ArticlePDF Available

Four Weeks of Power Optimized Sprint Training Improves Sprint Performance in Adolescent Soccer Players

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Purpose: This study compared the effects of heavy resisted sprint training (RST) versus unresisted sprint training (UST) on sprint performance among adolescent soccer players. Methods: Twenty-four male soccer players (age: 15.7 [0.5] y; body height: 175.7 [9.4] cm; body mass: 62.5 [9.2] kg) were randomly assigned to the RST group (n = 8), the UST group (n = 10), or the control group (n = 6). The UST group performed 8 × 20 m unresisted sprints twice weekly for 4 weeks, whereas the RST group performed 5 × 20-m heavy resisted sprints with a resistance set to maximize the horizontal power output. The control group performed only ordinary soccer training and match play. Magnitude-based decision and linear regression were used to analyze the data. Results: The RST group improved sprint performances with moderate to large effect sizes (0.76–1.41) across all distances, both within and between groups (>92% beneficial effect likelihood). Conversely, there were no clear improvements in the UST and control groups. The RST evoked the largest improvements over short distances (6%–8%) and was strongly associated with increased maximum horizontal force capacities (r = .9). Players with a preintervention deficit in force capacity appeared to benefit the most from RST. Conclusions: Four weeks of heavy RST led to superior improvements in short-sprint performance compared with UST among adolescent soccer players. Heavy RST, using a load individually selected to maximize horizontal power, is therefore highly recommended as a method to improve sprint acceleration in youth athletes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Four Weeks of Power Optimized Sprint Training Improves Sprint
Performance in Adolescent Soccer Players
Mikael Derakhti, Domen Bremec, Tim Kambicˇ, Lasse Ten Siethoff, and Niklas Psilander
Purpose: This study compared the effects of heavy resisted sprint training (RST) versus unresisted sprint training (UST) on sprint
performance among adolescent soccer players. Methods: Twenty-four male soccer players (age: 15.7 [0.5] y; body height: 175.7
[9.4] cm; body mass: 62.5 [9.2] kg) were randomly assigned to the RST group (n = 8), the UST group (n = 10), or the control
group (n = 6). The UST group performed 8 ×20 m unresisted sprints twice weekly for 4 weeks, whereas the RST group performed
5×20-m heavy resisted sprints with a resistance set to maximize the horizontal power output. The control group performed only
ordinary soccer training and match play. Magnitude-based decision and linear regression were used to analyze the data. Results:
The RST group improved sprint performances with moderate to large effect sizes (0.761.41) across all distances, both within and
between groups (>92% benecial effect likelihood). Conversely, there were no clear improvements in the UST and control
groups. The RST evoked the largest improvements over short distances (6%8%) and was strongly associated with increased
maximum horizontal force capacities (r= .9). Players with a preintervention decit in force capacity appeared to benet the most
from RST. Conclusions: Four weeks of heavy RST led to superior improvements in short-sprint performance compared with
UST among adolescent soccer players. Heavy RST, using a load individually selected to maximize horizontal power, is therefore
highly recommended as a method to improve sprint acceleration in youth athletes.
Keywords:team sport, resistance training, forcevelocity proling, youth athletes, 50%v
dec
The ability to accelerate over short distances is essential in
eld-based team sports such as soccer.
1,2
Since 90% of sprints
performed during a soccer match are shorter than 20 m, maximal
sprinting speed is likely less important than acceleration.
3
Short-
sprint performance mirrors actual game situations and is an impor-
tant determinant of match-winning actions. For example, straight-
line sprinting is the most frequent action during goal situations in
professional soccer.
4,5
Top-level players perform numerous intense
actions every match and are signicantly faster in the rst 10 to
15 m than are low-level players.
68
Thus, the fastest players will be
approximately 1 m ahead of slower players after only 10 m of
sprinting, which could be a decisive advantage in a match.
8
Short-sprint performance is primarily determined by 2 abili-
ties: the generation of large ground reaction forces and the technical
ability to apply a proportion in the direction of the sprint
(ie, horizontally).
9,10
Researchers have investigated various meth-
ods of training these physical and technical qualities with the aim of
targeting the development of sprinting performance parameters.
Notably, resisted sprint training (RST) is a popular method of
providing resistance in a specichorizontalmanner. In this
method, where the resistance usually is created by towing a
sled, the user can target the development of various sprint phases
by increasing or decreasing the load.
11
This loading represents a
continuum, with heavy loads roughly corresponding to horizontal
force at low speeds, early sprint phases, and short distances and
lighter loads corresponding to horizontal force at high speeds, late
acceleration (or perhaps maximum velocity), and long distances.
12
The RST with light loads (10% body mass [BM] or 10%
reduction of maximal speed [v
dec
]) has traditionally been studied
and recommended for improving sprint acceleration.
13,14
However,
RST using low resistance has been criticized because it only targets
one part of the loading continuum (high speed and late accelera-
tion) and often results in performance outcomes similar to non-
resisted sprinting, particularly in well-trained individuals.
15
This
likely occurs because RST with light loads does not acutely deviate
much from unresisted sprinting and therefore results in a training
outcome that is not substantially different. Accordingly, recent
studies show that heavier loads (>30% BM and >30% v
dec
) during
RST are necessary to improve short-distance sprint performance
among team-sport athletes.
1618
RST based on %BM reduces the maximal velocity to
different degrees, depending on the athletes level of develop-
ment and the actual resistance determined via friction.
19
The
amount of velocity reduction, and not the absolute load, deter-
mines the training-induced stress and the type and magnitude of
the adaptations.
20,21
Individualforce velocity (Fv)proling
and loadvelocity (Lv)proling can be used to identify whether
an athlete is procient or decient and to prescribe the suitable
load for a specic velocity reduction.
12,22
Values extracted from
the latter prole characterize the neuromuscular limits of the
system for force production, such as the maximal horizontal
force (F
0
), maximal running velocity (v
0
), and maximal hori-
zontal power (P
max
). Additionally, individual proling also
enables analysis of the ratio of force produced in the horizontal
direction (RF%) and a theoretical maximal value of RF%
(RF
max
), which is a measure of the maximal mechanical
effectiveness of force application in the forward direction at
the sprint start.
23
Currently, individual Fvand Lvproling can
be more easily achieved using a robotic system because the
actual resistance is programmable and standardized across
environments.
24
Derakhti, Bremec, Siethoff, and Psilander are with The Swedish School of Sport and
Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. Bremec is also with the SuperTrening Sport
Performance Centre, Celje, Slovenia. Kambičis with the Faculty of Sport, Univer-
sity of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; and the General Hospital Murska Sobota,
Murska Sobota, Slovenia. Psilander (niklas.psilander@gih.se) is corresponding
author.
1
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2020-0959
© 2021 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
First Published Online: Oct. 27, 2021
Recent studies examining RST in elite athletes show a
relationship between pretraining Fvproles and how these
proles are affected by training.
25,26
For example, athletes with
low initial F
0
values show larger improvements in F
0
and short-
sprint performance compared with F
0
-procient athletes.
26
Thus,
individualized resistance based on Fvproling is recommended
in elite athletes.
27
However, Fvproling is time-consuming,
particularly in a team-sport setting where many athletes must be
tested and trained in quick succession. Moreover, adolescent
athletes often have imbalanced Fvproles, displaying a force
deciency.
20,21
Therefore, a more generalized method that spe-
cically targets this deciency, such as power-optimized RST,
may be helpful for youth athletes. This method characterizes the
optimal load(L
opt
) as that which allows P
max
to be reached
during the maximum resisted velocity plateau (ie, 50%v
dec
)and
thus maintained for longer than a single instant during train-
ing.
11,19,24
Consequently, L
opt
represents the loading at which the
athletes can maximize the time spent in conditions close to
maximum horizontal power.
Although a growing number of studies show positive
effects of RST at or close to L
opt
on short-sprint perfor-
mance,
18,20,21,24,26,28
limited research among youth athletes is
available.
20,21
Furthermore, there are few short-duration studies
(<8 wk), with most examining the effects of RST during periods
of 8 to 12 weeks. The multifactorial physical, tactical, and
technical demands of team sports, together with the tight com-
petitive schedule, reduce the applicability of such long training
periods. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the
effects of a 4-week heavy RST program using a robotic resis-
tance system applying power-optimized loading, with an un-
resisted sprint training (UST) program on sprint performance
among adolescent soccer players. We hypothesized that RST
would lead to the largest improvement in sprint performance and
that changes in F
0
would be associated with pretraining F
0
values and changes in sprint performance.
