.1 ± 8.3 Light training day = 1 - 2 4414.0 ± 688.0
Height (cm) = 178.1 ± 3.5 Heavy training day = 4 - 7
U20 Elite English Rugby players Championship RU FFM (kg) = 68.9 ± 7.4 Rugby match = 0 - 2
FM (kg) = 162 Rest day = 6 - 9
n = 5, Age (y) = 17.6 ± 1.1 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 87.6 ± 8.8 Light training day = 2
Height (cm) = 176.8 ± 3.8 Heavy training day = 7
U20 Elite English Rugby players professional Super League RL FFM (kg) = 66.4 ± 7.3 Rugby match = 1
FM (kg) = 21.2c) Rest day = 5
n = 4, Age (y) = 23 ± 0.8 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 99.4 ± 16.8 Light training day = 1 - 3 4761.0 ± 1523.0
Height (cm) = 184.4 ± 3.2 Heavy training day = 4
U24 Elite English Rugby players Championship RU FFM (kg) = 77.5 ± 7.5 Rugby match = 1
FM (kg) = 21.9c) Rest day = 7 - 9
n = 4, Age (y) = 23 ± 1.8 (male) In-season (14 days) Weight (kg) = 98.3 ± 4.8 Light training day = 8 - 9
Height (cm) = 184.7 ± 2.5 Heavy training day = 1
U24 Elite English Rugby players professional Super League RL FFM (kg) = 82.1 ± 4.8 Rugby match = 0 - 2
FM (kg) = 16.2c) Rest day = 4
Costello et al., 2022 n = 7, Age (y) = 17 ± 1 (male) In-Season (7 day) Weight (kg) = 90.5 ± 11.4 1 competitive match, 3 resistance training sessions, 3 field sessions, 2 rest days, one captains run 3862.3 ± 184.0
Professional RL players European Super League Academy Height (cm) = 179.5 ± 8.7
Position = loose forward, prop forward, half back, hooker, full back, back row, and wing
Morehen et al., 2016 n = 6, Age (y) = no data (male) Professional RL players positions = prop, hooker, wide-running forward, and stand-off, halfback, winger In-Season (7 day) Week 1 day 1 ~ day 7 Weight (kg) = 94.7 ± 6.7 1 competitive game days, 2 rest days 4278.2 ± 501.9
4 training days
Height (cm) = 182.8 ± 2.7 1 Swim (30 m), 2 Weight training (40 m), 2 Skill training (30 ~ 40 m), 2 Rugby training (45 m), 1 Mobility training (15 m), 1 Power weight (30 m), 1 Captains run (30 m)
In-Season (7 day) Week 2 day 8 ~ day 14 FFM (kg) = 76.7 ± 4.8 1 competitive game days, 2 rest days 5783.9 ± 812.6
FM (kg) = 18.0 4 training days
1 Swim (30 m), 2 Weight training (40 m), 2 Skill training (30 ~ 40 m), 2 Rugby training (45 m), 1 Mobility training (15 m), 1 Power weight (30 m), 1 Captains run (30 m)

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

TEE, total energy expenditure; RMR, resting metabolic rate; FFM, fat free mass; FM, fat mass; RL, rugby league; RU, rugby union.

a)

Light training day: one resistance or one rugby training

b)

Heavy training day: both resistance and rugby training

c)

FM (kg) = Weight (kg) – FFM (kg)

Table 2.

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in soccer players.

