Women’s participation in soccer has increased rapidly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physiological demands imposed on women’s NCAA Division I soccer players across a season according to speed, total distance traveled, and numbers of sprints measured via GPS (Polar Team Pro^®). Eighteen athletes (19.2 ± 1.1 years, 50.5 ± 6.5 mL/kg/min and 23.4 ± 3.6% fat) participated in this study. The analysis was obtained through 13 official matches. Speed zones were defined as Zone 1 (1.0 to 5.99 km·h⁻¹), Zone 2 (6.0 to 10.99 km·h⁻¹), Zone 3 (11.0 to 15.49 km·h⁻¹), Zone 4 (15.5 to 19.9 km·h⁻¹) and Zone 5 (sprint > 20 km·h⁻¹), with Zones 4–5 considered as high intensity running. Individual differences in playing time and total distance were highly variable due to substitutions. Average distance traveled per game in quartiles was 3.9 km, 5.6 km and 7.4 km in the 25th, 50th, and 75th quartiles, respectively. Relative to playing time, players travelled an average of 113.64 ± 17.12 m/min (range: 93.7 to 143.5 m/min) and ran one sprint every 4.12 ± 2.06 min. When distance was summated and analyzed for the entire team, significant difference between halves was found for speed Zones 2, 3 and 4, with greater values found in the first half. Total distance, high intensity running and sprint distance were significantly less than previously recorded in professional players. These findings suggest that coaches should consider the unique physiological demands and recovery opportunities present in NCAA play when constructing practices and conditioning programs.

Purpose: This study examined acute physiological responses to moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE), variable-intensity intermittent exercise (VIIE), and high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) protocol, matched for total work output in healthy adults (n = 8, age = 25.1 ± 6.0 yrs). Methods: Three experimental trials were completed in a random order. MICE was continuous exercise at 40% of peak work rate (WR_peak). VIIE consisted of sixteen 10-sec bursts at 120% WRpeak, sixteen 20-sec bursts at 60% WR_peak and recovery at 20% WR_peak interspersed throughout the protocol. HIIE consisted of eight intervals of 2 minutes at 70% WR_peak and 1 minute at 20% WR_peak. Oxygen consumption during work-intervals and time within moderate and vigorous-intensity zones determined the magnitude and duration of physiological stresses. Perceptual responses were measured by affective response and post-exercise enjoyment (PACES). Repeated-measure ANOVAs analyzed differences between trials. Statistical significance was established if p ≤ 0.05. Results: Oxygen consumption during work-intervals in VIIE was greater than MICE, but less than HIIE. VIIE and HIIE had similar duration within vigorous-intensity zone (11.1 ± 3.5 min vs. 13.5 ± 1.3 min); both were greater than MICE (4.9 ± 1.1 min). The time spent in the moderate-intensity zone was different between all trials (VIIE = 11.1 ± 2.0 min; MICE = 17.4 ± 5.2 min; HIIE = 4.9 ± 0.4 min). Affective responses were similar among all trials. Post-exercise enjoyment was greater in VIIE than HIIE; both were not different from MICE. Conclusion: These results suggests the VIIE paradigm could be a viable alternative to HIIE and MICE protocols.

Prediction equations have been considered an accurate method for estimating resting metabolic rate (RMR) across multiple populations, but their accuracy for college-aged individuals not on an athletics team remains to be determined. Sixty-two college-aged (18–30 yrs) males (n = 31) and females (n = 31) had their RMR measured (RMRm), using indirect calorimetry, and body composition assessed via air-displacement plethysmography. The World Health Organization (WHO), Mifflin−St Jeor (Mifflin), Harris−Benedict (HB), Cunningham, and Nelson equations were used to estimate RMR. No difference was observed between the Cunningham and RMRm regardless of sex (p ≥ 0.05). All other prediction equations estimated a significantly lower RMR for males (p < 0.05). The Mifflin and Nelson equations predicted an RMR that was significantly lower than RMRm for females (p < 0.05). When compared with RMRm, no difference was detected for females using the WHO, HB, or Cunningham (p ≥ 0.05). Only the Nelson equation predicted an RMR that was outside of the clinically acceptable range (±10% of RMRm) regardless of sex. The Cunningham, WHO, and HB equations can accurately predict RMR for college-aged males and females. RMR prediction equations used in this study are less accurate for those with greater RMRs. Novelty: For adults 18–30 years old that are not on an athletics team, the Cunningham equation can accurately predict RMR. The Nelson equation should not be used to predict RMR for this population. There is a systematic bias for RMR prediction equations to underestimate higher measured RMR values.

Introduction: This study examined muscular and cardiovascular responses to light-intensity aerobic exercise with different blood flow restriction (BFR) protocols. Methods: Ten males performed four protocols on the cycle ergometer: low-intensity exercise with no BFR (LIE), LIE with continuous BFR (CONT-BFR), LIE with intermittent BFR (INT-BFR), and high-intensity exercise (HIE). Each protocol consisted of five 2-min work intervals (INT) at 35% of peak work rate for LIE, CONT-BFR, and INT-BFR and 70% of peak work rate for HIE. During CONT-BFR, cuffs were inflated to 60% of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP) at the start of INT 1 and remained inflated until the end of INT 5. During INT-BFR, cuffs were inflated to 60% of AOP during INTs and deflated during recovery intervals. Tissue oxygen saturation (StO ₂ ) and rate pressure product (RPP) were measured to assess hypoxic stimulus and myocardial work, respectively. Results: StO ₂ response was similar between CONT-BFR (−23.2 ± 12.4 change from baseline arbitrary units ΔBSL AU), INT-BFR (−23.1 ± 13.1 ΔBSL AU), and HIE (−26.1 ± 13.1 ΔBSL AU); StO ₂ response was the smallest in LIE (−2.8 ± 13.0 ΔBSL AU). RPP was not different between CONT-BFR (20,872.8 ± 2,393.3 mmHg·bpm) and INT-BFR (21,056.7 ± 2,701.5 mmHg·bpm), but both were lower than HIE (30,760.2 ± 1,729.1 mmHg·bpm). RPP during LIE (17,893.2 ± 2,202.6 mmHg·bpm) was lower than all protocols. Discussion: There were no differences in hypoxic stress or myocardial work between BFR conditions. BFR conditions, regardless of restriction protocol, produced similar hypoxic stimulus with lower cardiac work compared to HIE; BFR protocol could be an alternative to HIE.

This study examined the effect of maturation on parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) response from rest to light- to moderate-intensity exercise and recovery from maximal exercise in pre- (n = 10; ...