Body Fat Meta Analyses

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319979500
Comparison of body fat percentage of male soccer players of different

competitive levels, playing positions and age groups: A meta-analysis
Article in The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · November 2017

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07941-5
CITATIONS READS
11 4,768
4 authors, including:
Maamer Slimani Amri Hammami
60 PUBLICATIONS 924 CITATIONS
High Institute of Sport and Physical Education Ksarsaid, Tunisia
29 PUBLICATIONS 478 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Nicola Bragazzi
York University
975 PUBLICATIONS 13,844 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sociology of Islam View project
Colaborating with FIRB Nanoitalnet: Nanosensori organici e biologici (RBPR05JH2P) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Maamer Slimani on 13 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2017
Comparison of body fat percentage of male soccer players of different

competitive levels, playing positions and age groups: a meta-analysis
Maamer Slimani1, Hela Znazen1, Amri Hammami2, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi3,4
1
Research Laboratory ‘‘Sport Performance Optimization’’, National Centre of Medicine and
Science in Sport (CNMSS), El Menzah, Tunisia
2
Laboratory of physiology, faculty of medicine Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
3
School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Genoa University, Genoa,
Italy
4
Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child
Health (DINOGMI), Section of Psychiatry, Genoa University, Genoa, Italy
Corresponding Author:
Maamer Slimani
Research Laboratory ‘‘Sport Performance Optimization’’, National Centre of Medicine and
Science in Sport (CNMSS), El Menzah, Tunisia
Email: maamer2011@hotmail.fr
Phone: +21697067695
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to declare that no sources of funding were used in the preparation of this
review. They would also like to affirm that they have no conflict of interest that is directly or
indirectly relevant to the content of the present review.
1
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present meta-analysis was to compare the body fat percentage
(%) between male soccer players of different competitive levels, playing positions and age
groups. METHODS: The systematic search was conducted using different databases and
according to the Population/Intervention or Exposure/Comparison/Outcome(s) [PICO] criteria.
RESULTS: Higher % values of body fat in lower-level soccer players than higher-level
counterparts (ES=0.18, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.14, p=0.006) were noted. Higher body fat % values in
goalkeepers than defenders (ES=0.21, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.34, p<0.001), midfielders (ES=0.26,
95% CI -1.50 to -0.45, p<0.001) and forwards (ES=0.18, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.53, p<0.001) were
observed. There was no significant association between % of body fat and age (p=0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, body fat % clearly distinguished higher- from lower-level
soccer players. These findings also imply that body fat % differ as a function of positional role in
soccer and that sports scientists, coaches, and strength and conditioning professionals need to be
aware of the specific positional requirements in soccer in terms of body fat. However, due to
some limitations of the present meta-analysis (high statistically significant heterogeneity and
evidence of publication bias), further studies are urgently needed in the field.
Key words: anthropometric, meta-analysis, position, age, soccer.
2
Introduction
Soccer is one of the oldest team sports.1 It is characterized by short sprints, rapid acceleration or
deceleration, turning, jumping, kicking, and tackling.1 Soccer performance is complex and multi-
factorial, and depends, as such, on a number of different variables, such as anthropometric
profile, physical fitness, psychological factors, player technique, and team tactics, among others.2
This complexity requires a multivariate approach. For instance, Reilly et al. 3, who tried to
identify talent in soccer, showed that it is possible to differentiate skilled (elite) and less skilled
(sub-elite) soccer players on the basis of four categories: namely, anthropometric, physiological
and psychological profiling and soccer-specific skill performance. The authors indicated that
four variables successfully discriminated between groups: speed, agility, motivational orientation
and perceptual skill.3 However, the anthropometric profile, particularly the percentage (%) of
body fat, of soccer players, is generally overlooked in a context of talent identification, despite
its importance. Body composition is, indeed, a crucial aspect of fitness for soccer, in that excess
adipose tissue acts as dead weight in activities where body mass must be lifted repeatedly against
gravity.4 For that reason, Gil et al. 5
claimed that the relationship between the physiological
demands of soccer and the composition of the player’s body is of considerable importance.
Although not every body composition characteristic is expected to play a role in optimal
6 5
performance in professional soccer, it has been recognized by Rienzi et al. and by Gil et al.
that lower levels of body fat (that are specific to each individual player) are desirable for optimal
performance as body mass must be moved against gravity. In other words, by achieving optimal
levels of body fat and fat-free mass, the player can minimize the negative effects of excess body
fat without sacrificing skill. Since performance is so strongly dependent on body fat,7 monitoring
body composition in soccer players from both a performance and health perspective is essential
to both coaches and players.
Optimizing the body fat characteristics of soccer players is considered relevant for high-
level competitive performance.1 Nevertheless, it is recognized that % values of body fat often
distinguish those successful at the highest standard from their less successful counterparts.3
Identification of the anthropometric characteristics, particularly the body fat, that distinguish
outstanding performers from their peers has been a goal of sports scientists and coaches in
soccer, as in other sports. Furthermore, a previous study showed that the % of body fat was
higher in the Icelandic first division teams’ players (11.2 ± 4.3%) than in the elite league teams’
3
players (10.0 ± 4.2%).8 Accordingly, it has been shown that the % of body fat was higher in sub-
elite than in elite soccer players.3 In contrast, other studies reported no significant differences
between international and non-international soccer players in the % of body fat.9,10
Identifying each player’s specialized position is especially important in order to optimize