Methods
Subjects
Twenty-seven adolescent male soccer players volunteered to par-
ticipate in this study, with a mean (SD) age of 15.7 (0.5) years, a
mean height of 175.7 (9.4) cm, and a mean weight of 62.5 (9.2) kg.
All participants competed at the highest national level (per their age
group) in Sweden. They were familiar with strength training, but
not on a regular basis, and they had no previous RST experience
(except for the 3 familiarization sessions). The study inclusion
criteria were as follows: the absence of lower-limb injury and the
ability to perform maximal sprints and jumps. After baseline
testing, the participants were assigned to either the RST group
(n = 9), the UST group (n = 10), or the control (CON) group (n = 8).
There were no statistically signicant differences in age or anthro-
pometrics between the groups at the baseline or after the training
intervention. All 3 groups followed the same soccer training
routine. At the end of the intervention, 3 participants (2 from
the CON group and 1 from the RST group) could not undergo
posttesting because of personal reasons. Hence, the nal analysis
ultimately included test data from 24 participants. All subjects were
informed about the risks and benets of the study via an institu-
tionally approved document, and they or their guardians signed
written consent forms. The Stockholm Regional Board of Ethics
approved this study (reference number DNR 2018/746-31/1).
Design
A 4-week randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare
the effects of 2 different sprint training programs among adolescent
soccer players: heavy RST versus UST. The effects of these 2
training programs were evaluated against the CON group. To
ensure as much similarity between experimental groups as possi-
ble, both groups were matched based on the participantsFv
proles obtained from the baseline testing. Specically, the parti-
cipants with similar results were paired, followed by a random
division into the RST or UST group. In addition to the 4 weeks of
training, the participants underwent full familiarization, baseline
testing, and posttesting. Both experimental groups performed the
training twice a week, with each session consisting of 5 heavy
resisted sprints for the RST group and 8 unresisted sprints for the
UST group. The accumulated duration of the sprints was balanced
between the groups. The CON group performed standard soccer
training without any additional activities. The sample size was
based on previous studies in this eld.
18,19
The primary outcome
variables were 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-m sprint performances, and the
secondary outcomes were counter movement jump, standing long
jump, F
0
,P
max
,RF
max
, and maximal velocity during 30-m sprint-
ing (v
max
). The variables were measured at the baseline and after the
training intervention in a fully rested state. We used magnitude-
based decision with compatibility intervals and probabilities based
on the tdistribution to provide estimates of the uncertainty in the
mean effect size within and between groups.
29
Magnitude-based
inference has been criticized because of its increased risk of type I
errors.
30
However, this criticism has been addressed,
31
and given
the small sample size, the study was likely underpowered for null
hypothesis signicance testing.
30
Equipment
A computerized sprint resistance system (1080 Motion AB, Li-
dingö, Sweden) was used for training, testing, and data collection.
The unit provided isotonic horizontal resistance in increment loads
of 1 kg to target the appropriate resistance. Instantaneous velocity
time data were then collected from the manufacturer software, at a
rate of 333 Hz. The manufacturer has previously reported the
repeatability (±0.7%) and accuracy of velocity (±0.5%) and force
(±4.8 N) for the 1080 Sprint system (www.1080 motion.com/
science). Baseline and posttraining measurements were performed
with the same protocol and equipment. Vertical jump trials were
performed using OptoJump hardware and software (MicroGate,
Bolzano, Italy).
General Testing Procedures
Testing was completed during the participantslate preseason and
early in-season period. The same researchers who supervised all
training performed the pretesting and posttesting. To minimize
possible learning effects, the participants underwent full familiari-
zation (ie, 3 familiarization sessions >48 h prior to baseline testing).
Testing was performed on 2 separate days. Day 1 began with 2
unloaded (1-kg resistance, as the practical minimum provided by
the machine) maximal effort 30-m sprints (T
30
m) to measure 5-,
10-, 20-, and 30-m split times and to create Fvproles. The raw
velocitytime data and Samozinos inverse dynamics method were
used to compile the Fvrelationships.
23
Next, 4 progressively
loaded 20-m sprints were performed to compute the participants
Lvprole. The Fvand Lvproles were used to calculate and
measure the individual training load, F
0
,P
max
,RF
max
, and v
max
.
2Derakhti et al
(Ahead of Print)
Day 2 began with 3 CMJs followed by 3 SLJs. Prior to any testing,
the participants performed a standardized 20-minute warm-up
(SWU) consisting of jogging, dynamic stretching, technical drills,
and 4 submaximal 30-m stride outs. All sprint tests were conducted
outdoors on the same soccer pitch with an articial astroturf
surface; the jumps were performed on a hard, at asphalt surface.
All groups performed the tests on the same days during similar
weather conditions, and the participants wore the same clothes and
footwear during the pretesting and posttesting.
Sprint Testing and Fvand LvProling
Post-SWU, the participants rested for 5 minutes before being
attached to the 1080 Sprint device via a hip belt. The participants
positioned themselves in a standing-split stance at the starting line,
after which they initiated the rst T
30
m. They were instructed to
leaninto their rst step (removing the slack from the line), push
off with their front leg, and start sprinting when they felt like they
were about to fall. The selected starting leg remained constant
throughout all training and testing sessions. Although the sprint
data were gathered over a distance of 30 m, an actual sprinting
distance of 35 m was utilized to ensure that the participants did not
slow down before reaching 30 m. The second T
30
m was performed
after a 3-minute rest. The faster of the 2 trials was used to compute
split times and Fvproles.
After the T
30
-m testing, individual horizontal Lvproles were
assessed by utilizing a testing battery of resisted sprints based on
the procedures outlined by Cross et al.
16,19,24
The testing battery
consisted of four 20-m sprints performed with increasing loads.
The loads were adjusted to approximately equal-weighted sleds
loaded with 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the participantsBM.
This loading span was selected to facilitate proper plotting of the
participantsLvproles and to determine each athletesL
opt
.
Specically, L
opt
represents the load that allows maximum power
(ie, is aligned with the apex of their individual horizontal power
velocity relationship) to be developed at the maximum resisted
velocity plateau and, subsequently, a larger proportion of training
to be performed around P
max
by attaining and maintaining maxi-
mum resisted velocity.
19
Table 1displays an overview of the sprint
testing procedure.
Vertical and Horizontal Jump Testing
Three CMJs, interspersed by 1 minute of rest, were performed
5 minutes after an SWU, with the highest jump recorded as the test
result. The participants were instructed to place their hands slightly
above their hips and keep them there throughout the entire jump.
Moreover, they were instructed to go fast down fast up,land on
their toes, and not bend their knees duringthe ight phase or landing.
The standing long jump was performed 2 minutes after the
counter movement jump testing, using an extended measuring tape
placed on the ground that marked distances of 1, 2, and 3 m with red
tape for the participants to see. Three attempts were allowed, with
1 minute of rest between each jump. The participants were
instructed to stand erect with their feet parallel behind the given
zero line, to use their arms as a pendulum, and to jump as far as
possible, landing on both feet. The jump was measured as the
distance from the starting point to the heel of the foot that was
furthest back, with the furthest jump recorded as the test result.
Training Regimen
Training was performed prior to the regular soccer training and
consisted of linear maximal effort sprints. The RST group performed
an SWU prior to 5 ×20-m maximal-effort resisted sprints. The 1080
Sprint system was used during the resisted sprints, with the load
optimized such that the participants maximal velocity was reduced
by half (50%v
dec
). The training was performed in this manner for
Table 1 Sprint Testing Procedure
20 min of SWU followed by 5 min of passive rest prior to sprint testing procedure
Sprint nr Load T
30
mFvprofiling Lvprofiling Rest period, min
1 Unloaded ✓✓ 3
2 Unloaded ✓✓ 3
3 25% BM –– 3
4 50% BM –– 3
5 75% BM –– 3
6 100% BM –– 3
Abbreviations: SWU, standardized warm-up; BM, body mass; Fvproling, forcevelocity proling; Lvproling, loadvelocity proling.
Table 2 Intervention Design
Session Repetitions ×distance, m Sprint type, load Total sprint duration, s Warm-up
RST
13×20 Maximal effort, individual L
opt
2021 SWU
295×20 Maximal effort, individual L
opt
3235 SWU
UST
198×20 Maximal effort, unloaded 3235 SWU
Abbreviations: L
opt
, optimal load for the subjects to work at their P
max
; RST, resisted sprint training group; SWU, standardized warm-up; UST, unresisted sprint training
group.
