Okba Selmi1,2, Ibrahim Ouergui1, Danielle E Levitt3,4, Pantelis T Nikolaidis5, Beat Knechtle6, Anissa Bouassida1. 1. Research Unit, Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef, University of Jendouba, Kef, Tunisia. 2. High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Ksar Said, University of Manouba, Tunis, Tunisia. 3. Applied Physiology Laboratory, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. 4. Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA. 5. Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Nikaia, Greece. 6. Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and small-sided games (SSG) have been applied and tested for athletes in order to enhance the soccer performance. For this reason, this experimental study aimed to compare the effects of SSGs and HIIT on power, physiological responses and perceived enjoyment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen youth soccer players (age, 17.5±0.6 years, mean±standard deviation; height, 178.2±6.4 cm; body mass, 70.4±5.4 kg; body fat, 10.6±0.8%) completed one session each of HIIT and SSG on separate days with 1 week between sessions. Each session lasted 25 mins (4x4 mins work with 3 mins of passive recovery in-between). SSGs consisted of 4 versus 4 player games on a 25×35 m pitch, and HIIT consisted of intermittent 15-s runs at 110% maximal aerobic speed separated by 15 s of passive recovery. Psychological responses following each protocol were assessed using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Heart rate (HR) was continuously recorded, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate concentration [La] were measured after each training session. Lower body muscular power was assessed using the 5-jump test relative to leg length (5JT-relative) before and after each training session, where greater average distance per stride over five sequential jumping strides indicated greater muscular power. RESULTS: HIIT and SSG showed no significant difference in HR, RPE and [La] responses (p=0.70, ES=0.11; p=0.61, ES=0.08 and p=0.38, ES=0.21, respectively). 5JT-relative decreased significantly for SSG and HIIT (p<0.05, ES=0.50 and p<0.05, ES=0.40, respectively). PACES score was greater in SSG compared to HIIT (ES=5.35, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: HIIT and SSG sessions induced similar physiological responses; however, SSGs induced a higher enjoyment level than HIIT. Coaches could choose between these training modalities according to the objective of their training session, considering the enjoyment-related advantages of SSGs.
INTRODUCTION: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and small-sided games (SSG) have been applied and tested for athletes in order to enhance the soccer performance. For this reason, this experimental study aimed to compare the effects of SSGs and HIIT on power, physiological responses and perceived enjoyment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen youth soccer players (age, 17.5±0.6 years, mean±standard deviation; height, 178.2±6.4 cm; body mass, 70.4±5.4 kg; body fat, 10.6±0.8%) completed one session each of HIIT and SSG on separate days with 1 week between sessions. Each session lasted 25 mins (4x4 mins work with 3 mins of passive recovery in-between). SSGs consisted of 4 versus 4 player games on a 25×35 m pitch, and HIIT consisted of intermittent 15-s runs at 110% maximal aerobic speed separated by 15 s of passive recovery. Psychological responses following each protocol were assessed using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Heart rate (HR) was continuously recorded, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and lactate concentration [La] were measured after each training session. Lower body muscular power was assessed using the 5-jump test relative to leg length (5JT-relative) before and after each training session, where greater average distance per stride over five sequential jumping strides indicated greater muscular power. RESULTS: HIIT and SSG showed no significant difference in HR, RPE and [La] responses (p=0.70, ES=0.11; p=0.61, ES=0.08 and p=0.38, ES=0.21, respectively). 5JT-relative decreased significantly for SSG and HIIT (p<0.05, ES=0.50 and p<0.05, ES=0.40, respectively). PACES score was greater in SSG compared to HIIT (ES=5.35, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: HIIT and SSG sessions induced similar physiological responses; however, SSGs induced a higher enjoyment level than HIIT. Coaches could choose between these training modalities according to the objective of their training session, considering the enjoyment-related advantages of SSGs.
Authors: C Foster; J A Florhaug; J Franklin; L Gottschall; L A Hrovatin; S Parker; P Doleshal; C Dodge Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Jonathan D Bartlett; Graeme L Close; Don P M MacLaren; Warren Gregson; Barry Drust; James P Morton Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Eric J Hegedus; Samantha Ray Hegedus; Alexis Wright; Tara Dickson; Benjamin D Stern Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Hajer Sahli; Okba Selmi; Makrem Zghibi; Lee Hill; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle; Filipe Manuel Clemente Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Okba Selmi; Ibrahim Ouergui; Antonella Muscella; Giulia My; Santo Marsigliante; Hadi Nobari; Katsuhiko Suzuki; Anissa Bouassida Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-31 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Sinan Nayıroğlu; Ali Kerim Yılmaz; Ana Filipa Silva; Rui Silva; Hadi Nobari; Filipe Manuel Clemente Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2022-06-28
Authors: Ibrahim Ouergui; Emerson Franchini; Okba Selmi; Danielle Evé Levitt; Hamdi Chtourou; Ezdine Bouhlel; Luca Paolo Ardigò Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ersan Arslan; Bulent Kilit; Filipe Manuel Clemente; Eugenia Murawska-Ciałowicz; Yusuf Soylu; Mustafa Sogut; Firat Akca; Mine Gokkaya; Ana Filipa Silva Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390