their body composition development so that to prepare them for higher playing levels later in
their career. Previous studies showed higher % of body fat in goalkeepers than in outfielders
(forward players, midfielders, and defenders).11-15 In contrast, other studies reported that the % of
body fat was lower in elite midfielders than in other positions (i.e., defenders, attackers, and
goalkeepers),16 while others reported that the body fat % of goalkeepers and defenders was
greater than that of midfielders.17 Moreover, it was shown that 10-13 year-old amateur forwards
exhibited lower values of % of body fat than all the other athletes (12.1 ± 4.5 vs. goalkeepers:
17.0 ± 6.7; defenders: 15.3 ± 5.1; midfielders: 14.0 ± 5.7, p<0.01).18 Another study showed no
significant differences in the % body fat between playing positions.19 In addition, when
comparing the % of body fat between age groups, no significant differences in the % of body fat
during the phase of growth and development (between 10 and 13 years)20 or between adolescent
ages21 in soccer players. In contrast, as compared to the other groups (U-17, U-19, and Pro2), U-
15 players had a significantly higher % of body fat.22 These discrepancies among studies hinder
reaching a decisive conclusion. Pooling studies together and analyzing them using a meta-
analytic approach could significantly advance sports research.
Understanding the specific body fat requirements of soccer players of different

competitive levels, playing positions and age categories can, indeed, provide insightful
information regarding what is truly needed for competitive success in that sport and prepare them
for higher playing levels. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to compare the body fat %
between male soccer players according to their competitive levels, playing positions and age
groups.
Methods
Search Strategy
The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for
23
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1, ). The reviewed
4
articles were selected from an extensive search process of the English language literature,
including major computerized databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of
Science and Scopus databases, with the dates ranging from January 1, 1995 to May 31, 2017.
Search terms included: soccer, anthropometric, body fat, age, playing position and competitive
level.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion of criteria was made according to the Population/Intervention/Comparison/
Outcome(s) (PICO) criteria:
(a) Population: Studies recruiting male soccer players at any age category and competitive
level as participants.
(b) Intervention: Original investigations focusing on body fat % of male soccer players.
(c) Comparison: Body fat % between male soccer players relative to their competitive levels,
playing positions and/or age categories.
(d) Outcome(s): Body fat %.
The exclusion criteria were:
(a) Reviews, comments, opinions, and commentaries, interviews, letters to the editor,
editorials, as well as gray literature (posters, conference abstracts, book chapters, and
books) were excluded; available reviews were scanned for increasing the chance of
including potentially relevant articles.
(b) No comparison of body fat % between soccer players of different competitive levels,
playing positions and/or age categories.
(c) Studies lacking quantitative information and details.
Statistical Analyses
For the meta-analysis part, data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized
documentation form. The parameters extracted included the surname of first author, year of
publication, sample size, age, competitive level and playing position of players. Effect estimates
(ES) were computed as standardized mean differences, with their 95% confidence interval (CIs).
Meta-analyses were carried out using the commercial software MedCalc Statistical Software
v16.4.3 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium) and ProMeta v2 (Internovi, Italy). Statistical
5
heterogeneity was also assessed in our meta-analysis, using the I2 statistic. More in details, if the
I2 was >50%, this was regarded as substantial significant heterogeneity. Possible publication bias
was visually inspected with a funnel plot, looking at asymmetry of the graph. If asymmetry was
present based on visual assessment, exploratory analyses were performed in order to investigate
and adjust this using trim and/or fill analysis. Further, ES was calculated according to the
𝑀𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 −𝑀𝑝𝑟𝑒
following formula: 𝐸𝑆 = . In accordance with Hedges,24 this formula was adjusted for
𝑆𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑
3
sample size: J = 1 − (4Ni−1) where Ni is the total sample size of the intervention group minus
one. The magnitude of the effects were interpreted as changes using the following criteria: trivial
(< 0.20), small (0.21–0.60), moderate (0.61–1.20), large (1.21–2.00), very large (2.01–4.00) and
extremely large (> 4.00).24 In addition, the probability of publication bias was tested using
Egger’s linear regression, being significant of bias publication in case of p <0.10.
Results
Study Selection
The search strategies yielded a preliminary pool of 985 possible papers. The full text of 32
articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility against the inclusion criteria. After a careful
review of their full texts 6 articles were excluded and the remaining 26 articles were eligible for
inclusion in the review (Figure 1). Particularly, 7 papers assessed the % of body fat of soccer
player according to competitive level. Eleven articles focused on the % of body fat of soccer
players relative to playing position. Eight studies focused on the % of body fat of soccer players
relative to age groups.
***Figure 1 here***
Participants
Sample size ranged between 2 and 113. The subject’s age within the selected studies ranged from
9 to 38 years. Additional information including the training status of participants can be found in
tables 1, 2 and 3.
6
Competitive levels
Significant differences in the % of body fat between competitive levels, with higher % of body
fat in lower-level soccer players than higher-level competitors (ES=0.18 [trivial], 95% CI -0.86
to -0.14, t=2.72, p=0.006; Q=212.57, I2=90.12%, 95% CI 89.89 to 96.12, p<0.0001). Further,
evidence of publication bias was noticed (Table 1, Figure 2).
***Figure 2 here***
***Table 1 here***
Playing positions
Higher % of body fat values in goalkeepers than defenders (ES=0.21 [small], 95% CI -1.17 to -
0.34, t=3.60, p<0.001; Q=48.07, I2=77.12%, 95% CI 60.21 to 86.84, p<0.0001), midfielders
(ES=0.26 [small], 95% CI -1.50 to -0.45, t=3.68, p<0.001; Q=62.55, I2=84.01%, 95% CI 72.94
to 90.56, p<0.0001) and forwards (ES=0.18 [trivial], 95% CI -1.26 to -0.53, t=4.81, p<0.001;
Q=33.91, I2=67.57%, 95% CI 40.67 to 82.27, p=0.0004) were observed. Moreover, the
asymmetry of the funnel plot suggested a certain evidence of publication bias. Furthermore, no
significant differences between midfielders versus forwards (p=0.73), midfielders versus
defenders (p=0.36) and forwards versus defenders (p=0.051) were noted (Figure 3abcdef, Table
2).
***Figure 3abcdef here***
***Table 2 here***
Age groups
At the meta-regression analysis, there were no significant correlations between age and % of
body fat (p=0.86) (Table3, Figure 4a). Moreover, the asymmetry of the funnel plot suggested a
certain evidence of publication bias (Figure 4b).
***Figure 4ab here***
***Table 3 here***
7
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis aimed to compare the % of body fat between
male soccer players of different competitive levels, playing positions and age groups. The