Resisted Sprint Training in Youth Soccer 3
(Ahead of Print)
every session apart from the rst training session, during which the
participants only performed 3 resisted sprints. The UST group
performed an SWU prior to 8 ×20-m maximal-effort unresisted
sprints. Each sprint was interspersed by a 3-minute rest, and the
training was conducted twice per week for 4 weeks on nonconsecutive
days. The remaining team-specic training included 4 soccer sessions
per week, ranging from 45 to 90 minutes. After the fth intervention
session, the participantsregular game season began, and 1 competi-
tive soccer match per week was added to the weekly load. The CON
group performed only regular soccer-specic team training and
matches. The participants of all 3 groups were instructed not to
expose themselves to any other training stimuli during the interven-
tion. Table 2provides further details on the intervention design.
Statistical Analysis
All data were imported and processed in Microsoft Excel 2016
(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Linear regression models
were analyzed in IBM SPSS statistics (version 26.0.01, Armonk,
NY), and Figures 1and 2were processed in GraphPad Prism
version 8.34 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA). The
data in the text and gures are presented as the mean (SD) or ±90%
compatibility intervals. The practical relevance of the outcome
variables was assessed using magnitude-based decisions.
29
The
effects of the training (RST, UST, or CON) differences over time
(pre to post) and the differences between groups were calculated.
The smallest worthwhile change was set to 0.2 ×SD. Since the
sample sizes were small (n = 8, 10, and 6), we used a tdistribution
to calculate the 90% compatibility intervals and the chances of
benecial, harmful, or trivial changes. Qualitative statements were
assessed as follows: 25% to 75%, possibly; 75% to 95%, likely;
95% to 99.5%, very likely; >99.5%, most likely. If the chances of
having benecial/higher or harmful/lower performances were both
>5%, the true difference was considered unclear. The effect sizes
were qualitatively described as trivial, small, moderate, large, very
large, and extremely large for standardized thresholds of <0.2,
0.2, 0.6, 1.2, 2, and 4 and for regression coefcients of <0.1,
0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9, respectively.
29
To provide
information about individual responses, we presented the number
of individuals who displayed changes that were better, worse, or
within the smallest worthwhile change.
To test our hypothesis that pretraining F
0
values were associ-
ated with improvements in F
0
, we performed a linear regression
with group and initial F
0
values as the independent variables and
changes in F
0
as the dependent variables. The same method was
used to test whether the association between changes in F
0
(independent) were associated with changes in 20-m sprint perfor-
mance (dependent) and training group (independent). Changes in
20-m sprint time (T
20
) were chosen as the primary outcome
variable for sprint performance, since 20-m sprinting was the basis
of the training interventions.
Results
The RST group likely improved sprinting performance across all
time points and comparisons. The improvement increased progres-
sively with decreasing distance from 4% at 30 m to 8% at 5 m.
Conversely, there were no clear changes in sprinting performance
for the UST or CON groups at any time point or for any comparison
(Table 3). Thus, there was a likely to very likely benecial effect for
the RST group compared with the UST and CON groups for all
sprinting distances. No clear between-group differences were
observed when comparing the UST and CON groups (Figure 1).
The counter movement jump height possibly increased for the
UST group (6%), but not for the other 2 groups. The standing long
jump length likely increased for both the RST and UST groups
(6%7%), but not for the CON group (Table 4). Thus, there was a
very likely to most likely better effect in jumping performance for
the 2 intervention groups compared with the CON group
(Figure 2).
Figure 1 Pairwise comparison of the changes in sprint performance
between (A) the RST and UST groups, (B) the RST and CON groups, and
(C) the UST and CON groups. T
5
T
30
denotes the standardized change in
sprint performance at 5, 10, 20, and 30 m, respectively. Error bars represent
the 90% CIs of the mean change in performance. The gray area marks the
limits of a trivial change. Numbers separated by a slash are the probability
(in percentage) of an improvement that is better for the left group/within
the trivial range/better for the right group. CI indicates compatibility
interval; CON, control group only performing ordinary soccer training;
RST, resisted sprint training group; UST, unresisted sprint training group.
4Derakhti et al
(Ahead of Print)
The performance-related variables F
0
,P
max
, and RF
max
likely
improved in the RST group (approximately 9%18%). Conversely,
there were no improvements in the UST group, but a possible
decrease for F
0
(4%) (Table 4). This resulted in a likely better
effect for the RST group compared with the other 2 groups for F
0
,
P
max
, and RF
max
(Figure 2). The v
max
was unaffected in the RST
and UST groups, whereas the CON group displayed a very likely
decrease (3%) (Table 4).
Change in F
0
was a very large predictor for changes in 20-m
sprinting time (P<.001, r=.84), and the preintervention F
0
was a
large predictor for improvements in F
0
(P<.001, r=.70)
(Table 5). The intervention group was a signicant predictor for
changes in F
0
(P<.006, r=.48), but not for changes in sprint
performance (P<.079, r= .18). The overall models explained 80%
of the improvement in sprint performance and 48% of the change
in F
0
.
Discussion
This is the rst study to compare the effects of a short, power-
optimized, heavy RST program with a UST program among youth
athletes. Our primary nding was that 4 weeks of heavy RST
improved sprint performance among late pubertal adolescent soc-
cer players, while the UST group displayed no improvement. The
improved sprint performance was primarily due to increases in
maximal horizontal force production and improvements in early
sprint acceleration, which was in line with our hypothesis. The
CON group, which only received regular soccer training, showed
no performance improvements in any of the measured outcome
variables.
The RST group displayed similar or greater improvement in
sprint performance than that reported in previous studies,
17,18,24,32
despite a shorter training period (4 vs 812 wk), supporting the
effectiveness of the training protocol. This can be explained by
several factors. First, we used a resistance that reduces velocity by
50% to maximally stimulate the ability to produce horizontal
power. Additionally, the resistance was applied by a robotic system
via a hip harness, which is ideal for providing the right amount of
horizontal resistance while maintaining an optimal sprinting posi-
tion. Together, this may be a highly efcient way for stimulating
power adaptations. Second, the participants in the present study
were younger than those in most previous studies. Adolescent
athletes may be more sensitive to training-induced adaptations that
improve sprint performance.
33
In line with this, the participants had
relatively low starting values of F
0
, which have been shown to
correlate with improvements in horizontal force production and
sprint performance.
26
Furthermore, the individual changes in F
0
,
together with the assigned training group of the participants (RST,
UST, or CON), explained 80% of the improvement in the 20-m
sprint performance. Therefore, the comparatively large effect of
this short-training intervention is likely a consequence of a good
match between an effective training method and population.
The short-training intervention utilized in the present study
was primarily chosen to mimic real-world team-sport periodiza-
tion. Short periods of specic training, called block mesocycles,
have been frequently used among team-sport athletes, with
studies recommending that these periods last between 2 and 4
weeks.
34
The present intervention spanned both the precompeti-
tive and competitive seasons (2 wk in each); therefore, our results
indicate that heavy RST is a suitable training form during this
important transition period, particularly because the CON group
experienced a performance decrease in some of the measured
variables (P
max
and v
max
). This decrease may have occurred
because the CON group was less prepared for intense match
play and became more fatigued compared with the other 2 groups.
Therefore, the CON group might not have been fully recovered
when performing the posttests. Multiple postintervention assess-
ment points would have enabled these factors to be more clearly
Figure 2 Pairwise comparison of the changes in secondary outcome
variables between (A) the RST and UST groups, (B) the RST and CON
groups, and (C) the UST and CON groups. Error bars represent the 90%
CIs of the mean change in performance. The gray area marks the limits of a
trivial change. Numbers separated by a slash are the probability (in
percentage) of an improvement that is better for the left group/within
the trivial range/better for the right group. CI indicates compatibility
interval; CMJ, counter movement jump; CON, control group only
performing ordinary soccer training; F
0
, maximal horizontal force;
P
max
, maximal horizontal power; RF
max
, maximum ratio of force
produced in the forward direction at sprint start; RST, resisted sprint
training group; SLJ, standing long jump; UST, unresisted sprint training
group; v
max
, maximal velocity during 30-m sprinting.
Resisted Sprint Training in Youth Soccer 5
(Ahead of Print)
elucidated,
28
but the competitive schedules of the athletes did not
permit such a design.
Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of devel-
oping maximal horizontal force production to improve the early
acceleration phase of sprinting.
