The Acute Demands of Repeated-Sprint Training on Physiological, Neuromuscular, Perceptual and Performance Outcomes in Team Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

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.

Hamstrings mechanical properties profiling in football players of different competitive levels and positions after a repeated sprint protocol

“…Moreover, the lowest division in our study (4th league) was from the first national league which differs from a regional championship. Contrary to our protocol, the Bangsbo RSA includes a change of direction component and it has been shown that shuttle-type RSA protocols are associated with slower repetition times and a reduced sprint decrement ( Thurlow et al, 2023 ).…”

Assessment of inter-individual variability in hamstring muscle recovery after a sport-specific sprint training in women and men

“…Long rest periods between repetitions were selected to reduce intra-session fatigue and maintain the maximum intensity in each 40-m repetition. The designed protocol is further supported by the findings of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis on the demands of RST in team sports ( Thurlow et al, 2023 ), which include that (i) a distance of 40 m (or 6-s sprints), commonly used in team sports, allows the maximum velocity to be reached; and (ii) longer rest intervals are recommended in order to maintain the quality of the repetitions when the total volume is greater. Then, blood samples were collected to determine changes in serum biomarkers, and muscle function was assessed by posterior chain FGC, lower limbs ROM and sprint performance and mechanical properties test.…”

Effects of Short-Rest Interval Time on Resisted Sprint Performance and Sprint Mechanical Variables in Elite Youth Soccer Players

“…The range of the loads considered very heavy resistance (>30% velocity decrement) in the classification of resisted sprint loads [65]. We chose to use 30% Vdec loads in this study, given that the athletes may have relatively low levels of muscular strength and would need to perform sprints repeatedly after a short 40 s rest period [13,18,39]. The loads of 30% Vdec for the participants was an average value of 10.9 ± 0.79 kg.…”

“…Soccer players often perform sprint training with short rest intervals (≤60 s) to improve their ability to perform repeated sprints [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Adaptation to these short rest intervals between sprints can enhance recovery mechanisms and the activity of enzymes involved in both aerobic and anaerobic energy production [19].…”

“…Therefore, coaches may attempt to reduce rest intervals or increase training volume to achieve high intensities, but this approach could lead to exhaustion, and adversely affect sprint mechanics [14,17,[20][21][22][23][24]. Moreover, while players and coaches often expect this training to enhance explosive acceleration from the start (0-20 m), research has revealed that it works best at 20-30 m [15,18,25,26]. In this study, the term sprint mechanics is employed due to its direct relevance to the measured variables, which are inherently linked to the mechanics of sprinting.…”