Unilateral flywheel resistance training versus traditional resistance training for change-of-direction performance in elite soccer players: a randomised controlled trial.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Ziqi Han, TianLiang Zhao, ZhiWei Wen, Tao Yang, Yue Dou, JiaHui Hu, Bo Zhang, DingMeng Ren
{"title":"Unilateral flywheel resistance training versus traditional resistance training for change-of-direction performance in elite soccer players: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Ziqi Han, TianLiang Zhao, ZhiWei Wen, Tao Yang, Yue Dou, JiaHui Hu, Bo Zhang, DingMeng Ren","doi":"10.1186/s13102-026-01909-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Soccer requires frequent high-intensity decelerations, braking actions, and multidirectional re-accelerations. Flywheel resistance training may provide a braking-oriented inertial stimulus that is relevant to change-of-direction (COD) performance. However, randomised controlled evidence directly comparing unilateral flywheel resistance training with unilateral traditional resistance training in high-level soccer players remains limited. This study compared the effects of unilateral flywheel resistance training and unilateral traditional resistance training on COD-related performance in high-level male soccer players.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six high-level male soccer players were randomly allocated to a flywheel resistance training group (FRT, n = 13) or a traditional resistance training group (TRT, n = 13), and 22 players completed the study and were included in the final analysis (FRT, n = 11; TRT, n = 11). Both groups completed an 8-week intervention twice per week in addition to regular soccer training. The unilateral Bulgarian split squat was used in both groups, with training structure and movement pattern matched between conditions. Performance was assessed before and after the intervention using 10-m and 30-m linear sprint tests, the T-test, Pro-agility test, Arrowhead change-of-direction test, and AFL-derived change-of-direction tasks performed without and with the ball. Intervention effects were analysed using Bayesian repeated-measures analysis of variance, with evidence for the group × time interaction quantified using inclusion Bayes factors (BFincl).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FRT group showed greater improvements than the TRT group in the T-test (BFincl = 135.96), Pro-agility test (BFincl = 107.01), Arrowhead-L (BFincl = 34.55), Arrowhead-R (BFincl = 25.63), and AFL-derived COD task without the ball (BFincl = 17.33). Evidence for an interaction was moderate for the AFL-derived COD task with the ball (BFincl = 3.24), anecdotal for the 10-m sprint (BFincl = 2.52), and favoured no interaction for the 30-m sprint (BFincl = 0.64).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Under matched unilateral movement conditions, flywheel resistance training was associated with greater reductions in completion time than traditional resistance training across several pre-planned COD tasks in high-level male soccer players. However, this pattern was less consistent for linear sprinting and the ball-constrained AFL-derived COD task, suggesting task-specific transfer of training adaptation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07567677. Retrospectively registered on 28 April 2026.</p>","PeriodicalId":48585,"journal":{"name":"BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13679102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-026-01909-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Soccer requires frequent high-intensity decelerations, braking actions, and multidirectional re-accelerations. Flywheel resistance training may provide a braking-oriented inertial stimulus that is relevant to change-of-direction (COD) performance. However, randomised controlled evidence directly comparing unilateral flywheel resistance training with unilateral traditional resistance training in high-level soccer players remains limited. This study compared the effects of unilateral flywheel resistance training and unilateral traditional resistance training on COD-related performance in high-level male soccer players.

Methods: Twenty-six high-level male soccer players were randomly allocated to a flywheel resistance training group (FRT, n = 13) or a traditional resistance training group (TRT, n = 13), and 22 players completed the study and were included in the final analysis (FRT, n = 11; TRT, n = 11). Both groups completed an 8-week intervention twice per week in addition to regular soccer training. The unilateral Bulgarian split squat was used in both groups, with training structure and movement pattern matched between conditions. Performance was assessed before and after the intervention using 10-m and 30-m linear sprint tests, the T-test, Pro-agility test, Arrowhead change-of-direction test, and AFL-derived change-of-direction tasks performed without and with the ball. Intervention effects were analysed using Bayesian repeated-measures analysis of variance, with evidence for the group × time interaction quantified using inclusion Bayes factors (BFincl).

Results: The FRT group showed greater improvements than the TRT group in the T-test (BFincl = 135.96), Pro-agility test (BFincl = 107.01), Arrowhead-L (BFincl = 34.55), Arrowhead-R (BFincl = 25.63), and AFL-derived COD task without the ball (BFincl = 17.33). Evidence for an interaction was moderate for the AFL-derived COD task with the ball (BFincl = 3.24), anecdotal for the 10-m sprint (BFincl = 2.52), and favoured no interaction for the 30-m sprint (BFincl = 0.64).

Conclusions: Under matched unilateral movement conditions, flywheel resistance training was associated with greater reductions in completion time than traditional resistance training across several pre-planned COD tasks in high-level male soccer players. However, this pattern was less consistent for linear sprinting and the ball-constrained AFL-derived COD task, suggesting task-specific transfer of training adaptation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07567677. Retrospectively registered on 28 April 2026.

单侧飞轮阻力训练与传统阻力训练对精英足球运动员改变方向表现的影响:一项随机对照试验。
背景:足球需要频繁的高强度减速、制动动作和多向再加速。飞轮阻力训练可以提供与转向(COD)性能相关的制动导向惯性刺激。然而,直接比较高水平足球运动员单侧飞轮阻力训练与单侧传统阻力训练的随机对照证据仍然有限。本研究比较了单侧飞轮阻力训练与单侧传统阻力训练对高水平男子足球运动员cod相关表现的影响。方法:将26名高水平男子足球运动员随机分为飞轮阻力训练组(FRT, n = 13)和传统阻力训练组(TRT, n = 13),其中22名运动员完成研究并纳入最终分析(FRT, n = 11; TRT, n = 11)。除了常规的足球训练外,两组患者每周完成两次为期8周的干预。两组均采用单侧保加利亚式劈开深蹲,训练结构和动作模式在不同条件下相匹配。在干预前后,通过10米和30米线性冲刺测试、t检验、Pro-agility测试、箭头方向改变测试和afl衍生的方向改变任务来评估表现,这些任务在没有球和有球的情况下进行。采用贝叶斯重复测量方差分析分析干预效果,采用纳入贝叶斯因子(BFincl)量化组×时间相互作用的证据。结果:FRT组在t检验(BFincl = 135.96)、Pro-agility检验(BFincl = 107.01)、箭头- l (BFincl = 34.55)、箭头- r (BFincl = 25.63)和afl衍生的无球COD任务(BFincl = 17.33)上均优于TRT组。对于afl衍生的COD任务,与球的交互作用的证据是中等的(BFincl = 3.24),对于10米冲刺(BFincl = 2.52),并且对于30米冲刺没有交互作用(BFincl = 0.64)。结论:在匹配的单侧运动条件下,高水平男性足球运动员在几个预先计划的COD任务中,飞轮阻力训练比传统阻力训练更能减少完成时间。然而,这种模式在线性短跑和球约束afl衍生的COD任务中不太一致,这表明训练适应的任务特异性转移。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07567677。追溯注册日期为2026年4月28日。
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
BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation
BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
196
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation is an open access, peer reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of sports medicine and the exercise sciences, including rehabilitation, traumatology, cardiology, physiology, and nutrition.
×
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
小红书