Studies Subject characteristic Measurement period Body composition Training and match details during measurement period TEE (kcal)
Pre-season
Morehen et al., 2022 n = 24, Age (y) = no data (female), International training camp Weight (kg) = 62.1 ± 4.7 4 training days 2753 ± 359
Professional Soccer players English national team 4 training days before match Height (cm) = 168.1 ± 5.9 pitch-based training (89 min, 89 min, 61 min, 63 min)
Position = 3 goalkeepers, 9 defenders, 4 midfielders, 8 attackers International training camp FFM (kg) = 43.2 ± 3.4 4 training days 2693 ± 432
Total 12 day (9 days at camp, 3 days at home) FM (kg) =18.9a) pitch-based training (89 min, 89 min, 61 min, 63 min),
2 match days (3 players did not play in either match)
In-season
Hannon et al., 2021 n = 8, Age (y) = 12.2 ± 0.4 (male) Total 14 days Weight (kg) = 43.0 ± 4.8 2 games, 6 training 2859 ± 265
Total duration 659 ± 81 min
Total distance 38.3 ± 5.1 km
Average speed 63 ± 4 m/min
U12/13 adolescent soccer players Week 1 Height (cm) = 157.1 ± 4.1 1 game, 2 training 2702 ± 255
Category 1 (top tier) EPL soccer academy day 1 ~ day 7 Total duration 284 ± 45 min
FFM (kg) = 31.1 ± 3.5 Total distance 18.6 ± 2.7 km
Average speed 71 ± 6 m/min
Week 2 FM (kg) = 11.9a) 1 game, 4 training 3122 ± 364
day 8 ~ day 14 Total duration 375 ± 107 min
Total distance 19.7 ± 6.0 km
Average speed 55 ± 5 m/min
n = 8, Age (y) = 15.0 ± 0.2 (male) Total 14 days Weight (kg) = 56.8 ± 6.2 3 games, 6 training 3029 ± 262
Total duration 869 ± 72 min
Total distance 53.7 ± 4.5 km
Average speed 67 ± 2 m/min
U15 adolescent soccer players Week 1 Height (cm) = 173.9 ± 5.6 1 game, 2 training 2955 ± 197
Category 1 (top tier) EPL soccer academy day 1 ~ day 7 Total duration 380 ± 51 min
FFM (kg) = 42.9 ± 5.8 Total distance 25.6 ± 2.9 km
Average speed 73 ± 5 m/min
Week 2 FM (kg) = 13.9a) 1 game, 4 training 3093 ± 352
day 8 ~ day 14 Total duration 489 ± 33 min
Total distance 28.1 ± 3.0 km
Average speed 61 ± 3 m/min
n = 8, Age (y) = 17.5 ± 0.4 (male) Total 14 days Weight (kg) = 73.1 ± 8.1 4 games, 6 training 3586 ± 487
Total duration 846 ± 39 min
Total distance 54.4 ± 7.1 km
Average speed 74 ± 4 m/min
U18 adolescent soccer players Week 1 Height (cm) = 181.2 ± 5.2 2 game, 3 training 3419 ± 560
Category 1 (top tier) EPL soccer academy day 1 ~ day 7 Total duration 369 ± 13 min
FFM (kg) = 57.2 ± 6.1 Total distance 23.2 ± 1.5 km
Average speed 75 ± 6 m/min
Week 2 FM (kg) = 15.9a) 2 game, 3 training 3845 ± 826
day 8 ~ day 14 Total duration 477 ± 44 min
Total distance 31.2 ± 6.6 km
Average speed 73 ± 7 m/min
n = 7, Age (y) = 22.1 ± 1.9 (male) In-Season (7 day) Weight (kg) = 69.8 ± 4.7 2 match and normal training regime 3532 ± 408
Japanese professional soccer player Height (cm) = 175.0 ± 5.0
FFM (kg) = 60.4
FM (kg) = 9.4a)
Anderson et al., 2019 n = 1, Age (y) = 27.0 (male) In-Season (7 day) Weight (kg) = 85.6 2 match (190 min), Training (294 min) 2894
Height (cm) = 191.0 Standing, Walking, Jogging, Running, high-speed running, Sprinting