present meta-analysis shows that the % of body fat was a discriminator of successful
performance in soccer between higher- and lower-level soccer players. It has also been shown
that the outfield players possess the lowest % of body fat values than goalkeepers. Thus, there
was no significant association between body fat % and age.
Competitive levels
The comparison between competitive levels (elite vs. sub-elite) as well as with players in other
championships strongly suggest that amateur or sub-elite players need a higher amount and
intensity of training to achieve a physique and body composition similar to those of more
successful teams. However, the mean range of body fat percentage varies from 8 to 31% for male
soccer players regardless of competitive levels, playing positions and age groups. More
specifically, in light of the studies presented in Table 1, the mean % of body fat of elite and
amateur male soccer players were approximately 10 and 12 %, respectively. However, the
present meta-analysis shows a higher % of body fat in lower-level soccer players than higher-
level counterparts (ES=0.18 [trivial], p=0.006). This difference might be due to the training
regimen differences between elite and non-elite soccer players. Furthermore, of the seven studies
that investigated these qualities, only one study has found a significant difference between elite
and sub-elite soccer players in the % of body fat.3 This maybe explained in part that when
pooling the results together the statistical power was increased. In contrast, the other studies
showed no significant differences between elite and division I,8 selected and non-selected,25 elite
and non-elite,5 international and non-international 10,26 and first team players and reserves.27 This
meta-analysis suggests that the % of body fat is one of the most powerful discriminators between
higher- and lower-level soccer players.
Playing positions
8
Profiling players by position has already been studied in a variety of team sports, such as soccer,5
and revealed that between playing positions, trivial and small differences in body fat %,
particularly between outfielders and goalkeepers. The overall % of body fat values reported in
the scientific literature vary between 11 and 31 % for male goalkeepers, between 8 and 29 % for
defenders, between 9 and 25 % for midfielders, and between 9 and 27 % for forwards (Table 2).
However, when comparing the % of body fat between playing positions, the current meta-
analysis found that the % of body fat was lower in outfield players than goalkeepers. This may
be explained in part by the differences in body mass and training regimen between the two
positions. For instance, goalkeepers were significantly taller and heavier than outfield players.3
Thus, a possible reason for this is that each playing position has different tactical requirements
and that goalkeepers cover the least distance while midfielders run the greatest distances during
soccer match-play.36,37 These results indicate the need for sports scientists and conditioning
professionals to take the body fat of soccer players into account when designing individualized
position specific training programs.
Age groups
The present meta-analysis shows that the % of body fat was not mediated by the age groups even
though previous studies showed that the % of body fat was affected by the maturation,
suggesting that older athletes had higher % of body fat than younger counterparts.38,39 In addition
to the maturation hypothesis, there have been systematic attempts indicating the
anthropometrical advantages purported for relative older athletes. 38,39
Because the % of body fat is mediated by numerous factors such as competitive level and
playing position, future studies should take into account all of these parameters and interpret the
body fat % accordingly. Skinfold-based methods for estimating the body mass percentage
represent the tool used in most of the available studies. Although special attention should be
taken by practitioners to recognize the limitations of the results from the different prediction
equations for quantifying the body fat % through this method. Other equations such as the British
Olympic Association’s recommended method of using the sum of five skinfold sites 40
or the
soccer-specific skinfold equation reported by Wallace et al.41 may be more suitable methods of
assessing body fat in soccer players.
9
Conclusion
This review represents a step towards a determination of the anthropometric characteristics that
differentiate higher from lower-level soccer players. The reviewed data suggest that elite or
higher-level soccer players possess the lowest % of body fat values compared with lower-level
counterparts represented by statistically significant (p=0.006) and trivial ES differences
(ES=0.18) between groups. The data also revealed that the % of body fat measurement was able
to discriminate between goalkeepers and outfielders. For that reasons, body fat % is one of the
most important indicators of talent in soccer. Nevertheless, it is hoped that coaches and sports
scientists may use the present results as a tool for a better understanding of the role and
interpretation of body fat measures as part of the fitness profiling of professional soccer players
and as a means for identifying areas that require further exploration. Finally, due to the highly
statistically significant heterogeneity and to the evidence of publication bias, further studies are
urgently needed in the field.
10
References
1. Stølen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisløff U. Physiology of soccer. Sports Med
2005;35(6):501-536.
2. Slimani M, Bragazzi NL, Tod D, Dellal A, Hue O, Cheour F, et al. Do cognitive training
strategies improve motor and positive psychological skills development in soccer
players? Insights from a systematic review. J Sports Sci 2016;34(24):2338-2349.
3. Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A, Franks A. A multidisciplinary approach to talent
identification in soccer. J Sport Sci 2000;18:695-702.
4. Reilly, T. Fitness assessment. In: Reilly T, editor. Science and Soccer. London: E and FN
Spon; 1996. p. 25-49.
5. Gil SM, Gil J, Irazusta A, Ruiz F, Irazusta J. Anthropometric and physiological profile of
successful young soccer players. In: Science and Football V. In: Reilly T, Cabri J, Araújo
D, editors. The proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Science and Football.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group; 2005. p. 434-441.
6. Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JEL, Martin A. Investigation of anthropometric and
work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 2000;40(2):162-169.
7. Nikolaidis PT. Elevated body mass index and body fat percentage are associated with
decreased physical fitness in soccer players aged 12-14 years. Asian J Sports Med
2012;3(3):168-74.
8. Arnason A, Sigurdsson SB, Gudmundsson A, Holme I, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Physical
fitness, injuries, and team performance in soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36:278-
285.
9. Rebelo, A, Brito, J, Maia, J, Coelho-e-Silva, MJ, Figueiredo, AJ, Bangsbo, J, et al.
Anthropometric characteristics, physical fitness and technical performance of under-19
soccer players by competitive level and field position. Int J Sports Med 2013;34(4):312-
317.
10. Sutton L, Scott M, Wallace J, Reilly T. Body composition of English Premier League
soccer players: Influence of playing position, international status, and ethnicity. J Sports
Sci 2009;27(10):1019-1026.
11
11. Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Lekue JA, Amado M, Santos-Concejero M, Gil SM. Identifying

