小型与大型比赛对女性足球运动员体能适应的影响:随机对照设计。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Di Yang, Yun Feng, XuBin Guo, Pei Hu
{"title":"小型与大型比赛对女性足球运动员体能适应的影响:随机对照设计。","authors":"Di Yang, Yun Feng, XuBin Guo, Pei Hu","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2025.513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research comparing the effects of different small-sided soccer game (SSG) training formats on physical adaptations remains scarce. This study aimed to compare small-format SSGs (SSG<sub>SF</sub>: 1v1 to 3v3) with large-format SSGs (SSG<sub>LF</sub>: 6v6 to 8v8) on vertical jump, change-of-direction (COD), linear speed and aerobic capacity adaptations in youth female soccer players over a six-week training period. Using a simple randomized, parallel, controlled design, players were assigned to one of two experimental groups (SSG<sub>SF</sub> or SSG<sub>LF</sub>) or a control group. Forty-five female youth players (15.7 ± 0.5 years old) competing at a developmental level participated in the study. All participants had a minimum of two years of playing experience and adhered to at least 90% of the intervention protocol. The experimental groups received two additional SSG sessions per week, while the control group maintained their regular training routines. Baseline and post-intervention assessments included countermovement jump height (CMJ), change of direction deficit in the 5-0-5 test (COD deficit), 30-meter linear speed, and final velocity in the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (VIFT). The SSG<sub>SF</sub> group exhibited a significantly smaller CODdeficit compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.026; <i>d</i> = 1.032, moderate) after the intervention. The SSG<sub>LF</sub> group exhibited a significantly smaller 30-m sprint time compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.044; <i>d</i> = 0.303, small). Both the SSG<sub>SF</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.039; <i>d</i> = 0.880, moderate) and SSG<sub>LF</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.026; <i>d</i> = 1.043, moderate) groups exhibited a significantly greater V<sub>IFT</sub> compared to the control group. In conclusion, the findings suggest that SSG<sub>SF</sub> may be more beneficial for improving COD ability, while SSG<sub>LF</sub> could potentially be more effective for enhancing linear sprint performance. Both formats appear to have a positive impact on aerobic performance, though the extent of their effects might be similar. Coaches might consider these differences when selecting SSG formats, as each format could contribute differently to physical performance adaptations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"24 3","pages":"513-521"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12418196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effects of Small Vs. Large-Sided Games on Physical Fitness Adaptations: A Randomized Controlled Design in Female Soccer Players.\",\"authors\":\"Di Yang, Yun Feng, XuBin Guo, Pei Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.52082/jssm.2025.513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research comparing the effects of different small-sided soccer game (SSG) training formats on physical adaptations remains scarce. This study aimed to compare small-format SSGs (SSG<sub>SF</sub>: 1v1 to 3v3) with large-format SSGs (SSG<sub>LF</sub>: 6v6 to 8v8) on vertical jump, change-of-direction (COD), linear speed and aerobic capacity adaptations in youth female soccer players over a six-week training period. Using a simple randomized, parallel, controlled design, players were assigned to one of two experimental groups (SSG<sub>SF</sub> or SSG<sub>LF</sub>) or a control group. Forty-five female youth players (15.7 ± 0.5 years old) competing at a developmental level participated in the study. All participants had a minimum of two years of playing experience and adhered to at least 90% of the intervention protocol. The experimental groups received two additional SSG sessions per week, while the control group maintained their regular training routines. Baseline and post-intervention assessments included countermovement jump height (CMJ), change of direction deficit in the 5-0-5 test (COD deficit), 30-meter linear speed, and final velocity in the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (VIFT). The SSG<sub>SF</sub> group exhibited a significantly smaller CODdeficit compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.026; <i>d</i> = 1.032, moderate) after the intervention. The SSG<sub>LF</sub> group exhibited a significantly smaller 30-m sprint time compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.044; <i>d</i> = 0.303, small). Both the SSG<sub>SF</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.039; <i>d</i> = 0.880, moderate) and SSG<sub>LF</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.026; <i>d</i> = 1.043, moderate) groups exhibited a significantly greater V<sub>IFT</sub> compared to the control group. In conclusion, the findings suggest that SSG<sub>SF</sub> may be more beneficial for improving COD ability, while SSG<sub>LF</sub> could potentially be more effective for enhancing linear sprint performance. Both formats appear to have a positive impact on aerobic performance, though the extent of their effects might be similar. Coaches might consider these differences when selecting SSG formats, as each format could contribute differently to physical performance adaptations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"513-521\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12418196/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.2025.513\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2025.513","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

