Carvalho, Victoria

Research quantifying the unique workload demands of starters and reserves in training and match settings throughout a season in collegiate soccer is limited. Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to compare accumulated workloads between starters and reserves in collegiate soccer. Methods: Twenty-two NCAA Division III female soccer athletes (height: 1.67 ± 0.05 m; body mass: 65.42 ± 6.33 kg; fat-free mass: 48.99 ± 3.81 kg; body fat %: 25.22 ± 4.78%) were equipped with wearable global positioning systems with on-board inertial sensors, which assessed a proprietary training load metric and distance covered for each practice and 22 matches throughout an entire season. Nine players were classified as starters (S), defined as those playing >50% of playing time throughout the entire season. The remaining 17 were reserves (R). Goalkeepers were excluded. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine the extent of differences in accumulated training load throughout the season by player status. Results: Accumulated training load and total distance covered for starters were greater than reserves ((S: 9431 ± 1471 vs. R: 6310 ± 2263 AU; p < 0.001) and (S: 401.7 ± 31.9 vs. R: 272.9 ± 51.4 km; p < 0.001), respectively) throughout the season. Conclusions: Starters covered a much greater distance throughout the season, resulting in almost double the training load compared to reserves. It is unknown if the high workloads experienced by starters or the low workloads of the reserves is more problematic. Managing player workloads in soccer may require attention to address potential imbalances that emerge between starters and reserves throughout a season.

Background: Energy drinks are one of the most popular packaged beverage products consumed within the United States (US). Energy drinks are considered a functional beverage, a category that also includes sports drinks and nutraceutical beverages. Purpose: The focus of the current study was to examine the nutrition fact panels of the top selling commercially available energy drink and energy shot products within the US to characterize common ingredient profiles to help establish a standard definition and ingredient profile of energy drinks and energy shots for consumers, health care practitioners, and researchers. Methods: The top 75 commercially available energy drinks and shots were identified and compiled from multiple commercial retail websites as of September 2021. For the purpose of this study, an energy drink must have met the following criteria: (A) marketed as an energy drink; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) not sold as a dietary supplement (no supplement fact panels); (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged and ready-to-drink beverage; and (E) contains at least three of (1) caffeine, (2) B-vitamins, (3) sugar, (4) taurine, (5) creatine, (6) quercetin, (7) guarana, (8) ginseng, (9) coenzyme Q10, or (10) branched chain amino acids. Energy shots must have met similar criteria to be included: (A) marketed as an energy shot; (B) purported to improve energy, focus, or alertness; (C) sold as a dietary supplement; (D) manufactured as a pre-packaged beverage with a small volume (<3.5 mL); and (E) contains at least three of the ingredients stated above. Results: Twenty energy shots and fifty-five energy drinks were included in this analysis. The number of ingredients per product (mean ± SD) was 18.2 ± 5.7, with 15 products containing proprietary blends with undisclosed ingredient amounts. The relative prevalence and average amounts of the top ingredients were as follows: caffeine (100%; 174.4 ± 81.1 mg), vitamin B6 (72%; 366.9 ± 648.1 percent daily value (%DV)), vitamin B3 (67%; 121.44 ± 69.9% DV), vitamin B12 (67%; 5244.5 ± 10,474.6% DV), vitamin B5 (37.3%; 113.6 ± 76.6% DV), and taurine (37.3%; amounts undisclosed). Conclusions: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of caffeine and B-vitamins in these energy products, with many of the formulations containing well above the recommended daily value of B-vitamins.