Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ssg or running

1,052 views

Published on

To examine the acute effects of generic (Running Drills, RD) and specific (Small-
Sided Games, SSG) Long Sprint Ability (LSA) drills on internal and external load of male
soccer-players. Methods: Fourteen academy-level soccer-players (mean±SD; age 17.6±0.61
years, height 1.81±0.63 m, body-mass 69.53±4.65 kg) performed four 30s LSA bouts for
maintenance (work:rest, 1:2) and production (1:5) with RD and SSG drills. Players’ external-
load was tracked with GPS technology (20Hz) and heart-rate (HR), blood-lactate
concentrations (BLc) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were used to characterize players’
internal-load. Individual peak BLc was assessed with a 30s all-out test on a non-motorized
treadmill (NMT). Results: Compared to SSGs the RDs had a greater effect on external-load
and BLc (large and small, respectively). During SSGs players covered more distance with
high-intensity decelerations (moderate-to-small). Muscular-RPE was higher (small-to-large)
in RD than in SSG. The production mode exerted a moderate effect on BLc while the
maintenance condition elicited higher cardiovascular effects (small-to-large). Conclusion:
The results of this study showed the superiority of generic over specific drills in inducing
LSA related physiological responses. In this regard production RD showed the higher post-
exercise BLc. Interestingly, individual peak blood-lactate responses were found after the
NMT 30s all-out test, suggesting this drill as a valid option to RD bouts. The practical
physiological diversity among the generic and specific LSA drills here considered, enable
fitness trainers to modulate prescription of RD and SSG drills for LSA according to training
schedule.

Published in: Sports
  • Hey guys! Who wants to chat with me? More photos with me here 👉 http://www.bit.ly/katekoxx
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Ssg or running

  1. 1. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited, proofread, or formatted by the publisher. Section: Original Investigation Article Title: Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills Authors: Carlo Castagna1,2 , Lorenzo Francini1 , Susana Cristina Araújo Póvoas3 and Stefano D’Ottavio2, 4 Affiliations: 1 Fitness training and biomechanics laboratory, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Technical Department, Coverciano (Florence), Italy. 2 University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. 3 Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal. 4 Women’s National Team, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Rome, Italy. Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance Acceptance Date: February 8, 2017 ©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0565
  2. 2. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Title of the Article: Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills Submission Type: Original Investigation Authors: Carlo Castagna1,2, Lorenzo Francini1, Susana Cristina Araújo Póvoas3 and Stefano D’Ottavio2, 4 Authors’ Affiliations: 1) Fitness training and biomechanics laboratory, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Technical Department, Coverciano (Florence), Italy; 2) University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 3) Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal; 4) Women’s National Team, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Rome, Italy. Contact Details for the Corresponding Author: Carlo Castagna PhD, via Sparapani 30, 60131, Ancona, Italy; tel: +39 071-2866532, @mail: castagnac@libero.it Preferred Running Head: Long Sprint Ability in Soccer Abstract Word Count: 239 words Text-Only Word Count: 3347 words Number of Figures and Tables: 2 Tables References number: 27 citations DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  3. 3. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Abstract Purpose: To examine the acute effects of generic (Running Drills, RD) and specific (Small- Sided Games, SSG) Long Sprint Ability (LSA) drills on internal and external load of male soccer-players. Methods: Fourteen academy-level soccer-players (mean±SD; age 17.6±0.61 years, height 1.81±0.63 m, body-mass 69.53±4.65 kg) performed four 30s LSA bouts for maintenance (work:rest, 1:2) and production (1:5) with RD and SSG drills. Players’ external- load was tracked with GPS technology (20Hz) and heart-rate (HR), blood-lactate concentrations (BLc) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were used to characterize players’ internal-load. Individual peak BLc was assessed with a 30s all-out test on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT). Results: Compared to SSGs the RDs had a greater effect on external-load and BLc (large and small, respectively). During SSGs players covered more distance with high-intensity decelerations (moderate-to-small). Muscular-RPE was higher (small-to-large) in RD than in SSG. The production mode exerted a moderate effect on BLc while the maintenance condition elicited higher cardiovascular effects (small-to-large). Conclusion: The results of this study showed the superiority of generic over specific drills in inducing LSA related physiological responses. In this regard production RD showed the higher post- exercise BLc. Interestingly, individual peak blood-lactate responses were found after the NMT 30s all-out test, suggesting this drill as a valid option to RD bouts. The practical physiological diversity among the generic and specific LSA drills here considered, enable fitness trainers to modulate prescription of RD and SSG drills for LSA according to training schedule. Key word: Anaerobic-Capacity, Speed-Endurance, High-intensity, Association-Football, Fitness Training DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  4. 4. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Introduction Performance in soccer was reported to be positively affected by anaerobic high- intensity activities1 . Indeed, in elite-soccer matches goal scoring and assisting players are mainly involved in sprinting and high-intensity turnings with and without the ball, respectively2 . Interestingly the tactical use of sustained high-intensity actions like counterattacks was related to team success in professional male soccer3 . Advancement in time-motion analysis methods promoted the use of acceleration in the determinism of high- intensity actions considered in the sprinting domain4 . This suggest that sprint bouts should be considered longer than usually thought and questioning the use of solo speed notations in developing sprint constructs in soccer5,6 . Speed-endurance (SE) training was proposed as an additional functional tool to enhance performance in competitive soccer7,8 . This form of maximal or near maximal intensity anaerobic-training was arbitrary categorized as maintenance and production depending on the recovery time allowed between sprint bouts performed (i.e work:rest, 1:2 and 1:5, respectively) for durations equal or longer than 30s7,8 . Recently supposed soccer- specific SE training paradigms were tested for acute physiological responses aiming at developing optimal anaerobic training in competitive soccer9 . Interestingly, small-sided games (SSG) drills were reported to elicit lower acute responses than running drills (RD), suggesting practical differences in physiological and activity demands between training methods. Unfortunately, this study did not consider individual maximal anaerobic responses to validate the proposed training drills9 . Furthermore, the ball-drills proposed in the form of SSG did not replicate the theoretical match players’ density (space to players ratio, 300m2 ) limiting the supposed drills logical-validity. Indeed, for the SE production and maintenance SSG drills, the cited authors used a density of 243 and 121 m2 , respectively9 . Additionally, DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  5. 5. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. the reported SE paradigms (i.e. running and ball drills) considered different exercise times making comparisons difficult9 . The main aim of SE training is the development of the ability to sustain individual maximal sprint for prolonged time10 . Given its nature the term SE and the associated training- aim construct, may result misleading in soccer9 . In soccer, sprinting privileges intermittent near-maximal accelerations and decelerations associated with sudden change of directions together with straight line sprinting1,2,4 . Given that, the term long sprint ability (LSA) may result more appropriate in soccer than SE, providing to coaches clearer indications regarding the training aims to be attained (i.e. intensity instead of speed emphasis) 1,2,4 . Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the acute physical and physiological responses of LSA running and ball drills in well-trained soccer players, using the same time paradigm (i.e. 30s) in maintenance and production protocols. This, normalizing field drills demands with a laboratory all-out test for anaerobic-capacity and ensuring maximal players’ effort during ball-drills using low density SSG (i.e. 300m2 per player). A superior physical and physiological acute response of running over ball drills was considered as work hypothesis9 . Methods Subjects Fourteen amateur academy-level soccer players (mean ± SD; age 17.6 ± 0.61 years, height 1.81 ± 0.63 m, body-mass 69.53 ± 4.65 kg) from the same soccer club participated in this study. At the time of the study players trained 3 times per week with a competitive match performed during the weekend. All the procedures involved in this study were carried-out during the competitive season of players’ regional-level federal championship (Italian Football Federation, FIGC). All participants were fully informed about study’s procedure receiving both verbal and written instructions about risks and benefits deriving from the study DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  6. 6. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. design. Before the commencement of the study written informed consent was obtained from each player and their parent/guardian. All players were aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalties. The study design received clearance from the Institutional Research Board before the commencement of this study procedures. Design In this descriptive repeated measurements design players were tested over different soccer LSA drills with or without the ball (SSG and RD, respectively). In order to warrant maximal anaerobic-capacity responses all the considered drills used bouts of 30s with different recovery time according to the maintenance and production constructs (work to rest ratio of 1:2 and 1:5, respectively)10 . Ball-drills were organized in the form of super small- sided games (S-SSG) considering 300m2 per player as exercise density11,12 . This form of ball- drill was devised to mimic the usual theoretical match density encountered by players during regular-size pitch competitive and training matches (i.e. 11v11)13 . The S-SSG in the form used in this study (i.e. 1v1) was tested for activity-profile reliability before the commencement of this study, providing for the same variables here considered, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from very large to almost perfect (0.75, 0.92)14 . Individual maximal anaerobic-capacity was evaluated for all players in a 30s all-out sprint test on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT30s, Woodway Force, Woodway INC, Milwakee, USA). In the RD players were asked to shuttle-run between two soccer-pitch lines set 75m apart to mimic match attack-counter-attack actions to warrant drill logical- validity15 . In order to test individual anaerobic-capacity responses, post-exercise blood-lactate concentrations (BLc) were assessed after each considered drill protocol. Blood sampling was performed 6-min post-exercise as preliminary studies performed in these authors’ laboratory showed lactate concentrations peaking at this recovery time after multiple sampling (0, 3, 6, 9 and 12-min) for the same exercises used in this study. With the aim to provide equal volume DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  7. 7. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. exposure during the proposed drills, 4 bouts of 30s were performed in each of the maintenance and production drills. Exercise internal-load was also assessed by monitoring heart-rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) using the CR10 Börg scale16 . Pre-drill individual rest status was checked using the total quality of recovery (i.e. TQR) procedure17 . The external load was assessed using Global Positioning Technology (K-GPS, Montelabbate, Pesaro, Italy) with units sampling at 20 Hz. The GPS system was tested for validity and reliability by the study authors before the commencement of the study, and it provided results comparable to the GPS systems currently used for match analyses in soccer18 . Methodology All the procedures were performed on separate days in a random order, under similar weather conditions (18-22 C°, 70-75% humidity) and on the same artificial-grass soccer pitch. During LSA protocols recovery was performed passively having players moving (i.e. performing some steps to avoid complete standing) just to avoid post exercise leg blood- pooling. Either the production and maintenance S-SSGs (i.e. S-SSGp and S-SSGm, respectively) were performed as 1v1 over a 20x30m delimited section of the soccer pitch with small goals (1.5x2m). With the aim to stress maximal effort during each S-SSG bout, the ball was replaced as fast as possible and strong verbal encouragements were provided throughout the drill11 . In the production and maintenance RD (i.e. RDp and RDm, respectively) players had to shuttle-running between two lines with distance (75m) marked with a cone every 1m to promote subjective feedback to players. Before each bout of RD and S-SSG drills players were told to cover as much distance as possible to enforce maximal effort. All the LSA drills started and ended with a whistle (i.e. 0 and 30s respectively). Exercise external-load was tracked using GPS technology with units set between shoulder-blades in purpose-built vests. The external-load was monitored using arbitrary speed, acceleration and metabolic-power categories as follows4,6 : DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  8. 8. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.  Total distance covered (TD);  High-Intensity running distance (speed≥16 km·h-1 , HI-Speed);  High-Intensity Metabolic Power distance (≥20 watt·kg-1 , HI-MP);  High-Intensity Acceleration distance (≥2 m·s-2 , HI-Acc);  High-Intensity Deceleration distance (-2≤ m·s-2 , HI-Dec). Heart-rate was monitored with long-range telemetry (Polar T2, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) during each of the considered drills. The individual maximal HR (HRmax) was determined using the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test level 1, that was performed the week before this study procedures in a dedicated testing session19 . Subjective internal-load (i.e. CR10 Börg scale) was evaluated immediately post-drill to rate muscular (RPEM), cardiorespiratory (RPECR) and global (RPEGlobal) drill effort-perception20,21 . Player pre-testing freshness as TQR was assessed individually 30min before each testing session17 . Players’ maximal anaerobic-capacity was assessed monitoring power, distance produced and post- exercise BLc during NMT30s. In this study, BLc were determined from earlobe blood- samples using an automated analyser (Lactate-Pro, Arkray, Kyoto, Japan)9 . Testing procedures took place at the same time of the day (3-5 p.m.) in order to avoid possible circadian bias. Before each test-session the players performed a standardized warm-up consisting of 10 min self-paced jogging (score 2 of CR10 Borg scale average intensity) followed by 2-min of skipping and striding exercises over 10 and 30-m, respectively. After the standardized warm-up players actively rested for two minutes before starting the testing procedures. All players were familiarized with the considered procedures during the training sessions performed before the commencement of the data collection. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  9. 9. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Statistical Analysis Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI)14 . Normality assumption was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk W-test. A one-way repeated measurements analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Bonferroni test was used to compare drills categories (i.e. S-SSGs vs RDs and maintenance against production drills). The Cohen’s d was used to evaluate the effect size, with values above 0.8, between 0.8 and 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.2 and lower than 0.2 considered as large, moderate, small, and trivial, respectively22 . A paired comparisons design was used for evaluating drills across conditions according to Hopkins et al.14 . Within drill variability was expressed as coefficient of variation (%CV). Significance was set at 5% (p 0.05). Results Peak post-NTM30s BLc were 13.26±1.89 (12.56, 13.96) mmol·L-1 . Players achieved during RDm and RDp 68±13 (66, 69) and 81±13 % (79, 82) of the NTM30s BLc peak, respectively (p<0.0001, large). After S-SSGm and S-SSGp, BLc of 57±15 (55, 59) and 73±24% (71, 76) of NTM30s peak were detected, respectively (p<0.0001, large). Post drills players’ RPE was 76.74±21.64 (74.53, 78.94), 81.53±18.35 (79.51, 83.56), 66.24±20.92 (64.08, 68.41) and 64.13±28.77% (61.59, 66.67) of NTM30s post-test RPE for the RDM, RDP, S-SSGM and S-SSGP conditions, respectively (p<0.001, large). External and internal load variables’ values are reported in Table 1. A large effect of RD mode on TD, HI-MP and HI-Speed was reported (Table 2). During the S-SSG players covered more distance in HI-Dec with the production mode showing small-to-large effects. Distances covered in the HI-Acc were longer (small effect) when using the production mode. The maintenance drills elicited larger average cardiovascular-strain than the production condition. The HRpeak was higher (small effect) in the maintenance mode in the RD DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  10. 10. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. condition. In the RDs mode players achieved higher (small effect) BLc with the production condition providing higher values across the drill modes. Effort perception as RPEGlobal resulted higher (small-to-large effect) in the RD mode and more so when considering the production condition. Fractional RPE (i.e. cardiorespiratory and muscular) were higher in the S-SSG mode with the production condition resulting in higher values (small-to-moderate). Pre-test TQR differences were trivial-to-small. Discussion The main result of this study was the larger acute effect of Running Drills on players’ external and internal load variables. This suggest the greater potential of generic exercises when the aim is the development of Long Sprint Ability in soccer players. Interestingly, the field drills resulted in lower anaerobic metabolic responses (i.e. BLc) compared NTM30s assumed as gold standard. Finally, the anaerobic response was higher for the production mode, promoting the importance of recovery duration in Long Sprint Ability drills in male soccer10,15,23 . In this study ball-drills specificity was promoted considering the same surface encountered during real competition over regular size soccer-pitches for each player (i.e. 300m2 density). The considered density and used procedures (i.e. 1v1, encouragements and fast ball-replacements) enabled players to attain 91% of their individual HRmax during the S- SSGM (see Table 1). Practically lower (large effect) mean HRs were reported for the production condition despite trivial differences in HRpeak between S-SSGM and S-SSGp (see Table 1). The HRmean in the S-SSGM are in the range of those reported to be effective for inducing significant changes in aerobic-fitness in male soccer-players populations similar to those considered in this study 24 . DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  11. 11. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Post S-SSG BLc were similar to those reported by Ade et al.9 with associated small (d=-0.26) and moderate (d=0.57) practical difference for the production and maintenance condition. However, in this study the resulting BLc were obtained with only four 30s bouts compared to the eight bouts performed in the Abe et al.9 study, corresponding to 50 and 25% of the exposure time for the production and maintenance conditions, respectively. Interestingly, the S-SSGM showed to induce moderately higher anaerobic responses compared to longer protocols (i.e. 8x1 min) performed with remarkably higher player’ density (121 vs 300m2 )9 . Previous studies using the 1v1 condition (6x1 min) using the maintenance work-to-rest-ratio (i.e. 1:2) reported to induce BLc of 9.4±2.9 mmol·L-1 with practically stable anaerobic responses after three bouts played with a 54m2 density25 . Despite the current lack of evidence for a dose-response interaction it could be speculated that 4x30s all-out bouts of S-SSG may be reasonably considered as a minimum dose for inducing