Training status affects between-protocols differences in the assessment of maximal aerobic velocity

Top-class women's soccer performance: peak demands and distribution of the match activities relative to maximal intensities during official matches

The aims of the current study were to determine the most demanding passages of match play (MDP) and the distribution of match activities relative to maximum intensities during official matches in top-class women soccer players. Twenty-eight women players competing in European championship and international UEFA competitions were monitored during 38 official matches (277 individual samples). Maximum relative (m · min-1) total distance (TD), high-speed running (HSRD), very high-speed running (VHSRD), sprint, acceleration and deceleration distances were calculated across different durations (1-5, 10, 15, 90 min) using a rolling average analysis. Maximum intensities (1-minpeak) were used as the reference value to determine the distribution of relative intensity across the whole-match demands (90-minavg). Time and distance higher than 90-minavg (> 90-minavg) were also calculated. MDP showed moderate to very large [effect size (ES): 0.63/5.20] differences between 1-minpeak vs all durations for each parameter. The relative (m · min-1) 1-minpeak was greater than 90-minavg of about +63% for TD, +358% for HSRD, +969% for VHSRD, +2785% for sprint, +1216% for acceleration, and +768% for deceleration. The total distance covered > 90-minavg was ~66.6% of the total distance covered during the 90-minavg for TD, ~84.8% for HSRD, ~97.4% for VHSRD, ~100% for sprint, ~99.1% for acceleration and ~98.2% for deceleration. The relative distance > 90-minavg was higher (P < 0.05) than the 90-minavg for each metric (ES: 2.22 to 7.58; very large). The present results may help coaches and sport scientists to replicate the peak demands during training routine in top-class women soccer players.

Technical and locomotor demands in elite soccer: manipulating area per player during small-sided games to replicate official match demands

The present study aimed to investigate the area per player (ApP) to replicate the technical and locomotor match demands using small-sided games (SSGs) in male soccer players (n = 20) competing in major European and UEFA competitions. The relative number of each individual technical activity per minute (number · min-1; technical demands) was counted and the relative (m · min-1) total (TD), high-speed running (HSRD), very high-speed running (VHSRD), sprint and acceleration+deceleration (Acc+Dec) distances were collected during different SSG formats (n = 24; 4 vs 4 to 10 vs 10 with an ApP from 60 to 341 m2 · player-1) and official matches (n = 28). Data were collected during two full seasons. A linear mixed model analysis was used to calculate the individual relationship between technical/locomotor demands and the ApP during SSGs; the correlation coefficient was also calculated. With the exception of an inverse moderate (r = -0.457) correlation for Acc+Dec, each locomotor metric (TD, HSRD, VHSRD and sprint) showed a positive large to very large (r = 0.560 to 0.710) correlation with ApP (P < 0.001). The technical demands showed an inverse moderate correlation (r = -0.529) with ApP. Additionally, inverse moderate to large correlations (r = -0.397 to -0.600; P < 0.05) between the technical demands and the locomotor demands (TD, HSR, VHSR and sprint) were found. Lastly, an ApP of ~243 m2 · player was found to replicate the official match technical demand and it was quite similar to the ApP required to replicate HSRD, VHSRD and sprint. These findings may help practitioners to replicate, overload and underload both technical and locomotor demands using a specific ApP during SSGs in elite soccer.

Daily variation in time-trial sporting performance: A systematic review

Few functional measures related to time-trial display diurnal variation. The diversity of tests/protocols used to assess time-trial performance on diurnal effects and the lack of a standardised approach hinder agreement in the literature. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to investigate and systematically review the evidence relating to time-of-day differences in time-trial measures and to examine the main aspects related to research design important for studies of a chronobiological nature. The entire content of Manipal Academy of Higher Education electronic library and Qatar National Library, and electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Web of Science were searched. Research studies published in peer-reviewed journals and non-peer reviewed studies, conducted in male adult participants aged ≥18 y before November 2021 were screened/included. Studies assessing tests related to time-trials in any modality between a minimum of 2 time-points during the day (morning [06:30-10:30 h] vs evening [14:30-20:00 h]) were deemed eligible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence to inform recommendations. The primary search revealed that a total of 10 from 40 articles were considered eligible and subsequently included. Six were conducted using cycling, two using running and two using swimming as the mode of exercise. Distances ranged from 1 to 16.1-km in distance or 15 to 20-min time in the cycling and running time-trials, and 50 to 200-m in the swimming time-trials. Only four studies found one or several of their performance variables to display daily variations, with significantly better values in the evening; while six studies found no time-of-day significance in any variables assessed. The magnitude of difference ranged from 2.9% to 7.1% for performance time to complete a cycling time-trial, while running and swimming did not find any differences for performance time. Power output during a 16.1-km time trial in cycling also found evening performance to be significantly better by 10%. The only other observed differences were stroke rate and stroke length during a swimming time-trial and stroke rate (cycles.min^-1) during a cycling time-trial. The magnitude of difference is dependent on exercise modality, individual chronotype, the training status of the individual and sample size differences. The lack of diurnal variation present in the majority of studies can in-part be explained with some of the methodological limitations and issues present related to quality and control. It is paramount that research assessing diurnal variation in performance uses appropriate session timings around the core body temperature minimum (~05:00 h; morning) and maximum (~17:00 h; evening). Although, differences in motivation/arousal, habitual training times, chronotypes and genotypes could provide an explanation as to why some studies/variables did not display time-of-day variation, more work is needed to provide an accurate conclusion. There is a clear demand for a rigorous, standardised approach to be adopted by future investigations which control factors that specifically relate to investigations of time-of-day, such as appropriate familiarisation, counterbalancing the order of administration of tests, providing sufficient recovery time between sessions and testing within a controlled environment.

Comparison and Performance Validation of Calculated and Established Anaerobic Lactate Thresholds in Running

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the calculated running velocity at the anaerobic lactate threshold (cLT_An), determined by a mathematical model for metabolic simulation, with two established threshold concepts (onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA; 4 mmol∙L⁻¹) and modified maximal deviation method (mDmax)). Additionally, all threshold concepts were correlated with performance in different endurance running events. Materials and Methods: Ten sub-elite runners performed a 30 s sprint test on a cycle ergometer adjusted to an isokinetic mode set to a cadence of 120 rpm to determine maximal lactate production rate (VLa_max), and a graded exercise test on a treadmill to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max). Running velocities at OBLA, mDmax, and cLT_An were then compared with each other, and further correlated with running performance over various distances (3000 m, 5000 m, and 10,000 m). Results: The mean difference in cLT_An was −0.13 ± 0.43 m∙s⁻¹ and −0.32 ± 0.39 m∙s⁻¹ compared to mDmax (p = 0.49) and OBLA (p < 0.01), respectively. cLT_An indicated moderate to good concordance with the established threshold concepts (mDmax: ICC = 0.87, OBLA: ICC = 0.74). In comparison with other threshold concepts, cLT_An exhibited comparable correlations with the assessed running performances (cLT_An: r = 0.61–0.76, mDmax: r = 0.69–0.79, OBLA: r = 0.56–0.69). Conclusion: Our data show that cLT_An can be applied for determining endurance performance during running. Due to the consideration of individual physiological profiles, cLT_An offers a physiologically justified approach to assess an athlete’s endurance performance.