35,36
Since team-sport athletes
primarily perform short sprints, there is a compelling argument
to target the development of this ability during training. Interest-
ingly, the present study indicated that the improvement in sprint
performance in the RST group increased gradually from the 30-m
to the 5-m sprint (T
30
=3.8%, T
20
=4.2%, T
10
=5.6%, and
T
5
= 7.9%). This nding, combined with the large increases in
F
0
,P
max
,andRF
max
, but not in v
max
,conrms that RST mainly
improved sprint acceleration, which agrees with results from both
adult and adolescent populations.
17,18,20,21,26,32,35
The fact that
these changes were observed after only 4 weeks of training
indicates that the changes were primarily driven by neural and
technical improvements. This, in combination with our nding
that horizontal jump length, but not vertical jump height,
increased, demonstrates that the athletes appear to have dispro-
portionately developed technical capacities, rather than gross
physical ones.
Importantly, we did not detect a decrease in v
max
in the RST
group. This agrees with recent ndings showing a decrease in v
max
when applying very heavy loads (75%v
dec
), but not for loads close
to L
opt
(50%v
dec
).
21
A possible explanation is that, in theory, RST at
L
opt
would improve both maximum velocity and maximum force
since it targets the development of the middle portion of the Fv
relationship. However, in light of this, and recent studies, the most
efcient training to improve maximal velocity seems to be sprint-
ing at velocities close to or above v
max
(ie, assisted sprint train-
ing).
25
Nevertheless, our results indicate that power-optimized RST
does not longitudinally impede the v
max
of young soccer players
following a short intervention.
The present study has some limitations. First, we used
magnitude-based decision to provide usable results from this
otherwise small data set. Therefore, the results should be inter-
preted with the relatively underpowered nature of this data set in
mind. Second, although sprint performance increased by 4% to
8%, which is an unusually large increase for athletes, one should
be careful when translating this improvement directly to sport-
specic performance. The improved acceleration and horizontal
forces could be partly due to improved body orientation during
early sprinting phases.
26
Although this improves sprint accelera-
tion, it might not be practically relevant for a soccer player who
requires an upright posture throughout the game. Additionally,
many accelerations in soccer are performed from a ying start and
not from a dead start (eg, from jogging to sprinting). Future
studies should therefore include sprint testing with a ying start
and examine the effect of training on the starting angle. Finally,
completely unloaded sprinting is not possible when using the
1080 system (see Methodssection for details). This might have
affected v
max
, and the results should, therefore, be interpreted with
this in mind.
Practical Applications
1. A loading prescription, applied to stimulate the development
of maximal horizontal power, appears to be more benecial to
short-sprint performance than unresisted sprinting. This
method could be integrated into the training of youth athletes
to enhance sport-specic performance.
2. Lvproling and loading of the desired resistance are greatly
simplied by a robotic system. However, this can also be done
by more cost-efcient devices such as timing gates, smart
phone applications, and a weight-adjustable sled.
23
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics (Mean [SD]) and Changes (With 90% CI) in Sprint Performance in the RST, UST,
and CON Groups
Group
Pre,
mean (SD)
Post,
mean (SD) % Change (90% CI) ES (90% CI)
Chances
(B/T/H)
Ind. Resp.
(B/T/H) Outcome
T
30
,s
RST 5.34 (0.24) 5.15 (0.20) 3.67 (6.43 to 0.92) 0.89 (1.56 to 0.22) 95/4/1 6/1/1 Very likely benecial
UST 5.42 (0.47) 5.45 (0.38) 0.54 (3.98 to 5.06) 0.07 (0.51 to + 0.65) 21/45/35 3/4/3 Unclear
CON 5.39 (0.10) 5.48 (0.20) 1.70 (0.56 to 3.97) 0.62 (0.20 to 1.44) 5/13/82 1/1/4 Unclear
T
20
,s
RST 3.96 (0.22) 3.79 (0.17) 4.20 (7.46 to 0.94) 0.86 (1.53 to 0.19) 95/4/1 6/1/1 Likely benecial
UST 4.0 (0.36) 4.06 (0.28) 1.52 (3.15 to 6.19) 0.19 (0.39 to 0.77) 12/39/49 4/1/5 Unclear
CON 4.06 (0.1) 4.11 (0.18) 1.27 (1.60 to 4.14) 0.36 (0.46 to 1.19) 11/24/65 1/3/2 Unclear
T
10
,s
RST 2.50 (0.2) 2.36 (0.15) 5.69 (10.41 to 0.97) 0.81 (1.48 to 0.14) 94/5/1 6/1/1 Likely benecial
UST 2.55 (0.30) 2.61 (0.21) 2.23 (3.52 to 7.99) 0.23 (0.35 to 0.80) 11/36/53 3/2/5 Unclear
CON 2.65 (0.11) 2.68 (0.17) 1.01 (3.30 to 5.31) 0.19 (0.63 to 1.02) 19/32/49 2/2/2 Unclear
T
5
,s
RST 1.67 (0.20) 1.54 (0.15) 7.87 (14.85 to 0.89) 0.76 (1.43 to 0.09) 92/6/2 7/0/1 Likely benecial
UST 1.71 (0.26) 1.77 (0.18) 3.45 (3.93 to 10.82) 0.27 (0.31 to 0.85) 9/33/59 3/3/4 Unclear
CON 1.84 (0.11) 1.84 (0.16) 0.45 (5.49 to 6.40) 0.06 (0.76 to 0.89) 27/35/38 2/2/2 Unclear
Abbreviations: B, benecial; CI, compatibility interval; CON, control group only performing ordinary soccer training; Ind. Resp., individual response; H, harmful;
RST, resisted sprint training group; T, trivial; T
30
, time to sprint 30 m; T
20
, time to sprint 20 m; T
10
,timetosprint10m;T
5
, time to sprint 5m; UST, unresisted sprint training
group.
6Derakhti et al
(Ahead of Print)
3. Only 4 weeks of power-optimized RST, performed 2 times per
week, was sufcient to improve performance. This greatly
improves the applicability of the described method, that is, it
can be used as a block mesocycle during the late preseason or
in-season periods.
Conclusions
We showed that 4 weeks of power-optimized RST was more
benecial than UST at improving short-sprint performance in ado-
lescent soccer players. The improvement in sprint times increased
gradually with decreasing distance. Additionally, maximal horizontal
power, maximal horizontal force application, and maximal effective-
ness of force application improved, indicating that the training
primarily affected sprint acceleration performance. Maximal velocity
remained unchanged. Finally, the effect was more pronounced in
athletes with low horizontal force capabilities at baseline. Overall,
these results show that power-optimized RST is a very efcient and
easy method for improving sprint performance in youth athletes.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants and coaches from Älvsjö
AIK for their cooperation and maximal effort during the training interven-
tion. M.D. and D.B. contributed equally to this work.
Table 5 Results From Linear Regression Models
With 2 Predictors (N = 24)
Predictors rr
2
Adjusted r
2
P
Dependent variable = changes
in 20-m sprint performance
Training group .180 .032 .079
Changes in F
0
.836 .699 <.001
Overall model .903 .815 .798 <.001
Dependent variable = changes
in F
0
Training group .478 .228 .006
Initial F
0
.698 .487 <.001
Overall model .722 .522 .476 <.001
Abbreviations: F
0
, maximal horizontal force; r, correlation coefcient.
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics (Mean [SD]) and Changes (With 90% CI) in Physical Performance in the RST, UST,
and CON Groups
Group
Pre,
mean (SD)
Post,
mean (SD)
% Change
(90% CI) ES (90% CI)
Chances
(B/T/H)
Ind. Resp.