EPL Professional Goalkeeper FFM (kg) = 69.5 total distance = match 4574 ± 432, Training 1959 ± 500 m, average speed = match 48 ± 5, Training 40 ± 4 m/min), distance completed when jogging = match 993 ± 194, Training 645 ± 81 m, distance completed when running = match 138 ± 16, Training 21 ± 20 m).
FM (kg) = 16.1a)
Brinkmans et al., 2019 n = 41, Age (y) = 23.0 ± 4.0 (male) In-Season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 77.6 ± 8.0 2.3 matches, 8.7 training sessions, 3.1 rest days 3285 ± 354
Dutch Premier League soccer players Height (cm) = 182.0 ± 6.0 Training (n = 39)
FFM (kg) = 68.6 ± 7.2 Total distance 5405 ± 835 m, Time on field 78 ± 11 min, Max speed 25 ± 2 km/h
Position = Goalkeeper, Defender, Midfielder, Attacker FM (kg) = 9a) Match (n = 34)
Total distance 10,293 ± 1710 m, Time on field 90 ± 6 min, Max speed 31 ± 2 km/h
n = 4, Age (y) = 24.0 ± 3.0 (male) In-Season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 89.6 ± 3.7 Training (n = 2) 3365 ± 231
Dutch Premier League soccer players Height (cm) = 189.0 ± 2.0 Total distance 3726 ± 203 m, Time on field 84 ± 13 min, Max speed 19 ± 1 km/h
FFM (kg) = 78.5 ± 5.3 Match (n = 3)
Position = Goalkeeper FM (kg) = 11.1a) Total distance 5741 ± 362 m, Time on field 94 ± 0 min, Max speed 25 ± 3 km/h
n = 12, Age (y) = 25.0 ± 4.0 (male) In-Season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 79.2 ± 7.4 Training (n = 12) 3333 ± 489
Dutch Premier League soccer players Height (cm) = 185.0 ± 4.0 Total distance 5942 ± 666 m, Time on field 83 ± 11 min, Max speed 25 ± 1 km/h
FFM (kg) = 70.5 ± 7.6 Match (n = 10)
Position = Defender FM (kg) = 8.7a) Total distance 10716 ± 455 m, Time on field 93 ± 3 min, Max speed 32 ± 1 km/h
n = 13, Age (y) = 22.0 ± 4.0 (male) In-Season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 71.7 ± 4.9 Training (n = 13) 3180 ± 294
Dutch Premier League soccer players Height (cm) = 179.0 ± 5.0 Total distance 5312 ± 844 m, Time on field 75 ± 11 min, Max speed 25 ± 1 km/h
FFM (kg) = 63.5 ± 4.2 Match (n = 11)
Position = Midfielder FM (kg) = 8.2a) Total distance 11441 ± 801 m, Time on field 92 ± 3 min, Max speed 31 ± 1 km/h
n = 12, Age (y) = 21.0 ± 3.0 (male) In-Season (14 day) Weight (kg) = 78.5 ± 7.1 Training (n = 12) 3322 ± 297
Dutch Premier League soccer players Height (cm) = 181.0 ± 8.0 Total distance 5251 ± 569 m, Time on field 74 ± 8 min, Max speed 25 ± 2 km/h
FFM (kg) = 68.8 ± 5.8 Match (n = 10)
Position = Attacker FM (kg) = 9.7a) Total distance 9972 ± 972 m, Time on field 83 ± 8 min, Max speed 31 ± 2 km/h
Anderson et al., 2017 n = 6, Age (y) = 27.0 ± 3.0 (male) In-Season (7 day) Weight (kg) = 80.5 ± 8.7 5 training days and 2 match days 3566 ± 585
Matches (142 min), Training (178 min)
EPL professional soccer players Height (cm) = 180.0 ± 7.0 Total distance = 26438 ± 5408 m
FFM (kg) = 65.0 ± 6.7 Running = 3405 ± 1501 m
Position = Center forward, Wide defender, Wide Midfielder, Central defending midfielder, Central attacking midfielder, Central defender. FM (kg) = 15.5a) High-speed running = 1322 ± 717 m
Sprinting = 430 ± 274 m