talented young soccer players: conditional, anthropometrical and physiological
characteristics as predictors of performance. RICYDE. Rev Int Cienc Deporte
2015;39(11):79-95.
12. Gil SM, Gil, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of young soccer players according to their playing position: relevance for
the selection process. J Strength Cond Res 2007b;21:438-45.
13. Masocha V, Katanha A. Anthropometry and somatotype characteristics of male
provincial youth league soccer players in Zimbabwe according to playing positions. Int J
Sci Res 2014;3:554-557.
14. Santi-Maria T, Gómez Campos R, Andruske CL, Gamero DH, Luarte-Rocha C, Arruda
M, et al. percentage of body fat of young soccer players: comparison of proposed
regression frequencies between goalkeepers and soccer camp players. JEPonline
2015;18(6):70-80.
15. Tahara Y, Moji K, Tsunawake N, Fukuda R, Nakayama M, Nakagaichi M, et al.
Physique, body composition and maximum oxygen consumption of selected soccer
players of Kunimi High School, Nagasaki, Japan. J Physiol Anthropol 2006;25:291-297.
16. Sporis G, Jukic I, Ostojic SM, Milanovic D. Fitness profiling in soccer: physical and
physiologic characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23(7):1947-1953.
17. Abdullah MR, Musa RM, Maliki ABHM, Suppiah PK, Kosni NA. Relationship of
physical characteristics, mastery and readiness to perform with position of elite soccer
players. Int J Adv Eng Appl Sci 2016;01(01):08-11.
18. Portes LA, Canhadas IL, RLP Silva, de Oliveira NC. Anthropometry and fitness of young
elite soccer players by field position. Sport Sci Health 2015;11:321-328.
19. Aurélio J, Dias E, Soares T, Jorge G, da Cunha Espada MA, Filho DMP, et al.
Relationship between body composition, anthropometry and physical fitness in under-12
soccer players of different positions. Int J Sports Sci 2016;6(1A):25-30.
20. Canhadas IL, Silva RLP, Chaves CR, Portes LA. Anthropometric and physical fitness
characteristics of young male soccer players. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum
2010;12:239.
12
21. Nikolaidis PT, Karydis NV. Physique and body composition in soccer players across
adolescence. Asian J Sports Med 2011;2 (2):75-82.
22. Deprez D, Fransen J, Boone J, Lenoir M, Philippaerts R, Vaeyens R. Characteristics of
high-level youth soccer players: variation by playing position. J Sports Sci 2014;7:1-12.
23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151: 264-269.
24. Hedges L. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J
Educ Stat 1981;6:107-128.
25. Gil S, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Gil J, Irazusta J. Selection of young soccer players in terms of
anthropometric and physiological factors. J Sports Med Phys Fit 2007a;47:25-32.
26. le Gall F, Carling C, Williams M, Reilly T. Anthropometric and fitness characteristics of
international, professional and amateur male graduate soccer players from an elite youth
academy. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:90-95.
27. Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, Zubero J, Gil J, Irazusta J. Anthropometric and physiological
differences between first team and reserve soccer players aged 10–14 years at the
beginning and end of the season. J Strength Cond Res 2008;22:1308-1314.
28. Silvestre R, West C, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ. Body composition and physical
performance in men's soccer: a study of a National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division I team. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20(1):177-183.
29. Noh JW, Kim MY, Lee LK, et al. Somatotype and body composition analysis of Korean
youth soccer players according to playing position for sports physiotherapy research. J
Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1013-1017.
30. Nikolaidis PT, Knechtle B, Clemente F, Torres-Luque G. Reference values for the sprint
performance in male football players aged from 9–35 years. Biomed Hum Kinetics
2016;8:103-112.
31. Boraczyński M, Boraczyński T, Podstawski R, Wójcik Z. Relationships between
anthropometric traits, body composition and aerobic capacity in male soccer players aged
13–15 years. J Kinesiology Exer Sci 2015;69 (25):33-40.
32. Vanderford LM, Meyers MC, Skelly WA, Stewart CC, Hamilton KL. Physiological and
sport-specific skill response of Olympic youth soccer athletes. J Strength Cond Res
2004;18(2):334-342.
13
33. Chamari K, Moussa-Chamari I, Boussaidi L, Hachana Y, Kaouech F, Wisløff U.

