Kevin Enright1,2, James Morton3, John Iga3,4,5, Barry Drust3. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, L16 9JD, UK. enrighk@hope.ac.uk. 2. Medical and Exercise Science Department, Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club, Wolverhampton, UK. enrighk@hope.ac.uk. 3. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Tom Reilly Building, Byrom St Campus, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK. 4. The Football Association, St. George's Park, Newborough Road, Needwood, Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, DE13 9PD, UK. 5. Medical and Exercise Science Department, Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club, Wolverhampton, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared the adaptive responses to two concurrent training programmes frequently used in professional soccer. METHODS:Fifteen youth soccer players (17.3 ± 1.6 years, 1.82 ± 0.06 m, 77.0 ± 7.3 kg; VO2 peak, 62.0± 4.7 ml(-1) kg(-1) min(-1)) who compete in the English Premier League volunteered for this study. In addition to completing their habitual training practices, the participants were asked to alter the organisation concurrent training by performing strength (S) training either prior to (S + E, n = 8) or after (E + S, n = 7) soccer-specific endurance training (E) 2d wk(-1) for 5 wk(-1). RESULTS: With the exception of 30 m sprint, IMVC PF, quadriceps strength (60°/s(CON), 180°/s(CON), 120°/s(ECC)) pooled data revealed training effects across all other performances measures (P < 0.05). Whilst ANCOVA indicated no significant interaction effects for training condition, the difference between the means divided by the pooled standard deviation demonstrated large effect sizes in the E + S condition for in HBS 1-RM [S + E vs E + S; -0.54 (9.6 %) vs -1.79 (19.6 %)], AoP-M [-0.72 (7.9 %) vs -1.76 (14.4 %)], SJ [-0.56, (4.4 %), vs -1.08, (8.1 %)], IMVC-LR; [-0.50, (20.3 %) vs -1.05 (27.3 %)], isokinetic hamstring strength 60°/s (CON) [-0.64, (12.2 %) vs -0.95 (19.2 %)], 120°/s(ECC) [-0.78 (27.9 %) vs -1.55 (23.3 %)] and isokinetic quadriceps strength 180°/s (CON) [-0.23 (2.5 %) vs -1.52 (13.2 %)]. CONCLUSION: Results suggest the organisation of concurrent training, recovery time allocated between training bouts and the availability nutrition may be able to modulate small but clinically significant changes in physical performance parameters associated with match-play. This may have practical implications for practitioners who prescribe same day concurrent training protocols.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study compared the adaptive responses to two concurrent training programmes frequently used in professional soccer. METHODS: Fifteen youth soccer players (17.3 ± 1.6 years, 1.82 ± 0.06 m, 77.0 ± 7.3 kg; VO2 peak, 62.0 ± 4.7 ml(-1) kg(-1) min(-1)) who compete in the English Premier League volunteered for this study. In addition to completing their habitual training practices, the participants were asked to alter the organisation concurrent training by performing strength (S) training either prior to (S + E, n = 8) or after (E + S, n = 7) soccer-specific endurance training (E) 2d wk(-1) for 5 wk(-1). RESULTS: With the exception of 30 m sprint, IMVC PF, quadriceps strength (60°/s(CON), 180°/s(CON), 120°/s(ECC)) pooled data revealed training effects across all other performances measures (P < 0.05). Whilst ANCOVA indicated no significant interaction effects for training condition, the difference between the means divided by the pooled standard deviation demonstrated large effect sizes in the E + S condition for in HBS 1-RM [S + E vs E + S; -0.54 (9.6 %) vs -1.79 (19.6 %)], AoP-M [-0.72 (7.9 %) vs -1.76 (14.4 %)], SJ [-0.56, (4.4 %), vs -1.08, (8.1 %)], IMVC-LR; [-0.50, (20.3 %) vs -1.05 (27.3 %)], isokinetic hamstring strength 60°/s (CON) [-0.64, (12.2 %) vs -0.95 (19.2 %)], 120°/s(ECC) [-0.78 (27.9 %) vs -1.55 (23.3 %)] and isokinetic quadriceps strength 180°/s (CON) [-0.23 (2.5 %) vs -1.52 (13.2 %)]. CONCLUSION: Results suggest the organisation of concurrent training, recovery time allocated between training bouts and the availability nutrition may be able to modulate small but clinically significant changes in physical performance parameters associated with match-play. This may have practical implications for practitioners who prescribe same day concurrent training protocols.
Entities:
Keywords:
Concurrent training; Muscle architecture; Soccer; Strength training
Authors: M Chtara; K Chamari; M Chaouachi; A Chaouachi; D Koubaa; Y Feki; G P Millet; M Amri Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Jonathan D Bartlett; Chang Hwa Joo; Tae-Seok Jeong; Jari Louhelainen; Andrew J Cochran; Martin J Gibala; Warren Gregson; Graeme L Close; Barry Drust; James P Morton Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2012-01-19
Authors: P Aagaard; J L Andersen; P Dyhre-Poulsen; A M Leffers; A Wagner; S P Magnusson; J Halkjaer-Kristensen; E B Simonsen Journal: J Physiol Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Ciaran Deely; Jamie Tallent; Ross Bennett; Alex Woodhead; Stuart Goodall; Kevin Thomas; Glyn Howatson Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Matthew J-C Lee; James K Ballantyne; Javier Chagolla; William G Hopkins; Jackson J Fyfe; Stuart M Phillips; David J Bishop; Jonathan D Bartlett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Javier Sanchez-Sanchez; Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo; Manuel Carretero; Victor Martín; Daniel Hernández; Fabio Y Nakamura Journal: J Hum Kinet Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 2.193