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

TEE, total energy expenditure; RMR, resting metabolic rate; FFM, fat free mass; FM, fat mass; EPL, English premier league.

a)

FM (kg) = Weight (kg) – FFM (kg)

Table 3.

Summary of TEE measured using doubly labeled water method, body composition and training loads in basketball players.

Studies Subject characteristic Measurement period Body composition Training and match details during measurement period TEE (kcal)
Pre-season
Silva et al., 2012 n = 8, Age (y) = 16.0 ± 0.5 (male) Pre-Seasona) (7 days) Weight (kg) = 77.7 ± 6.6 5 technical-tactical training (120 min each) per week (endurance running, ball exercise, sprint running, training game) 4573.1 ± 949.3
Height (cm) = 194.0 ± 0.5
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 67.0 ± 5.2
FM (kg) = 10.7c)
n = 9, Age (y) = 16.3 ± 0.5 (female) Pre-Seasona) (7 days) Weight (kg) = 64.3 ± 7.1 5 technical-tactical training (120 min each) per week (endurance running, ball exercise, sprint running, training game) 3045.7 ± 375
Height (cm) = 175.0 ± 0.5
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 49.2 ± 4.4
FM (kg) = 15.1c)
Silva et al., 2013 n = 12, Age (y) = 17.0 ± 0.7 (male) Pre-Season (7 days) Weight (kg) = 80.9 ± 7.7 5 sessions technical-tactical training and game (120 min), 2 resistance training (60 min) before basketball practice, 2 competition games 4621.7 ± 681.4
Height (cm) = 192.5 ± 6.4
Portuguese junior national basketball players FFM (kg) = 72.5 ± 6
FM (kg) = 8.4c)
n = 7, Age (y) = 16.9 ± 0.7 (female) Pre-Season (7 days) Weight (kg) = 64 ± 5.4 5 sessions technical-tactical training and game (120 min), 2 resistance training (60 min) before basketball practice, 2 competition games 3493.8 ± 241.9
Height (cm) = 173.1 ± 3.3
Portuguese junior national basketball players FFM (kg) = 50.9 ± 2.2
FM (kg) = 13.1c)
Santos et al., 2014 n = 4, Age (y) = 16.4 ± 0.6 (male) Pre-Season (7 days) Weight (kg) = 74.5 ± 6.5 4 Technical tactical (120 min), 2 Resistance training (60 min), 1 training game, 2 physical education classes (90 min) 4006.2 ± 733.7
Height (cm) = 189.9 ± 2.8
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 63.3 ± 4.9
position = 2 guards, 2 forwards FM (kg) = 11.2c)
n = 8, Age (y) = 16.5 ± 0.5 (female) Pre-Season (7 days) Weight (kg) = 64.3 ± 7.6 4 Technical tactical (120 min), 2 Resistance training (60 min), 1 training game, 2 physical education classes (90 min) 3395.8 ± 603
Height (cm) = 175.9 ± 4.3
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 49.2 ± 4.7
position = 2 guards, 4 forwards, 2 centres FM (kg) = 15.1c)
In-season
Silva et al., 2012 n = 8, Age (y) = 16 ± 0.5 (male) Competitive periodb) (7 days) Weight (kg) = 79.9 ± 6.8 No data 4921.1 ± 866.2
Height (cm) = 195.0 ± 0.5
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 69.7 ± 5.5
FM (kg) =10.2
n = 7, Age (y) = 16.9 ± 0.7 (female) Competitive periodb) (7 days) Weight (kg) = 65.7 ± 6.5 No data 3563.8 ± 274.1
Height (cm) = 176.0 ± 0.5
Portuguese junior national basketball team FFM (kg) = 50.8 ± 4.3
FM (kg) = 14.9

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

TEE, total energy expenditure; RMR, resting metabolic rate; FFM, fat free mass; FM, fat mass.

a)

The beginning of the pre-season measurements was performed in the first week of the preseason training period (September).

b)

The competitive period measurements occurred at the end of the in-season period, 2–3 weeks before the main national competition corresponding to the final four of the National Championship in the years of age category under-18 (May), and 2 months before the under-18 years European Championships division-B category.

c)

FM (kg) = Weight (kg) – FFM (kg)