Appropriate interpretation of aerobic capacity: Allometric scaling in adult and young
soccer players. Br J Sports Med 2005;39(2):97-101.
34. Mendez-Villanueva A , Buchheit M , Kuitunen S , Douglas A , Peltola E , Bourdon P .
Age-related differences in acceleration, maximum running speed repeated-sprint
performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 2011;29:477-484.
35. Nikolaidis PT. Age-related differences in countermovement vertical jump in soccer
players 8-31 years old: the role of fat-free mass. Am J Sports Sci Med 2014;2:60-64.
36. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players
with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sports Sci 2003;21:519-528.
37. Rampinini E, Coutts AJ, Castagna C, Sassi R, Impellizzeri FM (2007) Variation in top
level soccer match performance. Int J Sports Med:28:1018-1024.
38. Carling C, le Gall F, Reilly T, Williams AM. Do anthropometric and fitness
characteristics vary according to birth date distribution in elite youth academy soccer
players? Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009;19(1):3-9.
39. Hirose N. Relationships among birth-month distribution, skeletal age and anthropometric
characteristics in adolescent elite soccer players. J Sports Sci 2009;27(11):1159-66.
40. Reilly, T, Maughan, RJ, and Hardy, L. Body fat consensus statement of the steering
groups of the British Olympic Association. Sports Exerc Inj 2: 46-49, 1996.
41. Wallace, J, Billows, D, George, K, and Reilly, T. Bone mineral density and body
composition changes during a Premier League association football season. J Sports Sci
Med 7: 53-54, 2007.
14
Table 1. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to competitive levels (data
are presented as the mean ± SD).
Table 2. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to playing positions (data
are presented as the mean ± SD).
Table 3. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to age groups (data are
presented as the mean ± SD).
15
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow-
chart.
Records identified through database Additional records identified