(B/T/H) Outcome
CMJ, cm
RST 31.1 (3.9) 32.6 (4.9) 4.66 (4.73 to 14.05) 0.33 (0.34 to 1.00) 64/27/9 3/5/0 Unclear
UST 29.2 (4.8) 31.01 (4.9) 6.34 (3.33 to 16.02) 0.38 (0.20 to 0.96) 71/24/5 8/1/1 Possibly benecial
CON 32.0 (4.5) 31.35 (3.6) 1.98 (12.48 to 8.52) 0.16 (0.98 to 0.67) 21/33/46 1/4/1 Unclear
SLJ, cm
RST 211.3 (17.9) 226.4 (20.0) 7.16 (4.16 to 13.16) 0.80 (0.01 to 1.47) 93/5/1 7/1/0 Likely benecial
UST 206.9 (14.2) 219.10 (17.7) 5.90 (1.43 to 10.37) 0.76 (0.01 to 1.34) 95/5/1 8/2/0 Likely benecial
CON 226.3 (11.5) 224.0 (13.8) 0.99 (5.59 to 3.60) 0.18 (1.00 to 0.64) 20/32/48 0/4/2 Unclear
P
max
, W/kg
RST 11.7 (2.4) 13.4 (2.5) 14.38 (0.19 to 28.56) 0.68 (0.01 to 1.35) 89/9/2 6/1/1 Likely benecial
UST 11.6 (4.0) 10.84 (2.1) 8.62 (23.66 to 6.42) 0.33 (0.91 to 0.17) 6/28/66 3/3/4 Unclear
CON 10.8 (0.5) 10.29 (0.8) 4.34 (9.08 to 0.40) 0.75 (1.58 to 0.07) 3/8/88 1/0/5 Likely harmful
RF
max
,%
RST 36.8 (5.1) 40 (3.8) 8.84 (0.78 to 16.90) 0.74 (0.07 to 1.40) 91/7/2 7/0/1 Likely benecial
UST 35.6 (6.7) 34.2 (4.2) 3.93 (12.87 to 5.00) 0.26 (0.83 to 0.32) 9/34/57 3/3/4 Unclear
CON 32.67 (2.58) 32.50 (3.6) 0.51 (8.32 to 7.30) 0.26 (1.08 to 0.56) 28/35/37 3/1/2 Unclear
v
max
, m/s
RST 7.54 (0.42) 7.56 (0.51) 0.23 (3.89 to 4.35) 0.04 (0.63 to 0.71) 33/41/26 4/1/3 Unclear
UST 7.62 (0.38) 7.70 (0.61) 1.05 (2.72 to 4.82) 0.16 (0.42 to 0.74) 45/40/14 6/0/4 Unclear
CON 8.15 (0.24) 7.91 (0.18) 2.99 (4.68 to 1.29) 1.45 (2.27 to 0.63) 1/1/99 0/1/5 Very likely harmful
F
0
, N/kg
RST 5.50 (1.66) 6.50 (1.70) 18.17 (0.65 to 35.68) 0.70 (0.03 to 1.37) 90/8/2 7/0/1 Likely benecial
UST 5.33 (2.17) 4.66 (1.04) 12.46 (30.93 to 6.00) 0.39 (0.97 to 0.19) 5/23/72 3/3/4 Possibly harmful
CON 4.13 (0.59) 4.18 (0.80) 1.33 (8.68 to 11.34) 0.11 (0.71 to 0.93) 42/34/24 4/0/2 Unclear
Abbreviations: B, benecial; CI, compatibility interval; CMJ, counter movement jump; CON, control group only performing ordinary soccer training; F
0
, maximal
horizontal force; H, harmful; P
max
, maximal horizontal power; RF
max
, maximum ratio of force produced in the forward direction at sprint start; RST, resisted sprint training
group; SLJ, standing long jump; T, trivial; UST, unresisted sprint training group; v
max
, maximal velocity during 30-m sprinting.
Resisted Sprint Training in Youth Soccer 7
(Ahead of Print)
References
1. Schimpchen J, Skorski S, Nopp S, Meyer T. Are classicaltests of
repeated-sprint ability in football externally valid? A new approach to
determine in-game sprinting behaviour in elite football players. J
Sports Sci. 2016;34(6):519526. PubMed ID: 26580089 doi:10.
1080/02640414.2015.1112023
2. Spencer M, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C. Physiological and
metabolic responses of repeated-sprint activities: specictoeld-
based team sports. Sports Med. 2005;35(12):10251044. PubMed ID:
16336007 doi:10.2165/00007256-200535120-00003
3. Vigne G, Gaudino C, Rogowski I, Alloatti G, Hautier C. Activity
prole in elite Italian soccer team. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(5):304
310. PubMed ID: 20301042 doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248320
4. Alcaraz PE, Carlos-Vivas J, Oponjuru BO, Martinez-Rodriguez A.
The effectiveness of resisted sled training (RST) for sprint perfor-
mance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;
48(9):21432165. PubMed ID: 29926369 doi:10.1007/s40279-018-
0947-8
5. Cometti G, Mafuletti NA, Pousson M, Chatard JC, Maffulli N.
Isokinetic strength and anaerobic power of elite, subelite and amateur
French soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2001;22(1):4551. PubMed
ID: 11258641 doi:10.1055/s-2001-11331
6. Bangsbo J, Mohr M, Krustrup P. Physical and metabolic demands of
training and match-play in the elite football player. J Sports Sci.
2006;24(7):665674. PubMed ID: 16766496 doi:10.1080/02640
410500482529
7. Haugen T, Tonnessen E, Hisdal J, Seiler S. The role and development
of sprinting speed in soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;
9(3):432441. PubMed ID: 23982902 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2013-0121
8. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer:
an update. Sports Med. 2005;35(6):501536. PubMed ID: 15974635
doi:10.2165/00007256-200535060-00004
9. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Lacour JR.
Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2012;112(11):39213930. PubMed ID: 22422028
doi:10.1007/s00421-012-2379-8
10. Colyer SL, Nagahara R, Takai Y, Salo AIT. How sprinters accelerate
beyond the velocity plateau of soccer players: waveform analysis of
ground reaction forces. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(12):2527
2535. PubMed ID: 30230037 doi:10.1111/sms.13302
11. Cross MR, Tinwala F, Lenetsky S, et al. Assessing horizontal force
production in resisted sprinting: computation and practical interpre-
tation. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(5):689693. PubMed
ID: 30975007 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0578
12. Cross MR, Samozino P, Brown SR, Morin JB. A comparison between
the force-velocity relationships of unloaded and sled-resisted sprint-
ing: single vs. multiple trial methods. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2018;118(3):563571. PubMed ID: 29302753 doi:10.1007/s00421-
017-3796-5
13. Alcaraz PE, Palao JM, Elvira JL. Determining the optimal load for
resisted sprint training with sled towing. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23(2):480485. PubMed ID: 19197200 doi:10.1519/JSC.
0b013e318198f92c
14. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Spinks CD. Effects of resisted sled towing on
sprint kinematics in eld-sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res.
2003;17(4):760767. PubMed ID: 14636109
15. Petrakos G, Morin JB, Egan B. Resisted sled sprint training to
improve sprint performance: a systematic review. Sports Med.
2016;46(3):381400. PubMed ID: 26553497 doi:10.1007/s40279-
015-0422-8
16. Cross MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Morin JB. Methods of power-
force-velocity proling during sprint running: a narrative review.
Sports Med. 2017;47(7):12551269. PubMed ID: 27896682 doi:10.
1007/s40279-016-0653-3
17. Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted
sled towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):27382745. PubMed ID:
23539079 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182915ed4
18. Morin JB, Petrakos G, Jimenez-Reyes P, Brown SR, Samozino P,
Cross MR. Very-heavy sled training for improving horizontal-force
output in soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;
12(6):840844. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0444
19. Cross MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Brown SR, Morin JB. Optimal
loading for maximizing power during sled-resisted sprinting. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(8):10691077. PubMed ID:
28051333 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0362
20. Cahill MJ, Oliver JL, Cronin JB, Clark KP, Cross MR, Lloyd RS.
Inuence of resisted sled-push training on the sprint force-velocity
prole of male high school athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2020;30(3):442449. PubMed ID: 31742795 doi:10.1111/sms.13600
21. Cahill MJ, Oliver JL, Cronin JB, et al. Inuence of resisted sled-pull
training on the sprint force-velocity prole of male high-school
athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(10):27512759. PubMed
ID: 32773545 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003770
22. Morin JB, Samozino P. Interpreting power-force-velocity proles for
individualized and specic training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2016;11(2):267272. PubMed ID: 26694658 doi:10.1123/ijspp.
2015-0638
23. Samozino P, Rabita G, Dorel S, et al. A simple method for measuring
power, force, velocity properties, and mechanical effectiveness in
sprint running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(6):648658.
PubMed ID: 25996964 doi:10.1111/sms.12490
24. Cross MR, Lahti J, Brown SR, et al. Training at maximal power in
resisted sprinting: optimal load determination methodology and pilot
results in team sport athletes. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195477.
PubMed ID: 29641589 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195477
25. Lahti J, Jimenez-Reyes P, Cross MR, et al. Individual sprint force-
velocity prole adaptations to in-season assisted and resisted veloc-
ity-based training in professional rugby. Sports. 2020;8(5):74. doi:10.
3390/sports8050074
26. Lahti J, Huuhka T, Romero V, Bezodis I, Morin JB, Hakkinen K.
Changes in sprint performance and sagittal plane kinematics after
heavy resisted sprint training in professional soccer players. Peer J.
