4.4 Article

PRESEASON VARIATIONS IN AEROBIC FITNESS AND PERFORMANCE IN ELITE-STANDARD SOCCER PLAYERS: A TEAM STUDY

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 2959-2965

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828d61a8

Keywords

association football; training load; lactate threshold; team sports; heart rate

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of individual training loads considered as permanent in selected heart-rate (HR) zones on aerobic fitness and performance in elite professional soccer players. Eighteen professional soccer players were observed during the prechampionship training period (8 weeks). Speeds and HR at 2 and 4 mmolL(-1) blood-lactate concentrations (S2, S4, respectively), V.o(2)max, and Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1 performance (Yo-Yo IR1) were assessed pretraining and posttraining. Training intensities were categorized using 3 HR zones: low intensity ( HR 4 mmolL(-1)). Training-session HRs (n = 900) showed a polarized distribution with 73.6 +/- 3.7 (2,945 +/- 148 minutes), 19.1 +/- 3.5 (763 +/- 141 minutes), and 7.3 +/- 2.9% (292 +/- 116 minutes) of the total training time spent at low, moderate, and high intensities, respectively (p < 0.001). The S2 and S4 significantly improved posttraining (+10 and 7%, respectively, p < 0.001). The V.o(2)max and Yo-Yo IR1 values were 6 and 19.5% higher posttraining, respectively (p < 0.01). Training performed at high intensity was significantly related to relative improvement in S2 (r = 0.78, p = 0.002), S4 (r = 0.60, p = 0.03), V.o(2)max (r = 0.65, p = 0.02), and Yo-Yo IR1 (r = 0.66, p = 0.01). The results of this study provided further evidence for HR longitudinal validity and effectiveness of the high-intensity training (i.e., >90% HRmax) in men's professional soccer. In this regard, the time spent at high intensity should be in the range of 7-8% of the total training time during preseason.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available