Identification
searching through other sources

(n=985) (n=0)
Records after duplicates removed

(n=532)
Screening
Records screened Records excluded

(n=532) (n=500)
Eligibility
Full-text articles assessed

Full-text articles excluded,
for eligibility
with reasons
(n=32)
(n=6)
Included
Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(n=26)
16
Figure 2. Body fat percentage of male soccer players according to competitive levels: forest-plot and funnel-plot for investigating
evidence of publication bias.
17
Figure 3. Body fat percentage of male soccer players according to playing positions: forest-plot and funnel-plot for investigating
evidence of publication bias.
a) Defenders versus goalkeepers
18
b) Midfielders versus goalkeepers
19
c) Forwards versus goalkeepers
20
d) Midfielders versus forwards
21
e) Midfielders versus defenders
22
f) Forwards versus defenders
23
Figure 4a. Meta-regression analysis of the association between body fat percentage of male soccer players and age.
24
Figure 4b. Funnel plot for investigating evidence of publication bias related to the meta-
regression analysis of the association between body fat percentage and age.
25
Table 1. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to

competitive levels (data are presented as the mean ± SD).
Study Age Level group 1 Level group 2
n mean±SD n mean±SD
Elite Sub-elite
Reilly et al. 3 16.4 yrs 16 11.3±2.1 15 13.9±3.8
Elite division Division I

16-38
Arnason et al. 8 80 9.9±0.5 70 11.2±0.5
yrs
Selected Non-selected
Gil et al. 25 U14 29 11±0.4 19 11.9±0.5
Gil et al. 25 U 15 36 11.5±0.3 17 11.1±0.4
25
Gil et al. U 16 29 12.1±0.5 12 13.3±0.7
25
Gil et al. U 17 32 11.6±0.2 20 12.3±0.5
Elite Non-elite
Rebelo et al. 9 GK 9 12.4±4.5 9 12.5±5.6
Rebelo et al. 9 CD 13 10.7±3.7 13 10.6±3.5
Rebelo et al. 9 FB 14 10.4±2.9 13 10.4±2.6
Rebelo et al. 9 MF 38 10.8±2.9 30 10.8±3.3
Rebelo et al. 9 FW 21 11.1±2.9 20 11.8±3.5
International Non international

26.2±4.0 10.0±1.9 10.5±2.0
Sutton et al. 10 31 25
yrs
International Amateurs
le Gall et al. 26 U 14 16 11.9±1.42 89 12.4±2.3
le Gall et al. 26 U 15 16 11.6±1.8 76 12.6±2.52
le Gall et al. 26 U 16 16 11.3±1.5 76 12.6±2.5
Professionals Amateurs
le Gall et al. 26 U 14 56 12.5±2.6 89 12.4±2.3
le Gall et al. 26 U 15 54 13.0±5.0 76 12.6±2.52
le Gall et al. 26 U 16 54 12.6±2.3 76 12.6±2.5
International Professionals
le Gall et al. 26
U 14 16 11.9±1.42 56 12.5±2.6
le Gall et al. 26
U 15 16 11.6±1.8 54 13.0±5.0
le Gall et al. 26 U 16 16 11.3±1.5 54 12.6±2.3
26
First team players Reserves