physiological responses in the domain of LSA development23 . Furthermore, the 30s time paradigm seems more effective to enable players to achieve high BLc than the 60s bouts9 . The S-SSG showed to elicit BLc higher than those reported in SSG performed for aerobic-fitness development12 . Indeed, after SSG under coach encouragement Rampinini et al.16 reported BLc of 6 to 6.5 mmol·L-1 using exposure time of 12 min (i.e. 3x4min bouts) for the 3v3 condition (4090 m2 density). Nonetheless, the cited authors reported a HRmean similar to this study (9091% HRmax) despite remarkably higher post-exercise RPE (8.18.5)16 . This comparison provides further evidence for the interest of S-SSG for the development of LSA and potentially other soccer relevant fitness variables12,23 . In light of the reported evidence on physiological response of the considered S-SSG it could be concluded that this form of ball-drills was specific in inducing demands in the range of those reported for anaerobic-capacity development23 . This warranting the logical and convergent validity of this study design for S-SSG responses. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  12. 12. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. The S-SSG drills elicited an overall lower external-load than the RDs with predominantly larger practically effects (see Table 2). Indeed, S-SSGs resulted in longer coverage only when considering the distance performed at HI-Dec, particularly in the production version. Analysis within drill categories showed that the production condition induced a small practical effect over the maintenance mode when considering the external- load. It could be speculated that the longer recovery time considered in the production condition was possibly the reason for the higher effect on external load of this LSA mode23,26 . When performing RD, players achieved BLc practically higher (small-to-large effect) than during the S-SSGs with the production condition showing overall moderate to larger values compared to the maintenance drills. Interestingly, trivial differences in BLc between S-SSGp and RDm were found. The NMT30s elicited BLc larger than those achieved by players during the field LSA drills here considered. Indeed, during the field-drills players achieved only the 6881% and 5773% of peak NMT30s BLc when considering the maintenance and production mode of RD and S-SSG, respectively. Interestingly, individual peak BLc were obtained with only one fourth of the exercise time (i.e. 30s) used for the considered field-drills. This difference may be the result of the field drills characteristic involving planned or casual acceleration and deceleration (i.e. RD and S-SSG, respectively) possibly altering the fibre type recruitment and energetic cost of sprinting27 . As a result the use of NMT drills may result justified when the development of the physiological make-up of LSA is the main aim of a soccer-training program7,8,15 . From a practical point of view the reported large relative differences in anaerobic internal-load (i.e. BLc) may arise the issue of developing ecologically valid training drills under field condition, fully stressing players’ anaerobic capacity. Future descriptive studies aiming to maximize the acute response of field LSA drills would surely benefit the acquired knowledge for LSA development in soccer. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  13. 13. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. This study S-SSGP promoted a TD largely (d=1.28) lower than in Abe et al.9 study. Lower TD was also performed in the S-SSGM mode (d=5.29), however in this case the difference was due to drill longer-duration (60 vs 30s). Accounting for difference in bout duration the S-SSGM produced higher distance rate than that reported in the cited paper9 . Accelerations and decelerations S-SSG resulted in line to what has been previously reported for production and maintenance SSG9 . Nevertheless, difference in measuring devices and metrics arbitrary-categories make specific comparison difficult. The RD considered in this study showed to elicit BLc lower than those reported by Ade et al.9 and Mohr et al.26 in more aggressive (8 vs 4 bouts) SE protocols in soccer players and active subject respectively. However, differently from this study design in the Mohr et al.26 study line sprinting was considered and less changes of direction (i.e. 180° turns) were achieved by the Ade et al.9 having players shuttle-running over longer distances (i.e. 105 vs 75m). It could be speculated that this specific difference in sprinting protocols may have played a role in acute anaerobic responses since NTM30s, involving line sprinting, showed to allow players to achieve larger anaerobic responses. This information may result useful to the soccer strength and conditioning coach when prescribing LSA training sessions. Nonetheless, the minimum dose useful to induce stable and practically important improvement in LSA is still to be found. In this regard training-studies investigating the effectiveness of ecological LSA protocols (i.e. maximal effect with minimum dosage) are warranted, given the practical interest of this issue. During the field-drills, players reported RPEG practically lower (large effect) than after the single NMT30s bout, with S-SSG and RD ranging from 76-81% and from 66-64% of treadmill maximal effort, respectively. This may question the actual motivation of players in performing the proposed LSA drills. Nevertheless, all players were verbally strongly encouraged to provide their maximal possible-effort throughout the field drills, considering DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  14. 14. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. each bout all-out criteria. Furthermore, all the players were thoroughly familiarized with the LSA drills and the associated criteria during the weeks preceding this descriptive study in dedicated training sessions. Given that it could be suggested that in order to achieve acute response, in the domain of LSA in either the production and maintenance mode, RPEGlobal in the range of 67 (very hard) and 56 (strong) should be attained for the RD and S-SSG respectively. The lower RPEG (large effect) scored after the S-SSG may denote the difficulty of players to fully achieve their maximal anaerobic response even during a specific and potentially highly motivating drill. Recently, the interest of using differential RPE has been promoted with the aim to account for potential effort-perception difference according to the physiological nature of the proposed exercise20 . In this study, the use of differential RPE showed that players reported higher RPEM and RPECR for the production mode and also in the RD compared with the S-SSG condition. Interestingly, RPEM resulted lower in the S-SSG despite the reported higher (moderate-to-large) coverage in high acceleration and deceleration categories. It could be speculated that TD more than high-intensity activities is the variable affecting the differential RPE score in male soccer player in LSA drills. Practical Applications The 4x30s all-outs bouts of RD and S-SSG here considered showed to induce anaerobic demands in the range of those usually accepted as effective in inducing physiological adaptations for the most investigated SE domain9,10,15,23 . This study results suggest a differential use of the training drills privileging NMT or RD training when the aim is to induce high BLc and S-SSG in case specificity and players’ motivation is the training issue. In this regard, the production mode should be preferred as it seem to induce practically higher acute physiological responses whatever the exercise mode used9,10,15,23 . The maintenance drills may be proposed in the initial phases of the LSA training due to their lower anaerobic demands and lower RPE responses. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  15. 15. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Conclusions Ball-drills in the form of S-SSG may be considered when players’ motivation is of interest. Indeed, S-SSG are perceived as less demanding, compared to RD or NMT drills, despite their higher load on the deceleration domain. Longer recovery time seem to enable more pronounced responses in players’ internal and external loads suggesting the preference of the production over the maintenance mode for LSA development7-10,15 . Further studies investigating over the dose response of RD and S-SSG and the effect on soccer performance of production and maintenance training mode are warranted. Acknowledgments No financial support was provided for the completion of this study. The authors declare no conflict of interest with the finding reported in this study. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  16. 16. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. References 1. Stølen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer: an update. Sports Med. 2005;35:501-536. 2. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. Straight sprinting is the most frequent action in goal situations in professional football. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:625-631. 3. Tenga A, Holme I, Ronglan LT, Bahr R. Effect of playing tactics on goal scoring in Norwegian professional soccer. J Sports Sci. 2010;28:237-244. 4. Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, di Prampero PE. Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:170-178. 5. Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H, Calderon Montero FJ, Bachl N, Pigozzi F. Performance characteristics according to playing position in elite soccer. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28:222-227. 6. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Coutts AJ, Wisloff U. Technical performance during soccer matches of the Italian Serie A league: effect of fatigue and competitive level. J. Sci Med Sport 2009;12:227-233. 7. Thomassen M, Christensen PM, Gunnarsson TP, Nybo L, Bangsbo J. Effect of 2-wk intensified training and inactivity on muscle Na+-K+ pump expression, phospholemman (FXYD1) phosphorylation, and performance in soccer players. J Appl Physiol. 2010;108:898-905. 8. Ingebrigtsen J, Shalfawi SA, Tonnessen E, Krustrup P, Holtermann A. Performance effects of 6 weeks of aerobic production training in junior elite soccer players. J. Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:1861-1867. 9. Ade JD, Harley JA, Bradley PS. Physiological response, time-motion characteristics, and reproducibility of various speed-endurance drills in elite youth soccer players: small-sided games versus generic running. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perf. 2014;9:471- 479. 