2020;8:e10507. PubMed ID: 33362970 doi:10.7717/peerj.10507
27. Simpson A, Waldron M, Cushion E, Tallent J. Optimised force-
velocity training during pre-season enhances physical performance in
professional rugby league players. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(1):91100.
PubMed ID: 32799729 doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1805850
28. Morin JB, Capelo-Ramirez F, Rodriguez-Perez MA, Cross MR,
Jimenez-Reyes P. Individual adaptation kinetics following heavy
resisted sprint training. J Strength Cond Res. 2020. PubMed ID
32058358 doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003546
29. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive
statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):312. PubMed ID: 19092709 doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e31818cb278
30. Sainani KL. The problem with magnitude-based inference.Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2018;50(10):21662176. PubMed ID: 29683920
doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001645
31. Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. The problems with the problem with
magnitude-based inference.’” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(3):599.
PubMed ID: 30365421 doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001823
8Derakhti et al
(Ahead of Print)
32. Cahill MJ, Oliver JL, Cronin JB, Clark KP, Cross MR, Lloyd RS.
Sled-pull load-velocity proling and implications for sprint training
prescription in young male athletes. Sports. 2019;7(5):119. doi:10.
3390/sports7050119
33. Meyers RW, Oliver JL, Hughes MG, Lloyd RS, Cronin JB. The
inuence of maturation on sprint performance in boys over a 21-
month period. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(12):25552562.
PubMed ID: 27434083 doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001049
34. Issurin VB. Benets and limitations of block periodized training
approaches to athletespreparation: a review. Sports Med. 2016;
46(3):329338. PubMed ID: 26573916 doi:10.1007/s40279-015-
0425-5
35. Buchheit M, Samozino P, Glynn JA, et al. Mechanical determinants
of acceleration and maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young
soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(20):19061913. PubMed ID:
25356503 doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.965191
36. Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J, et al. Sprint mechanics in world-class
athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J
Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(5):583594. PubMed ID: 25640466 doi:10.
1111/sms.12389
Resisted Sprint Training in Youth Soccer 9
(Ahead of Print)
... The literature search yielded a total of 22 studies from which 24 groups were used in the analyses (n = 6 for UDS [19][20][21][22][23]25] and n = 18 for RS [13,29,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]). Each study's characteristics regarding participants, training programmes, and testing and outcome are listed in Tables 2 and 3. ...
... Resistive loads varied, ranging from % velocity loss (VL) (7.5-50%), % body mass (BM) (10.2-80%) or absolute loads (5 kg). Sprint testing was assessed in the studies through various automated methods such as, photocells, radar guns [42,44,48,51], video analysis and computation [19][20][21][22] or the use of the 1080 Sprint [52]. Within UDS groups, the degree of each slope was also defined in Table 2, with values ranging from 3° to 4°. ...
... When not accounting for distance tested, small to moderate differences were seen between the very heavy loads (≥ 80% BM or ≥ 50% VL) and all other groups, while differences between all other groups were not significant. Of note, the very heavy group also contained some reasonable variability due to the study by Derakhti et al. [52], which may have seen strong effects due to their sample being professional adolescent athletes. Additionally, when the relationship between test distance and SMD was analysed within each loading group (Fig. 4), the results of this meta-analysis and meta regression seem to indicate that the linear relationship further weakens within a loading prescription. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Two specific sprint training methods that are present to varying degrees in research and practice are combined uphill–downhill sprinting (UDS) and resisted sprint training methods (RS). Both methods seem to improve sprint performance, but to the author’s knowledge a comparison does not exist investigating the differences between the two training protocols and traditional sprinting. Objective The present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated sprint performance changes between combined uphill–downhill sprinting and resisted sprinting methods (sleds, cables/bands, vests, uphill) and how these compared with traditional sprinting. Methods A literature search was performed on 19 December 2022, in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and SCOPUS, which from 22 studies yielded a total of 24 eligible groups (UDS, n = 6; RS, n = 18). Studies that measured sprint performance, had a traditional sprinting control, and used either training intervention in healthy individuals of any age for ≥ 4 weeks were eligible for the meta-analysis. The change in sprint performance from baseline to post intervention was compared between the interventions and their traditional sprinting control group. Outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). Results The standardized changes in sprint performance between intervention groups and traditional-sprinting controls (negative in favour of intervention, positive in favour of traditional sprint) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were as follows: small for UDS (SMD − 0.41 [− 0.79, − 0.03]; p = 0.03), trivial for RS (SMD − 0.14 [− 0.36, 0.07]; p = 0.19). Conclusion Combined uphill–downhill sprinting was more effective than traditional sprinting, while resisted sprinting was not. It appears that resisted sprint interventions do not increase sprint performance any more than traditional sprinting. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression appear to show differences between sled loads and possible differences across distances tested. The results of this review and meta-analysis seem to warrant further investigations into the possibility that UDS may be a superior sprint training method to resisted and traditional sprinting.
... The authors then presented experimental studies showing similar or better effects between very heavy loaded sleds and traditional sprinting controls over "5-30 m" distances and stated that this was evidence that very heavy loads "might be a more effective means of enhancing the acceleration phase." Our attempt with our previous statement was to provide a possible explanation for the large spread within the very heavy load group since one study contained male amateur soccer players (26.3 ± 4.0 years) while the referenced Derakhti et al. [31] study contained professional adolescent athletes (15.7 ± 0.5 years). We thank the authors for expressing their concerns; however, nowhere in our study did we attempt to undermine the effectiveness of very heavy sled sprinting in general. ...
... The notion that the potential importance of the plantar flexor muscle strength may be a largely overlooked factor is also highlighted by the fact that training interventions aimed at improving the performance of young soccer players in high-intensity tasks typically rely on exercises aimed at strengthening the knee and hip extensor muscles [6,[15][16][17][18][19][20], plyometric jumps or sprint training [21][22][23][24][25][26] or a combination of both [18,19,[27][28][29][30][31]. By contrast, strength and conditioning programs for soccer players rarely include exercises to increase the maximum strength of the plantar flexors, such as calf raises [32,33], although maximum (isometric) strength and rapid force production are known to be correlated [34]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Soccer is a complex sports discipline that requires players to engage in diverse high-intensity and multidirectional activities. The optimization of strength and conditioning programs requires a comprehensive understanding of the physical attributes influencing player performance. While previous research has demonstrated the influence of knee and hip extensor muscles on the performance in sprints and other explosive movements, this study aimed to establish the relationship between plantar flexor muscle strength and high-intensity actions. Back squat (BS) and calf raise (CR) one-repetition maxima as well as linear sprint (5-, 10-, 30 m) and drop jump performance from different heights (15, 30, 45 and 60 cm) were measured in 45 elite youth players (age: 16.62 ± 1.1 years). Results showed significant negative correlations between BS strength and sprint times (r = −0.60 to −0.61), confirming the importance of lower limb extensor muscle strength in short-distance sprints. While no significant correlations were found with sprint performances, CR strength was significantly associated with drop jump test results from 45 and 60 cm drop height (r = 0.36 to 0.46). These findings demonstrate that isolated CR strength positively influences the performance in actions involving rapid stretch-shortening cycles, which suggests that current strength and conditioning programs for youth soccer players should be extended to also include exercises specifically targeting the plantar flexor muscles. While this cross-sectional study provides novel insights into the complex interplay between muscle strength and soccer-specific performance, its findings need to be corroborated in longitudinal studies directly testing the impact of plantar flexor strength training.
... Among training modalities to develop faster and more efficient players when sprinting, execution of sled-resisted sprints is considered a sprint-specific training method. This well-known and effective technique involves pulling a resistive load in a horizontal plane of motion (Alcaraz et al., 2018;Derakhti et al., 2021;Petrakos et al., 2016). ...