10-14
Gravina et al. 27 44 10.95±1.9 22 11.56±3.0
yrs
GK=goalkeeper; CD=central defender; FB=fullback; MF=midfielder; FW=forward;
U=under; yrs=years.
27
Table 2. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to playing
positions (data are presented as the mean ± SD).
Study Age (yrs) Level Position group 1 Position group 2
Midfielders Forwards
Arnason et al. 8 16-38 E 76 10.7±4.2 47 9.6±5.1
Bidaurrazaga- 12.61±0.6 Pro 15 10.10 ± 0.92 30 9.39 ± 0.93
11
Letona et al.
Tahara et al. 15 16-18 NP 23 9.5±2.5 12 10.9± 2.9
28
Silvestre et al. 19.9±1.3 NP 10 11.7±3.3 4 15.2±10.9
10
Sutton et al. 26.2±4.0 Pro 22 10.2±1.8 14 9.9±2
Masocha et al. 13 15.3±0.68 NR 4 9.2±0.26 5 10.0±1.49
29
Noh et al. 16.3±0.1 A 6 5.5±0.9 6 4.0±0.6
12
Gil et al. 17.31±2.64 NP 79 11.85 ± 2.34 56 10.95 ±1.31
Portes et al. 18 10-13 NP 113 14.0±5.7 80 12.1±4.5
16
Sporis et al. 28.3±5.9 E 80 8.4±2.9 80 10.2±2.1
17
Abdullah et al. ±17 E 71 25.82±5.02 40 27.89±6.06
Aurélio et al. 19 U 12 FD 6 12.1±3.1 6 12.0±2.3
Midfielders Defenders
8
Arnason et al. 16-38 E 76 10.7±4.2 87 10.6±3.6
Bidaurrazaga- 12.61±0.6 Pro 15 10.10 ± 0.92 37 10.14±1.73
11
Letona et al.
Tahara et al. 15 16-18 NP 23 9.5±2.5 31 8.5±2.4
Silvestre et al. 28 19.9±1.3 NP 10 11.7±3.3 9 12.2±3.7
10
Sutton et al. 26.2±4.0 Pro 22 10.2±1.8 20 10.6±2.1
13
Masocha et al. 15.3±0.68 NR 4 9.2±0.26 4 9.7±0.87
Noh et al. 29 16.3±0.1 A 6 5.5±0.9 8 4.4±0.7
Gil et al. 12 17.31±2.64 NP 79 11.85±2.34 77 11.69±1.90
18
Portes et al. 10-13 NP 113 14.0±5.7 77 15.3±5.1
Sporis et al. 16 28.3±5.9 E 80 8.4±2.9 80 12.2±0.7
Abdullah et al. 17 ±17 E 71 25.82±5.02 78 29.84±10.83
19
Aurélio et al. U 12 FD 6 12.1±3.1 6 12.0±2.5
Midfielders Goalkeepers
3
Arnason et al. 16-38 E 76 10.7±4.2 15 12.3±5.3
28
Letona et al. 7
Tahara et al. 11 16-18 NP 23 9.5±2.5 6 13.7±4.1
Sutton et al. 6 26.2±4.0 Pro 22 10.2±1.8 8 12.9±2
9
Masocha et al. 15.3±0.68 NR 4 9.2±0.26 3 11.2±0.91
Noh et al. 23 16.3±0.1 A 6 5.5±0.9 2 3.7±0.4
Gil et al. 8 17.31±2.64 NP 79 11.85±2.34 29 12.22±1.74
14
Portes et al. 10-13 NP 113 14.0±5.7 26 17.0±6.7
12
Sporis et al. 28.3±5.9 E 80 8.4±2.9 30 14.2±1.9
Abdullah et al. 13 ±17 E 71 25.82±5.02 20 31.91±11.08
19
Aurélio et al. U 12 FD 6 12.1±3.1 15 12.3±5.3
Forwards Defenders
Arnason et al. 8 16-38 E 47 9.6±5.1 87 10.6±3.6
Letona et al. 11
Tahara et al. 15 16-18 NP 12 10.9± 2.9 31 8.5±2.4
28
Sutton et al. 10 26.2±4.0 Pro 14 9.9±2 20 10.6±2.1
Masocha et al. 13 15.3±0.68 NR 5 10.0±1.49 4 9.7±0.87
29
Noh et al. 16.3±0.1 A 6 4.0±0.6 8 4.4±0.7
12
Gil et al. 17.31±2.64 NP 56 10.95 ±1.31 77 11.69 ± 1.90
Portes et al. 18 10-13 NP 80 12.1±4.5 77 15.3±5.1
16
Sporis et al. 28.3±5.9 E 80 10.2±2.1 80 12.2±0.7
17
Abdullah et al. ±17 E 40 27.89±6.06 78 29.84±10.83
Aurélio et al. 19 U 12 FD 6 12.0±2.3 6 12.0±2.5
Forwards Goalkeepers
Arnason et al. 8 16-38 E 47 9.6±5.1 15 12.3±5.3
11
Letona et al.
Tahara et al. 15 16-18 NP 12 10.9± 2.9 6 13.7±4.1
10
Sutton et al. 26.2±4.0 Pro 14 9.9±2 8 12.9±2
13
Masocha et al. 15.3±0.68 NR 5 10.0±1.49 3 11.2±0.91
Noh et al. 29 16.3±0.1 A 6 4.0±0.6 2 3.7±0.4
12
Gil et al. 17.31±2.64 NP 56 10.95±1.31 29 12.22±1.74
18
Portes et al. 10-13 NP 80 12.1±4.5 26 17.0±6.7
Sporis et al. 16 28.3±5.9 E 80 10.2±2.1 30 14.2±1.9
29
Abdullah et al. 17 ±17 E 40 27.89±6.06 20 31.91±11.08

19
Aurélio et al. U 12 FD 6 12.0±2.3 15 12.3±5.3
Defenders Goalkeepers
8
Arnason et al. 16-38 E 87 10.6±3.6 15 12.3±5.3
Bidaurrazaga- 12.61±0.6 Pro 37 10.14±1.73 15 12.05±2.36
Letona et al. 11
Tahara et al. 15 16-18 NP 31 8.5±2.4 6 13.7±4.1
28
Sutton et al. 10 26.2±4.0 Pro 20 10.6±2.1 8 12.9±2
13
Masocha et al. 15.3±0.68 NR 4 9.7±0.87 3 11.2±0.91
29
Noh et al. 16.3±0.1 A 8 4.4±0.7 2 3.7±0.4
Gil et al. 12 17.31±2.64 NP 77 11.69±1.90 29 12.22±1.74
18
Portes et al. 10-13 NP 77 15.3±5.1 26 17.0±6.7
16
Sporis et al. 28.3±5.9 E 80 12.2±0.7 30 14.2±1.9
Abdullah et al. 17 ±17 E 78 29.84±10.83 20 31.91±11.08
Aurélio et al. 19 U 12 FD 6 12.0±2.5 15 12.3±5.3
A=amateur; E=elite; FD= first division; NP=non-professionals; NR = not reported; P=
professionals; U = under; yrs=years
30
Table 3. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to