10. Iaia FM and Bangsbo J. Speed endurance training is a powerful stimulus for physiological adaptations and performance improvements of athletes. Scand J. Med Sci. Sports. 2010;20 Suppl 2:11-23. 11. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Abt G, Chamari K, Sassi A, Marcora SM. Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci. 2007;25:659-666. 12. Hill-Haas SV, Dawson B, Impellizzeri FM, Coutts AJ. Physiology of small-sided games training in football: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 2011;41:199-220. 13. Castellano J, Puente A, Echeazarra I, Casamichana D. Influence of the number of players and the relative pitch area per player on heart rate and physical demands in youth soccer. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:1683-1691. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  17. 17. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. 14. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3-13. 15. Iaia FM, Fiorenza M, Perri E, Alberti G, Millet GP, Bangsbo J. The Effect of Two Speed Endurance Training Regimes on Performance of Soccer Players. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138096. 16. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Abt G, Chamari K, Sassi A, Marcora SM. Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci.. 2007;25:659-666. 17. Kentta G and Hassmen P. Overtraining and recovery. A conceptual model. Sports Med. 1998;26:1-16. 18. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Calleja-Gonzalez J, Roman JS, Ostojic SM. Reliability and Accuracy of 10 Hz GPS Devices for Short-Distance Exercise. J Sports Sci.Med. 2011;10:233-234. 19. Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test : a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med. 2008;38:37-51. 20. Los Arcos A, Mendez-Villanueva A, Yanci J, Martinez-Santos R. Respiratory and Muscular Perceived Exertion During Official Games in Professional Soccer Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015; 21. Los Arcos A, Martinez-Santos R, Yanci J, Martin J, Castagna C. Variability of objective and subjective intensities during ball drills in youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28:752-757. 22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. 23. Heck H, Schulz H, Bartmus U. Diagnostics of Anaerobic Power and Capacity. Eur J Sport Sci. 2003;3:1-23. 24. Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Castagna C, Reilly T, Sassi A, Iaia FM, Rampinini E. Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2006;27:483-492. 25. Koklu Y, Asci A, Kocak FU, Alemdaroglu U, Dundar U. Comparison of the physiological responses to different small-sided games in elite young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:1522-1528. 26. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Nielsen JJ, Nybo L, Rasmussen MK, Juel C, Bangsbo J. Effect of two different intense training regimens on skeletal muscle ion transport proteins and fatigue development. Am J Physiol. 2007;292:R1594-1602. 27. Buchheit M, Haydar B, Hader K, Ufland P, Ahmaidi S. Assessing running economy during field running with changes of direction: application to 20 m shuttle runs. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011;6:380-395. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  18. 18. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Table 1. Descriptive values (average of four bouts) of the Running and Small-Sided Games drills considered in this study. Running Drills S-SSG Variable Maintenance Production Maintenance Production TD (m) Mean 162.96±7.57 163.14±8.72 79.05±7.64 77.81±7.59 90%CI (160.48167.15) (159.50167.56) (75.4482.67) (74.2281.40) %CV 4.64 5.34 9.66 9.76 HI-MP (Watt· kg-1 ) Mean 136.01±12.24 139.72±12.71 30.78±6.54 30.11±6.39 90%CI (130.22141.80) (133.71145.71) (27.6933.87) (27.0933.13) %CV 9.00 9.10 21.26 21.23 HI-Speed (m) Mean 146.77±11.27 146.46±11.51 18.28±6.31 19.14±6.54 90%CI (141.44152.10) (141.02151.90) (15.3021.26) (16.0522.23) %CV 7.68 7.86 34.55 34.17 HI-Acc (m) Mean 8.99±1.16 9.40±1.62 9.02±2.01 9.72±1.24 90%CI (8.499.50) (8.8010.00) (8.359.68) (9.2010.25) %CV 12.86 17.19 22.26 12.76 HI-Dec (m) Mean 6.85±1.06 7.56±1.54 7.73±1.87 8.95±1.86 90%CI (6.367.34) (6.978.15) (7.088.37) (8.309.59) %CV 15.41 20.39 24.22 20.80 Lactate (mmol·L-1 ) Mean 9.08±2.09 10.73±1.76 7.94±2.12 9.52±2.61 90%CI (8.0910.07) (9.9011.56) (6.948.95) (8.2910.75) %CV 22.98 16.37 26.74 27.46 HRmean (beats·min-1 ) Mean 174.57±8.22 160.14±8.67 172.64±9.84 160.00±11.22 90%CI (170.68178.46) (156.04164.24) (167.99177.29) (154.69165.31) %CV 4.71 5.42 5.70 7.01 HRpeak (beats·min-1 ) Mean 188.14±7.61 186.71±7.22 186.86±9.19 186.64±8.03 90%CI (184.54191.74) (183.29190.13) (182.51191.21) (182.84190.44) %CV 4.05 3.86 4.92 4.30 %HRmax (mean) Mean 92.0±0.0 84.0±0.0 91.0±0.4 84.0±0.1 90%CI (9093) (8385) (8992) (8286) %CV 3.1 3.3 4.0 5.4 %HRmax (peak) Mean 98.0±0.2 98.0±0.2 98.0±0.3 98.0±0.3 90%CI (9093) (9799) (97100) (9799) %CV 2.4 1.7 3.3 2.9 RPEGlobal Mean 6.36±1.55 7.04±1.38 5.21±1.75 5.79±2.28 DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  19. 19. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Running Drills S-SSG Variable Maintenance Production Maintenance Production 90%CI (5.637.09) (6.397.69) (4.386.04) (4.706.87) %CV 24.37 19.60 33.58 39.49 RPECR Mean 6.54±1.47 7.24±1.28 5.43±2.21 5.82±2.45 90%CI (5.847.23) (6.637.84) (4.386.47) (4.666.98) %CV 22.55 17.65 40.69 42.16 RPEM Mean 5.75±1.70 6.79±1.76 3.86±1.36 5.32±2.22 90%CI (4.956.55) (5.957.62) (3.214.50) (4.276.37) %CV 29.49 25.97 35.38 41.63 S-SSG= Super Small-Sided Games; RD= Running Drill; M=maintenance; P= Production; TD= Total Distance; HI-MP=High-Intensity Metabolic Power; Hi-Speed= High-Intensity Speed; HI-ACC= High-Intensity Acceleration; HI-Dec= High-Intensity Deceleration; Lactate= Blood Lactate Concentration; HR= Heart Rate; %HRmax (mean)= Mean HR in percentage of HR max; %HRmax (peak)= Peak HR in percentage of HR max; RPEGlobal = Global Rate of Perceived Exertion; RPECR= Cardio Respiratory RPE; RPEM=Muscular RPE; TQR= Total Quality of Recovery. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  20. 20. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Table 2. Between Drills Comparisons (average of four bouts). Drill Conditions Variable S-SSGM vs RDM S-SSGP vs RDP S-SSGM vs S-SSGP RDP vsRDM S-SSGM vs RDP S-SSGP Vs RDM TD (m) d Difference 7.12 (large) -83.9±11.8 7.74 (large) -85.3±11.1 0.12 (trivial) 1.2±10.7 0.02 (trivial) 0.2±8.1 8.20 (large) -84.1±10.3 7.77(large) -85.2±11.1 90%CI (-89.5,-78.3) (-80.1,-90.6) (-3.8, 6.3) (-3.6, 4.0) (-89.0,-79.2) (-90.3,-80.0) Diff% 106.14*** 109.66*** 1.59 0.11 106.36*** 109.43*** HI-MP (Watt· kg-1 ) d Difference 7.55 (large) -105.2±14.50 9.23 (large) -109,6±12.90 0.07 (trivial) 0.70±9.0 0.36 (small) 3.7±10.20 9.12 (large) -108.9±12.90 8.41 (large) -105.9±13.30 90%CI (-112.1,-98.40) (-115.70,-103.50) (-3.60,4.90) (-1.10, 8.5) (-115.0, 102.8) (-112.2, -99.6) Diff% 341.86*** 363.96*** 2.22 2.73 353.90*** 351.66*** HI-Speed (m) d Difference 9.47(large) -128.5±13.9 11.17(large) -127.3± 12.0 0.09 (trivial) -0.9± 9.6 0.03 (trivial) -0.3± 11.1 12.77(large) -128.2± 10.9 11.79(large) -127.6± 11.5 90%CI (-135.1, -121.9) (-133.0, -121.6) (-5.4,3.7) (-5.6, 4.9) (-133.4, -123.0) (-133.1, -122.2) Diff% 703.07*** 665.31*** 4.71 0.21 701.37*** 666.93*** HI-Acc (m) d Difference 0.01(trivial) 0.0±2.4 0.15 (trivial) 0.3±2.1 0.29 (small) -0.7±2.5 0.23(small) 0.4±1.8 0.23(small) -0.4±1.7 0.39(small) 0.7±1.9 90%CI (-1.10, 1.10) (-0.70, 1.30) (-1.9, 0.5) (-0.5, 1.3) (-1.2, 0.4) (-0.2, 1.6) Diff% 0.27 3.43 7.82 4.53 4.25 8.11 HI-Dec (m) d Difference 0.39 (small) 0.9±2.3 0.55 (moderate) 1.4±2.5 0.47 (small) -1.2±2.6 0.41(small) 0.7±1.80 0.47(small) -1.2±2.6 1.05 (large) 2.1±2.1 90%CI (-0.2,1.8) (0.20,2.30) (-2.2,0.0) (-0.1,1.4) (-2.2, 0.0) (1.0, 2.7) Diff% 12.80 18.34 15.81 10.39 15.81 30.64* DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  21. 21. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Drill Conditions Variable S-SSGM vs RDM S-SSGP vs RDP S-SSGM vs S-SSGP RDP vsRDM S-SSGM vs RDP S-SSGP Vs RDM Lactate (mmol·L-1 ) d Difference 0.37 (small) -1.1±3.1 0.38 (small) -1.2± 3.2 0.51 (moderate) -1.6± 3.1 0.74 (moderate) 1.7± 2.2 1.04 (large) -2.8± 2.7 0.13 (trivial) 0.4± 3.3 90%CI (-2.6, 0.3) (-2.7, 0.3) (-3.1, -0.1) (0.6, 2.7) (-4.1, -1.5) (-1.1, 2.0) Diff% 14.30 12.71 19.89 18.23 35.14* 4.89 HRmean (beats·min-1 ) d Difference 0.46 (small) -1.9±4.4 0.02 (trivial) -0.1±7.8 1.78 (large) 12.6±7.2 2.74 (large) -14.4±5.3 1.82 (large) 12.5±7.0 2.90 (large) -14.6±5.8 90%CI (-4.0, 0.2) (-3.8, 3.5) (9.2, 16.1) (-16.9, -11.9) (9.2, 15.8) (-17.3, -11.8) Diff% 1.12 0.09 7.90*** 9.01*** 7.81*** 9.11*** HRpeak (beats·min-1 ) d Difference 0.31 (small) -1.3±4.4 0.02 (trivial) -0.1±4.5 0.05 (trivial) 0.2±4.2 0.30 (small) -1.4±4.7 0.02 (trivial) 0.1±6.2 0.35 (small) -1.5±4.3 90%CI (-3.4, 0.8) (-2.2, 2.1) (-1.8, 2.2) (-3.7, 0.8) (-2.8, 3.1) (-3.5, 0.5) Diff% 0.69 0.04 0.11 0.77 0.08 0.80 RPEGlobal d Difference 0.53 (moderate) -1.1±2.2 0.49 (small) -1.0±2.0 0.33 (small) -0.9±2.6 0.36 (small) 0.7±1.9 1.23 (large) -1.8±1.5 0.15 (trivial) -0.3±1.9 90%CI (-2.2, -0.1) (-1.9, 0.0) (-2.1, 0.4) (-0.2, 1.6) (-2.5, -1.1) (-1.2, 0.6) Diff% 21.92 15.88 16.44 10.67 34.93** 4.71 RPECR d Difference 0.44 (small) 0.9±2.3 0.55 (moderate) 1.4±2.5 0.20 (small) -1.2±2.6 0.40 (small) 0.7±1.8 1.02 (large) 0.2±2.4 0.25 (small) 2.1±2.1 90%CI (-2.2, -0.1) (-1.9, 0.0) (-2.1, 0.4) (-0.2, 1,6) (-2.5, -1.1) (-1.2, 0.6) Diff% 20.39 18.48 12.50 10.71 33.29 7.02 RPEM d Difference 0.94 (large) 0.9±2.3 0.46 (small) 1.4±2.5 0.70 (moderate) -1.2±2.6 0.53 (moderate) 0.7±1.8 1.61 (large) 0.2±2.4 0.07 (trivial) 2.1±2.1 90%CI (-2.9, -0.9) (-2.4, 0.0) (-2.9, -0.6) (0.1, 2.0) (-3.8,-2.1) (-1.2, 0.9) Diff% 49.07* 21.02 45.37 18.01 75.93*** 2.55 DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0
  22. 22. “Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. Drill Conditions Variable S-SSGM vs RDM S-SSGP vs RDP S-SSGM vs S-SSGP RDP vsRDM S-SSGM vs RDP S-SSGP Vs RDM TQR d Difference 0.47 (small) -0.6±1.9 0.22 (small) 0.5±2.3 0.27 (small) -0.6±2.4 0.37 (small) -0.6±1.7 0.03 (trivial) -0.1±2.1 0.05 (trivial) -0.1±1.3 90%CI (-1.5, 0.2) (-0.6, 1.6) (-1.7, 0.6) (-1.4, 0.2) (-1.1, 0.9) (-0.7, 0.6) Diff% 3.45 2.67 3.07 3.05 0.38 0.37 S-SSG= Super Small-Sided Games; RD= Running Drill; M=maintenance; P= Production; TD= Total Distance; HI-MP=High Intensity Metabolic Power; Hi-Speed= High Intensity Speed; HI-ACC= High-Intensity Acceleration; HI-Dec= High-Intensity Deceleration; Lactate= Blood Lactate Concentration; HR= Heart Rate; RPEGlobal = Global Rate of Perceived Exertion; RPECR= Cardio Respiratory RPE; RPEM=Muscular RPE; TQR= Total Quality of Recovery. *= P<0.05; **=P<0.01; ***=P<0.0001. DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0

×