Background Repeated-sprint training (RST) involves maximal-effort, short-duration sprints (≤ 10 s) interspersed with brief recovery periods (≤ 60 s). Knowledge about the acute demands of RST and the influence of programming variables has implications for training prescription. Objectives To investigate the physiological, neuromuscular, perceptual and performance demands of RST, while also examining the moderating effects of programming variables (sprint modality, number of repetitions per set, sprint repetition distance, inter-repetition rest modality and inter-repetition rest duration) on these outcomes. Methods The databases Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for original research articles investigating overground running RST in team sport athletes ≥ 16 years. Eligible data were analysed using multi-level mixed effects meta-analysis, with meta-regression performed on outcomes with ~ 50 samples (10 per moderator) to examine the influence of programming factors. Effects were evaluated based on coverage of their confidence (compatibility) limits (CL) against elected thresholds of practical importance. Results From 908 data samples nested within 176 studies eligible for meta-analysis, the pooled effects (± 90% CL) of RST were as follows: average heart rate (HRavg) of 163 ± 9 bpm, peak heart rate (HRpeak) of 182 ± 3 bpm, average oxygen consumption of 42.4 ± 10.1 mL·kg−1·min−1, end-set blood lactate concentration (B[La]) of 10.7 ± 0.6 mmol·L−1, deciMax session ratings of perceived exertion (sRPE) of 6.5 ± 0.5 au, average sprint time (Savg) of 5.57 ± 0.26 s, best sprint time (Sbest) of 5.52 ± 0.27 s and percentage sprint decrement (Sdec) of 5.0 ± 0.3%. When compared with a reference protocol of 6 × 30 m straight-line sprints with 20 s passive inter-repetition rest, shuttle-based sprints were associated with a substantial increase in repetition time (Savg: 1.42 ± 0.11 s, Sbest: 1.55 ± 0.13 s), whereas the effect on sRPE was trivial (0.6 ± 0.9 au). Performing two more repetitions per set had a trivial effect on HRpeak (0.8 ± 1.0 bpm), B[La] (0.3 ± 0.2 mmol·L−1), sRPE (0.2 ± 0.2 au), Savg (0.01 ± 0.03) and Sdec (0.4; ± 0.2%). Sprinting 10 m further per repetition was associated with a substantial increase in B[La] (2.7; ± 0.7 mmol·L−1) and Sdec (1.7 ± 0.4%), whereas the effect on sRPE was trivial (0.7 ± 0.6). Resting for 10 s longer between repetitions was associated with a substantial reduction in B[La] (−1.1 ± 0.5 mmol·L−1), Savg (−0.09 ± 0.06 s) and Sdec (−1.4 ± 0.4%), while the effects on HRpeak (−0.7 ± 1.8 bpm) and sRPE (−0.5 ± 0.5 au) were trivial. All other moderating effects were compatible with both trivial and substantial effects [i.e. equal coverage of the confidence interval (CI) across a trivial and a substantial region in only one direction], or inconclusive (i.e. the CI spanned across substantial and trivial regions in both positive and negative directions). Conclusions The physiological, neuromuscular, perceptual and performance demands of RST are substantial, with some of these outcomes moderated by the manipulation of programming variables. To amplify physiological demands and performance decrement, longer sprint distances (> 30 m) and shorter, inter-repetition rest (≤ 20 s) are recommended. Alternatively, to mitigate fatigue and enhance acute sprint performance, shorter sprint distances (e.g. 15–25 m) with longer, passive inter-repetition rest (≥ 30 s) are recommended.

Within a group of adolescent Australian Rules Football (ARF) players, individuals of the same chronological age can differ greatly in biological maturation, with some players maturing vastly earlier or later than their peers. Such large differences in maturity can cause a disparity between physical performance, influence the perceptions of talent, and affect training practice. In attempts to address such issues, this overview proposes the concept of bio-banding in ARF, which may be used periodically within the national talent pathway to optimise player development. Bio-banding is the process of grouping adolescent athletes into specific categories or ‘bands’ based on biological maturation, rather than chronological age. This review describes how bio-banding may be used to enhance player development in ARF, giving context to its background and implementation in other sports.

Weakley, J, Castilla, AP, Ramos, AG, Banyard, H, Thurlow, F, Edwards, T, Morrison, M, McMahon, E, and Owen, C. The effect of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based prescription on repeated sprint training performance and responses in semi-professional athletes. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1566–1572, 2023—The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based repeated sprint training methods on repeated sprint performance, perceived effort, heart rate, and changes in force-velocity-power (FVP) profiles in male semiprofessional athletes. In a randomized crossover design, a traditional (2 sets of 6 repetitions [TRAD]), 2 different rest redistribution (4 sets of 3 repetitions [RR4] and 12 sets of 1 repetition [RR12]), and a 5% velocity loss (VL5%) (12 repetitions, with sets terminated when a 5% reduction in mean velocity had occurred) condition were completed. Mean and peak velocity, mean heart rate, and differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) were measured throughout each session, while horizontal FVP profiles were assessed presession and postsession. The RR4 and RR12 conditions allowed the greatest maintenance of velocity, while the RR4, RR12, and VL5% had a moderate, significantly greater mean heart rate than the traditional condition. Trivial, nonsignificant differences between all conditions were observed in dRPE of the legs and breathlessness and FVP profiles. These findings indicate that rest redistribution can allow for greater maintenance of sprint velocity and heart rate, without altering perceived effort during repeated sprint training. In addition, velocity-loss thresholds may be a feasible method of prescription if athletes have diverse physical qualities and reductions in sprint performance during repeated sprint training are undesirable. Practitioners should consider these outcomes when designing repeated sprint training sessions because the strategic use of these methods can alter sprint performance and internal load without changing perceptions of intensity.