age groups (data are presented as the mean ± SD).
Age group 1 Age group 2

Study Level
10 11
20
Canhadas et al. P 14 14.8±5.1 51 13.1±5.6
Nikolaidis et al. 30 A 10 17.0±4.2 15 18.8±5.8
11 12
20
Canhadas et al. P 51 13.1±5.6 121 14.5±5.8
30
Nikolaidis et al. A 15 18.8±5.8 38 20.5±5.0
12 13
Canhadas et al. 20 P 121 14.5±5.8 96 13.9±5.2
Nikolaidis and Karydis 21 NR 16 18.57±6.73 30 16.61±5.22
30
13 14
Boraczyński et al. 31
NR 9 16.59±1.89 9 16.40±2.27
30
14 15
Boraczyński et al. 31
NR 9 16.40±2.27 9 15.80±2.16
le Gall et al. 26 A 89 12.4±2.3 76 12.6±2.52
26
le Gall et al. P 56 12.5±2.6 54 13.0±5.0
26
le Gall et al. I 16 11.9±1.42 16 11.6±1.8
Gil et al. 25 S 29 11±0.4 36 11.5±0.3
25
Gil et al. NS 19 11.9±0.5 17 11.1±0.4
21
Nikolaidis and Karydis NR 38 15.8±3.57 55 16.43±4.18
Vanderford et al. 32 E 20 7.8±0.3 19 7.7±0.5
15 16
26
le Gall et al. A 76 12.6±2.52 70 12.6±2.5
le Gall et al. 26 I 16 11.6±1.8 16 11.3±1.5
le Gall et al. 26 P 54 13.0±5.0 57 12.6±2.3
25
Gil et al. S 36 11.5±0.3 29 12.1±0.5
25
Gil et al. NS 17 11.1±0.4 12 13.3±0.7
31

32
Vanderford et al. E 19 7.7±0.5 19 9.0±0.4
16 17
25
Gil et al. S 29 12.1±0.5 32 11.6±0.2
25
Gil et al. NP 12 13.3±0.7 20 12.3±0.5
30
17 18
21
18 19
21
30
19 20
21
30
20 21
21
14 24
33
Chamari et al. E 21 11.6±1.8 24 11.8±3.2
14 16
34
Mendez-Villanueva et al. HT 14 9.7±3.5 22 9.2±1.6
35
Nikolaidis C 70 16.1±5.1 92 15.4±3.8
16 18
34
Mendez-Villanueva et al. HT 22 9.2±1.6 25 10.0±2.4
Nikolaidis 35 C 92 15.4±3.8 33 14.4±3.3
21 25
21
30
21 35
30
A=amateur; C=competitive; HT=highly trained; I=Internationals; P=professionals;
NR=not reported; NS=Non-selected; S=Selected
32
View publication stats

Body Fat Meta Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Body Fat Meta Analyses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Body Fat Meta Analyses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Comparison of body fat percentage of male soccer players of different

Article in The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · November 2017

Maamer Slimani Amri Hammami

Sociology of Islam View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of body fat percentage of male soccer players of different

Maamer Slimani1, Hela Znazen1, Amri Hammami2, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi3,4

Key words: anthropometric, meta-analysis, position, age, soccer.

Identifying each player’s specialized position is especially important in order to optimize

Understanding the specific body fat requirements of soccer players of different

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

***Figure 3abcdef here***

***Figure 4ab here***

11. Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Lekue JA, Amado M, Santos-Concejero M, Gil SM. Identifying

33. Chamari K, Moussa-Chamari I, Boussaidi L, Hachana Y, Kaouech F, Wisløff U.

Records identified through database Additional records identified

searching through other sources

Records after duplicates removed

Records screened Records excluded

Full-text articles assessed

a) Defenders versus goalkeepers

b) Midfielders versus goalkeepers

c) Forwards versus goalkeepers

d) Midfielders versus forwards

e) Midfielders versus defenders

f) Forwards versus defenders

Table 1. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to

Study Age Level group 1 Level group 2

Reilly et al. 3 16.4 yrs 16 11.3±2.1 15 13.9±3.8

Elite division Division I

Rebelo et al. 9 GK 9 12.4±4.5 9 12.5±5.6

Rebelo et al. 9 CD 13 10.7±3.7 13 10.6±3.5

Rebelo et al. 9 FB 14 10.4±2.9 13 10.4±2.6

Rebelo et al. 9 MF 38 10.8±2.9 30 10.8±3.3

Rebelo et al. 9 FW 21 11.1±2.9 20 11.8±3.5

International Non international

le Gall et al. 26 U 16 16 11.3±1.5 54 12.6±2.3

First team players Reserves

Abdullah et al. 17 ±17 E 40 27.89±6.06 20 31.91±11.08

Table 3. Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to

Age group 1 Age group 2

Nikolaidis et al. 30 A 37 17.4±3.8 49 15.3±3.7

View publication stats

You might also like

Figure 3abcdef here

Figure 4ab here