Comparing Individualized vs. Non-Individualized Locomotor Profiling on High-Intensity Interval Training Adaptations in Soccer Players: A Randomized Parallel Study.

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
DongMing Zhu, DongMei Song, ZhiDa Huang
{"title":"Comparing Individualized vs. Non-Individualized Locomotor Profiling on High-Intensity Interval Training Adaptations in Soccer Players: A Randomized Parallel Study.","authors":"DongMing Zhu, DongMei Song, ZhiDa Huang","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2025.503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the effects of individualized versus non-individualized HIIT programming, based on players' locomotor profiles, on the magnitude of adaptations in aerobic, anaerobic, and neuromuscular capacities. A randomized, controlled, parallel-group design was conducted with 46 male youth soccer players (age: 16.5 ± 0.5 years), who were allocated into four groups: individualized HIIT (HIITind), long-interval HIIT only (HIITlong), repeated sprint training only (RST), and a control group that maintained regular training without any HIIT intervention. In the HIITind group, players were assigned to either HIITlong or RST based on their locomotor profile - endurance or speed-oriented - determined by the difference between maximal sprint speed (MSS) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), respectively. In contrast, players in the HIITlong and RST groups followed the same protocol regardless of their profile. The training intervention lasted six weeks, with sessions conducted twice per week. Players were assessed at baseline and post-intervention for countermovement jump (CMJ), MSS over 30 meters (km/h), repeated sprint ability (RSA), and MAS, using the 5-minute running test. Significant improvements were found in all training groups compared to the control. RST showed greater improvements in CMJ (p < 0.001), MSS (p < 0.001), anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) (p < 0.001), and RSAmean (p < 0.001) compared to HIITind and HIITlong. No significant differences were observed between HIITind and HIITlong. Locomotor profiles influenced MSS (p < 0.001) and ASR (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while both individualized and non-individualized HIIT protocols improve physical capacities, RST offers superior benefits for anaerobic and neuromuscular adaptations, whereas both HIITind and long are more effective than RST for enhancing aerobic capacity, with no significant differences observed between them.</p>","PeriodicalId":54765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"24 3","pages":"503-512"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12418199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2025.503","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the effects of individualized versus non-individualized HIIT programming, based on players' locomotor profiles, on the magnitude of adaptations in aerobic, anaerobic, and neuromuscular capacities. A randomized, controlled, parallel-group design was conducted with 46 male youth soccer players (age: 16.5 ± 0.5 years), who were allocated into four groups: individualized HIIT (HIITind), long-interval HIIT only (HIITlong), repeated sprint training only (RST), and a control group that maintained regular training without any HIIT intervention. In the HIITind group, players were assigned to either HIITlong or RST based on their locomotor profile - endurance or speed-oriented - determined by the difference between maximal sprint speed (MSS) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), respectively. In contrast, players in the HIITlong and RST groups followed the same protocol regardless of their profile. The training intervention lasted six weeks, with sessions conducted twice per week. Players were assessed at baseline and post-intervention for countermovement jump (CMJ), MSS over 30 meters (km/h), repeated sprint ability (RSA), and MAS, using the 5-minute running test. Significant improvements were found in all training groups compared to the control. RST showed greater improvements in CMJ (p < 0.001), MSS (p < 0.001), anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) (p < 0.001), and RSAmean (p < 0.001) compared to HIITind and HIITlong. No significant differences were observed between HIITind and HIITlong. Locomotor profiles influenced MSS (p < 0.001) and ASR (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while both individualized and non-individualized HIIT protocols improve physical capacities, RST offers superior benefits for anaerobic and neuromuscular adaptations, whereas both HIITind and long are more effective than RST for enhancing aerobic capacity, with no significant differences observed between them.

足球运动员高强度间歇训练适应性的个体化与非个体化运动特征比较:一项随机平行研究。
本研究旨在比较个性化和非个性化HIIT训练的效果,基于运动员的运动特征,对有氧、无氧和神经肌肉能力的适应程度。采用随机、对照、平行组设计,将46名男性青少年足球运动员(年龄:16.5±0.5岁)分为四组:个性化HIIT (HIITind)组、只进行长时间HIIT (HIITlong)组、只进行重复冲刺训练(RST)组和保持常规训练不进行任何HIIT干预的对照组。在HIITind组中,运动员被分配到HIITlong或RST,这是基于他们的运动特征——耐力或速度导向——分别由最大冲刺速度(MSS)和最大有氧速度(MAS)之间的差异决定的。相比之下,HIITlong组和RST组的玩家无论他们的情况如何,都遵循相同的方案。训练干预持续了六周,每周进行两次。采用5分钟跑步测试,在基线和干预后评估运动员的反动作跳跃(CMJ)、超过30米(km/h)的MSS、重复冲刺能力(RSA)和MAS。与对照组相比,所有训练组都有显著改善。与HIITind和HIITlong相比,RST在CMJ (p < 0.001)、MSS (p < 0.001)、厌氧速度储备(ASR) (p < 0.001)和RSAmean (p < 0.001)方面有更大的改善。HIITind和HIITlong之间无显著差异。运动剖面影响MSS (p < 0.001)和ASR (p < 0.001)。这些研究结果表明,虽然个体化和非个体化HIIT方案都能提高身体能力,但RST在无氧和神经肌肉适应方面具有更好的益处,而HIITind和long在增强有氧能力方面都比RST更有效,两者之间没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (JSSM) is a non-profit making scientific electronic journal, publishing research and review articles, together with case studies, in the fields of sports medicine and the exercise sciences. JSSM is published quarterly in March, June, September and December. JSSM also publishes editorials, a "letter to the editor" section, abstracts from international and national congresses, panel meetings, conferences and symposia, and can function as an open discussion forum on significant issues of current interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信