... Lahti et al. (26) reported that heavy RST training at a 60% velocity decrement (V dec ) for 9 weeks resulted in no adverse changes in the unresisted sprint technique. Further, the literature supports the benefits of short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (8-10 weeks) heavy RST training (i.e., V dec 50%-80%, sled load of ∼90% body mass) on horizontal force production in the early acceleration phase and power output (27)(28)(29)(30). Given the linear relationship between the tested loads and the resistive force in this study, the regression equations can be used to calculate a higher F h value that may occur during extremely heavy training events, such as the "truck pull," which is commonly seen among strongman competitors (31). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sport performance coaches use a range of modalities to apply a horizontal force ( F h ) to athletes during resisted sprint training (RST). These modalities include parachutes, weighted vests, pulley devices, motored tethered devices, and, most notably, weighted sleds. Despite the widespread use of these devices, the resistance forces of the pulley devices have not been evaluated for reliability and accuracy. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to quantify the F h of a commercially available pulley device (EXER-GENIE®) and determine how resistance force is related to the load settings on the device. The secondary aim is to identify the differences in the F h values between three EXER-GENIE® devices that use 36 m and 60 m ropes. The F h values in the Newtons (N) of the three EXER-GENIE® devices were analyzed using a motorized winch, a lead acid battery, and an S-beam load cell. Four 10 s winch-driven trials were performed using 15 different EXER-GENIE® loads, ranging from 0.028 kg to 3.628 kg, employing two different 36 m devices and one 60 m device. The mean ± standard deviation for F h was reported across the four trials for each load setting. All devices produced similar F h values across lighter load settings (loads ≤0.141 kg). However, at heavier loads (loads ≥0.226 kg), the 60 m device had F h values 50–85 N greater than those of the 36 m device. The coefficient of variation across the four trials was extremely high at light loads but sharply decreased to <10% at heavy loads. Absolute reliability was high for each device [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99]. A regression analysis for F h values and EXER-GENIE® load indicated a strong positive relationship between load and F h values across all devices ( R 2 = 0.96–0.99). Caution should be exercised when using identical loads on the different-length pulley devices, as the 60 m device produced greater F h values than the 36 m devices at load settings higher than 0.226 kg. These results can provide coaches and practitioners with a better understanding of the magnitude of resistance that is applied when prescribing EXER-GENIE® devices for higher training loads.
Thesis
Full-text available
Aim The purposes of this study were to investigate if the load-velocity (L-V) profile parameters-force capacity and efficiency-differ between swimmers of different performance level, and to investigate if efficiency is the key performance indicator between international elite and national elite level swimmers. Method Fifty-four swimmers (27 female and 27 male) of either regional level, national elite or international elite level, participated in this study. The swimmers performed three 25 m semi-tethered maximum effort swims with ascending loads (1 kg, 5% and 10% of body mass). Mean velocity during three stroke cycles mid-effort was calculated and plotted as a function of the external added load. A linear regression was established, expressing the relationship between load and velocity, with the intercepts between the axes and the regression line being defined as the theoretical maximum velocity (V0) and load (force capacity, L0). The slope of the regression line (slopeLV) serves as an index of efficiency. Results A statistically significant difference was found between the three performance levels for all L-V profile variables for front crawl: V0 (F [2, 51] = 7.76, p<0.001), L0 (F [2, 51] = 5.18, p=0.009), and slopeLV (F [2, 51] = 3.36, p=0.043). A paired t-test revealed no difference in slopeLV between matched international elite and national elite level swimmers (t [9] = 1.42, p=0.188), but a near significant difference in L0 (t [9] = 2.11, p=0.064). Both slopeLV and L0 for front crawl had a strong correlation with personal best in 100 m front crawl (PB100). Conclusion Efficiency was not found to be the key performance indicator between matched international elite and national elite swimmers in this study, and neither was force capacity. Nevertheless, a significant difference in all front crawl L-V profile parameters was found between performance level groups, but post hoc analyses indicated no difference between adjacent performance levels neither in L0 nor slopeLV. There was however a strong correlation between both slopeLV, and L0, to the swimmers' PB100. All these findings imply that efficiency and force capacity seem to be of equal importance for high performance, but swimmers use different strategies to reach the high swim velocity. Abbreviation dictionary BM-body mass (kg) CD-coefficient of drag FP-propulsive force FD-drag force (in this study used as a representation of all resistive forces) L0-theoretical maximum load LCM-long course meter, i.e. a 50 m pool L-V-load-velocity rL0-theoretical maximum load relative to body mass rslopeLV-slope of regression line of velocity measurements and load relative to body mass SCM-short course meters, i.e. a 25 m pool SL-stroke length slopeLV-slope of the regression line of the load-velocity measurements SR-stroke rate V0-theoretical maximum velocity vmax-maximum velocity VPM-velocity perturbation method WA-World Aquatics, formerly known as FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation)
Article
Full-text available
Background Sprint performance is an essential skill to target within soccer, which can be likely achieved with a variety of methods, including different on-field training options. One such method could be heavy resisted sprint training. However, the effects of such overload on sprint performance and the related kinetic changes are unknown in a professional setting. Another unknown factor is whether violating kinematic specificity via heavy resistance will lead to changes in unloaded sprinting kinematics. We investigated whether heavy resisted sled training (HS) affects sprint performance, kinetics, sagittal plane kinematics, and spatiotemporal parameters in professional male soccer players. Methods After familiarization, a nine-week training protocol and a two-week taper was completed with sprint performance and force-velocity (FV) profiles compared before and after. Out of the two recruited homogenous soccer teams ( N = 32, age: 24.1 ± 5.1 years: height: 180 ± 10 cm; body-mass: 76.7 ± 7.7 kg, 30-m split-time: 4.63 ± 0.13 s), one was used as a control group continuing training as normal with no systematic acceleration training (CON, N = 13), while the intervention team was matched into two HS subgroups based on their sprint performance. Subgroup one trained with a resistance that induced a 60% velocity decrement from maximal velocity ( N = 10, HS60%) and subgroup two used a 50% velocity decrement resistance ( N = 9, HS50%) based on individual load-velocity profiles. Results Both heavy resistance subgroups improved significantly all 10–30-m split times ( p < 0.05, d = − 1.25; −0.62). Post-hoc analysis showed that HS50% improved significantly more compared to CON in 0–10-m split-time ( d = 1.03) and peak power ( d = 1.16). Initial maximal theoretical horizontal force capacity (F0) and sprint FV-sprint profile properties showed a significant moderate relationship with F0 adaptation potential ( p < 0.05). No significant differences in sprinting kinematics or spatiotemporal variables were observed that remained under the between-session minimal detectable change. Conclusion With appropriate coaching, heavy resisted sprint training could be one pragmatic option to assist improvements in sprint performance without adverse changes in sprinting kinematics in professional soccer players. Assessing each player’s initial individual sprint FV-profile may assist in predicting adaptation potential. More studies are needed that compare heavy resisted sprinting in randomized conditions.
Article
Full-text available
Cahill, MJ, Oliver, JL, Cronin, JB, Clark, K, Cross, MR, Lloyd, RS, and Lee, JE. Influence of resisted sled-pull training on the sprint force-velocity profile of male high-school athletes. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Although resisted sled towing is a commonly used method of sprint-specific training, little uniformity exists around training guidelines for practitioners. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of unresisted and resisted sled-pull training across multiple loads. Fifty-three male high-school athletes were assigned to an unresisted (n 5 12) or 1 of 3 resisted groups: light (n 5 15), moderate (n 5 14), and heavy (n 5 12) corresponding to loads of 44 6 4 %BM, 89 6 8 %BM, and 133 6 12 %BM that caused a 25, 50, and 75% velocity decrement in maximum sprint speed, respectively. All subjects performed 2 sled-pull training sessions twice weekly for 8 weeks. Split times of 5, 10, and 20 m improved across all resisted groups (d 5 0.40-1.04, p , 0.01) but did not improve with unresisted sprinting. However, the magnitude of the gains increased most within the heavy group, with the greatest improvement observed over the first 10 m (d $ 1.04). Changes in preintervention to postintervention force-velocity profiles were specific to the loading prescribed during training. Specifically, F 0 increased most in moderate to heavy groups (d 5 1.08-1.19); Vmax significantly decreased in the heavy group but increased in the unresisted group (d 5 012-0.44); whereas, Pmax increased across all resisted groups (d 5 0.39-1.03). The results of this study suggest that the greatest gains in short distance sprint performance, especially initial acceleration, are achieved using much heavier sled loads than previously studied in young athletes.
