Daily energy requirements of male academy soccer players are greater than age-matched non-academy soccer players: A doubly labelled water investigation.

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of male academy soccer players is greater than players not enrolled on a formalised academy programme. English Premier League academy (ACAD: n = 8, 13 years, 50 ± 6 kg, 88 ± 3% predicted adult stature, PAS) and non-academy players (NON-ACAD: n = 6, 13 years, 53 ± 12 kg, 89 ± 3% PAS) were assessed for TDEE (via doubly labelled water) during a 14-day in-season period. External loading was evaluated during training (ACAD: 8 sessions, NON-ACAD: 2 sessions) and games (2 games for both ACAD and NON-ACAD) via GPS, and daily physical activity was evaluated using triaxial accelerometry. Accumulative duration of soccer activity (ACAD: 975 ± 23 min, NON-ACAD: 397 ± 2 min; p < 0.01), distance covered (ACAD: 54.2 ± 8.3 km, NON-ACAD: 21.6 ± 4.7 km; p < 0.05) and time engaged in daily moderate-to-vigorous (ACAD: 124 ± 17 min, NON-ACAD: 79 ± 18 min; p < 0.01) activity was greater in academy players. Academy players displayed greater absolute (ACAD: 3380 ± 517 kcal · d-1, NON-ACAD: 2641 ± 308 kcal · d-1; p < 0.05) and relative TDEE (ACAD: 66 ± 6 kcal · kg · d-1, NON-ACAD: 52 ± 10 kcal · kg · d-1; p < 0.05) versus non-academy players. Given the injury risk associated with high training volumes during growth and maturation, data demonstrate the requirement for academy players to consume sufficient energy (and carbohydrate) intake to support the enhanced energy cost of academy programmes.

COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in patients with cancer and the effect of primary tumour subtype and patient demographics: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are purported to have poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases, encompassing a spectrum of tumour subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate COVID-19 risk according to tumour subtype and patient demographics in patients with cancer in the UK. METHODS: We compared adult patients with cancer enrolled in the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) cohort between March 18 and May 8, 2020, with a parallel non-COVID-19 UK cancer control population from the UK Office for National Statistics (2017 data). The primary outcome of the study was the effect of primary tumour subtype, age, and sex and on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and the case-fatality rate during hospital admission. We analysed the effect of tumour subtype and patient demographics (age and sex) on prevalence and mortality from COVID-19 using univariable and multivariable models. FINDINGS: 319 (30·6%) of 1044 patients in the UKCCMP cohort died, 295 (92·5%) of whom had a cause of death recorded as due to COVID-19. The all-cause case-fatality rate in patients with cancer after SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with increasing age, rising from 0·10 in patients aged 40-49 years to 0·48 in those aged 80 years and older. Patients with haematological malignancies (leukaemia, lymphoma, and myeloma) had a more severe COVID-19 trajectory compared with patients with solid organ tumours (odds ratio [OR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·15-2·15; p<0·0043). Compared with the rest of the UKCCMP cohort, patients with leukaemia showed a significantly increased case-fatality rate (2·25, 1·13-4·57; p=0·023). After correction for age and sex, patients with haematological malignancies who had recent chemotherapy had an increased risk of death during COVID-19-associated hospital admission (OR 2·09, 95% CI 1·09-4·08; p=0·028). INTERPRETATION: Patients with cancer with different tumour types have differing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 phenotypes. We generated individualised risk tables for patients with cancer, considering age, sex, and tumour subtype. Our results could be useful to assist physicians in informed risk-benefit discussions to explain COVID-19 risk and enable an evidenced-based approach to national social isolation policies. FUNDING: University of Birmingham and University of Oxford.