Body Composition Evaluation During The Competitive Season Of An NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Team

NCAA Division II student-athletes participating in varsity sport experience similar demands in training, competition, and academics as their Division I counterparts, yet receive much less assistance and opportunity regarding nutrition and recovery. Division II athletes may be at higher risk of performance decrement, injury, and overall health reduction if muscle and bone tissue are lost while in-season. PURPOSE: to repeatedly assess whole-body composition in a Division II men’s soccer team throughout the competitive season. METHODS: Men’s collegiate soccer athletes (n = 26; 21 ± 2 y; 77.5 ± 4.6 kg; 1.8 ± 0.1 m) were recruited. All athletes were assessed for whole-body composition via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry twice during the competitive season: preseason and midseason. Specific variables measured were body mass (BM), bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass (FM), % body fat (%BF), lean mass + BMC (LM + BMC), and lean mass (LM). Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Cohen’s d for effect size. Error rate was p ≤ .05. RESULTS: From preseason to postseason, there was no statistically significant difference in BM (77.5 ± 4.6 vs. 77.8 ± 4.5 kg), BMC (3023 ± 286 vs. 3012 ± 261 g), FM (14,043 ± 2374 vs. 13,366 ± 2118 g), %BF (17.9 ± 2.5 vs. 17.0 ± 2.3), LM + BMC (64,165 ± 3647 vs. 65,055 ± 3919 g), or LM (61,142 ± 3522 vs. 62,043 ± 3801 g). However, a moderate effect size was observed in %BF decrease (d = 0.4), LM increase (d = 0.3), and FM decrease (d = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Variables of whole-body composition did not significantly change from preseason to midseason. Only one athlete suffered a soft-tissue injury, and did not result in extended loss of playing time. Further, there was a moderately meaningful increase in LM and decrease in %BF and FM. The outcome is a positive sign that in-season athletes in a lower-level NCAA division without the benefit of nutrition access commonly afforded to Division I athletes (e.g., “training table”) can successfully maintain functional body mass to support sport performance and general health.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001160948.49594.e0
Primary Topic
Sports Performance and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Body Composition Evaluation During The Competitive Season Of An NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Team

William R. Lunn, Robert S. Axtell
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Sports Performance and Training
article

Body Composition Evaluation During The Competitive Season Of An NCAA Division II Men's Soccer Team

William R. Lunn, Robert S. Axtell
article en

Abstract

NCAA Division II student-athletes participating in varsity sport experience similar demands in training, competition, and academics as their Division I counterparts, yet receive much less assistance and opportunity regarding nutrition and recovery. Division II athletes may be at higher risk of performance decrement, injury, and overall health reduction if muscle and bone tissue are lost while in-season. PURPOSE: to repeatedly assess whole-body composition in a Division II men’s soccer team throughout the competitive season. METHODS: Men’s collegiate soccer athletes (n = 26; 21 ± 2 y; 77.5 ± 4.6 kg; 1.8 ± 0.1 m) were recruited. All athletes were assessed for whole-body composition via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry twice during the competitive season: preseason and midseason. Specific variables measured were body mass (BM), bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass (FM), % body fat (%BF), lean mass + BMC (LM + BMC), and lean mass (LM). Data were analyzed using paired t-test and Cohen’s d for effect size. Error rate was p ≤ .05. RESULTS: From preseason to postseason, there was no statistically significant difference in BM (77.5 ± 4.6 vs. 77.8 ± 4.5 kg), BMC (3023 ± 286 vs. 3012 ± 261 g), FM (14,043 ± 2374 vs. 13,366 ± 2118 g), %BF (17.9 ± 2.5 vs. 17.0 ± 2.3), LM + BMC (64,165 ± 3647 vs. 65,055 ± 3919 g), or LM (61,142 ± 3522 vs. 62,043 ± 3801 g). However, a moderate effect size was observed in %BF decrease (d = 0.4), LM increase (d = 0.3), and FM decrease (d = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Variables of whole-body composition did not significantly change from preseason to midseason. Only one athlete suffered a soft-tissue injury, and did not result in extended loss of playing time. Further, there was a moderately meaningful increase in LM and decrease in %BF and FM. The outcome is a positive sign that in-season athletes in a lower-level NCAA division without the benefit of nutrition access commonly afforded to Division I athletes (e.g., “training table”) can successfully maintain functional body mass to support sport performance and general health.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 57(10S)
Southern Connecticut State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Sports Performance and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.