摘要

比较不同小型足球比赛(SSG)训练形式对身体适应性影响的研究仍然很少。本研究旨在比较小格式ssg (SSGSF: 1v1到3v3)与大格式ssg (SSGLF: 6v6到8v8)在青少年女足运动员的垂直跳跃、方向变化(COD)、线性速度和有氧能力适应方面的差异。使用简单的随机、平行、对照设计,玩家被分配到两个实验组(SSGSF或SSGLF)或对照组。研究对象为45名青少年女运动员(15.7±0.5岁)。所有参与者至少有两年的游戏经验,并遵守了至少90%的干预协议。实验组每周额外接受两次SSG训练,而对照组则保持常规训练。基线和干预后评估包括反动作跳跃高度(CMJ)、5-0-5测试中的方向变化缺陷(COD缺陷)、30米线速度和30-15间歇体能测试(VIFT)中的最终速度。干预后,SSGSF组的CODdeficit明显小于对照组(p = 0.026; d = 1.032,中度)。与对照组相比,SSGLF组的30米冲刺时间显著缩短(p = 0.044; d = 0.303,小)。SSGSF组(p = 0.039, d = 0.880,中度)和SSGLF组(p = 0.026, d = 1.043,中度)的VIFT均显著高于对照组。综上所述,SSGSF可能更有利于提高COD能力,而SSGLF可能更有效地提高线性冲刺成绩。两种形式似乎都对有氧运动有积极的影响,尽管它们的影响程度可能是相似的。教练在选择SSG格式时可能会考虑这些差异,因为每种格式对身体表现适应的贡献不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effects of Small Vs. Large-Sided Games on Physical Fitness Adaptations: A Randomized Controlled Design in Female Soccer Players.

Research comparing the effects of different small-sided soccer game (SSG) training formats on physical adaptations remains scarce. This study aimed to compare small-format SSGs (SSGSF: 1v1 to 3v3) with large-format SSGs (SSGLF: 6v6 to 8v8) on vertical jump, change-of-direction (COD), linear speed and aerobic capacity adaptations in youth female soccer players over a six-week training period. Using a simple randomized, parallel, controlled design, players were assigned to one of two experimental groups (SSGSF or SSGLF) or a control group. Forty-five female youth players (15.7 ± 0.5 years old) competing at a developmental level participated in the study. All participants had a minimum of two years of playing experience and adhered to at least 90% of the intervention protocol. The experimental groups received two additional SSG sessions per week, while the control group maintained their regular training routines. Baseline and post-intervention assessments included countermovement jump height (CMJ), change of direction deficit in the 5-0-5 test (COD deficit), 30-meter linear speed, and final velocity in the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (VIFT). The SSGSF group exhibited a significantly smaller CODdeficit compared to the control group (p = 0.026; d = 1.032, moderate) after the intervention. The SSGLF group exhibited a significantly smaller 30-m sprint time compared to the control group (p = 0.044; d = 0.303, small). Both the SSGSF (p = 0.039; d = 0.880, moderate) and SSGLF (p = 0.026; d = 1.043, moderate) groups exhibited a significantly greater VIFT compared to the control group. In conclusion, the findings suggest that SSGSF may be more beneficial for improving COD ability, while SSGLF could potentially be more effective for enhancing linear sprint performance. Both formats appear to have a positive impact on aerobic performance, though the extent of their effects might be similar. Coaches might consider these differences when selecting SSG formats, as each format could contribute differently to physical performance adaptations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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