Article
Full-text available
We tested the hypothesis that the degree of adaptation to highly focused sprint training at opposite ends of the sprint Force-Velocity (FV) spectrum would be associated with initial sprint FV-profile in rugby athletes. Training-induced changes in sprint FV-profiles were computed before and after an 8-week in-season resisted or assisted sprint training protocol, including a 3-week taper. Professional male rugby players (age: 18.9 ± 1.0 years; body-height: 1.9 ± 0.0 m; body-mass: 88.3 ± 10.0 kg) were divided into two groups based on their initial sprint FV-profiles: 1) heavy sled training (RESISTED, N = 9, velocity loss 70-80%), and 2) assisted acceleration training (ASSISTED, N = 12, velocity increase 5-10%). A total of 16 athletes were able to finish all required measurements and sessions. According to the hypothesis, a significant correlation was found between initial sprint FV-profile and relative change in sprint FV-profile (RESISTED: r = -0.95, p<0.01, ASSISTED: r = -0.79, p<0.01). This study showed that initial FV-properties influence the degree of mechanical response when training at different ends of the FV-spectrum. Practitioners should consider utilizing the sprint FV-profile to improve the individual effectiveness of resisted and assisted sprint training programs in high-level rugby athletes.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to test individual adaptation kinetics to a high-resistance sprint training program designed to improve maximal horizontal power (Pmax), and compare the group and individual results of a classical “pre-post” analysis, and a “pre-peak” approach. Thirteen male and 9 female trained sprinters had their 30-m sprint performance and mechanical outputs assessed 1 week before (PRE), and one (POST, W1), 2 (W2), 3 (W3) and 4 (W4) weeks after a 10-week training block (10 repetitions of 20-m resisted sprints at the load associated to the apex of their velocity-power relationship: i.e., 90 ± 10% body mass on average (range: 75–112%). We observed clearly different outcomes on all variables for the PRE-POST vs. PRE-PEAK analyses. The PRE-PEAK analysis showed a larger (almost double) increase in Pmax (9.98 ± 5.27% on average, p < 0.01) than the PRE-POST (5.39 ± 5.87%, p < 0.01). Individual kinetics of post-training adaptations show that peak values were not captured in the POST (W1) assessment (generally observed at W3 and W4). Finally, the week of greatest Pmax output differed strongly among subjects, with most subjects (7/22) peaking at W4. In conclusion, after a 10-week high-resistance sprint training block, a classical 1-week-PRE to 1-week-POST assessment could not capture peak adaptation, which differed among athletes. Adopting a similar approach in practice or research should improve insight into the true effects of training stimuli on athletic capabilities.
Article
Full-text available
Sled pushing is a commonly used form of resisted sprint training, however little empirical evidence exists, especially in youth populations. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of unresisted and resisted sled pushing across multiple loads. Fifty high school athletes were assigned to an unresisted (n=12), or 3 resisted groups; light (n=14), moderate (n=13) and heavy (n=11) resistance that caused a 25, 50 and 75% velocity decrement in maximum sprint speed, respectively. All participants performed two sled push training sessions twice weekly for 8 weeks. Before and after the training intervention, the participants performed a series of jump, strength and sprint testing to assess athletic performance. Split times between 5 – 20 m improved significantly across all resisted groups (all p<0.05, d = 0.34 – 1.16) but did not improve significantly with unresisted sprinting. For all resisted groups gains were greatest over the first 5 m (d = 0.67‐0.84) and then diminished over each subsequent 5 m split (d = 0.08‐0.57). The magnitude of gains in split times was greatest within the heavy group. Small but non‐significant within group effects were found in pre to post force‐velocity profiles. There was a main effect of time but no interaction effects as all groups increased force and power, although the greatest increases were observed with the heavy load (d = 0.50‐0.51). The results of this study suggest that resisted sled pushing with any load was superior to unresisted sprint training, and that heavy loads may elicit the greatest gains in sprint performance over short distances.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness of individual load-velocity profiles and the between-athlete variation using the decrement in maximal velocity (Vdec) approach to prescribe training loads in resisted sled pulling in young athletes. Seventy high school, team sport, male athletes (age 16.7 ± 0.8 years) were recruited for the study. All participants performed one un-resisted and four resisted sled-pull sprints with incremental resistance of 20% BM. Maximal velocity was measured with a radar gun during each sprint and the load-velocity relationship established for each participant. A subset of 15 participants was used to examine the reliability of sled pulling on three separate occasions. For all individual participants, the load-velocity relationship was highly linear (r > 0.95). The slope of the load-velocity relationship was found to be reliable (coefficient of variation (CV) = 3.1%), with the loads that caused a decrement in velocity of 10, 25, 50, and 75% also found to be reliable (CVs = <5%). However, there was a large between-participant variation (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) in the load that caused a given Vdec, with loads of 14-21% body mass (% BM) causing a Vdec of 10%, 36-53% BM causing a Vdec of 25%, 71-107% BM causing a Vdec of 50%, and 107-160% BM causing a Vdec of 75%. The Vdec method can be reliably used to prescribe sled-pulling loads in young athletes, but practitioners should be aware that the load required to cause a given Vdec is highly individualized.
Article
Full-text available
The assessment of horizontal force during overground sprinting is increasingly prevalent in practice and research, stemming from advances in technology and access to simplified yet valid field methods. As researchers search out optimal means of targeting the development of horizontal force, there is considerable interest in the effectiveness of external resistance. Increasing attention in research provides more information surrounding the biomechanics of sprinting in general and insight into the potential methods of developing determinant capacities. However, there is a general lack of consensus on the assessment and computation of horizontal force under resistance, which has resulted in a confusing narrative surrounding the practical applicability of loading parameters for performance enhancement. As such, the aim of this commentary was twofold: to provide a clear narrative of the assessment and computation of horizontal force in resisted sprinting and to clarify and discuss the impact of methodological approaches to subsequent training implementation. Horizontal force computation during resisted sleds, a common sprint-training apparatus in the field, is used as a test case to illustrate the risks associated with substandard methodological practices and improperly accounting for the effects of friction. A practical and operational synthesis is provided to help guide researchers and practitioners in selecting appropriate resistance methods. Finally, an outline of future challenges is presented to aid the development of these approaches.
Article
The effectiveness of 8-week force-velocity optimised training was assessed in highly trained professional rugby league athletes. Players (age 24 ± 3 years; body mass 94.9 ± 21.6 kg; height 181.3 ± 6.0 cm) were strength-matched and assigned to a force-velocity optimised group (OP; n = 15) or a general strength-power group (GP; n = 14). Tests included 10-m, 20-m sprints, 3 repetition-maximum squat and squat jumps over five load conditions to ascertain vertical force-velocity relationship. ANCOVA revealed there was a group effect for force-velocity deficit (P < 0.001), with the OP two-fold greater than the GP group (OP pre: 51.13 ± 31.42%, post: 62.26 ± 31.45%, GP pre: 33.00 ± 19.60%, post: 31.14 ± 31.45%, P < 0.001). There were further group effects for 3RM squat (OP pre: 151.17 ± 22.95 kg, post: 162.17 ± 24.16 kg, GP pre: 156.43 ± 25.07 kg, post: 163.39 ± 25.39 kg, P < 0.001), peak power (OP pre: 3195 ± 949 W, post: 3552 ± 1033 W, GP pre: 3468 ± 911 W, post: 3591 ± 936 W, P < 0.001), and SJ (OP pre: 39.79 ± 7.80 cm, post: 42.69 ± 7.83 cm, GP pre: 40.44 ± 6.23 cm, post: 41.14 ± 5.66 cm, P < 0.001). Prescribing F-V deficit training is superior for improving physical performance within highly trained RL players.
Article
Forces applied to the ground during sprinting are vital to performance. This study aimed to understand how specific aspects of ground reaction force waveforms allow some individuals to continue to accelerate beyond the velocity plateau of others. Twenty‐eight male sprint specialists and 24 male soccer players performed maximal‐effort 60‐m sprints. A 54‐force‐plate system captured ground reaction forces, which were used to calculate horizontal velocity profiles. Touchdown velocities of steps were matched (8.00, 8.25 and 8.50 m·s⁻¹) and the subsequent ground contact forces were analysed. Mean forces were compared across groups and statistical parametric mapping (t‐tests) assessed for differences between entire force waveforms. When individuals contacted the ground with matched horizontal velocity, ground contact durations were similar. Despite this, sprinters produced higher average horizontal power (15.7‐17.9 W·kg⁻¹) than the soccer players (7.9‐11.9 W·kg⁻¹). Force waveforms did not differ in the initial braking phase (0‐~20% of stance). However, sprinters attenuated eccentric force more in the late braking phase and produced a higher anteroposterior component of force across the majority of the propulsive phase, for example from 31‐82% and 92‐100% of stance at 8.5 m·s⁻¹. At this velocity, resultant forces were also higher (33‐83% and 86‐100% of stance) and the force vector was more horizontally orientated (30‐60% and 95‐98% of stance) in the sprinters. These findings illustrate the mechanisms which allowed the sprinters to continue accelerating beyond the soccer players’ velocity plateau. Moreover, these force production demands provide new insight regarding athletes’ strength and technique training requirements to improve acceleration at high velocity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.