The Transition Period in Soccer: A Window of Opportunity

The aim of this study was to assess physical fitness, match performance and development of fatigue during competitive matches at two high standards of professional soccer. Computerized time-motion analyses were performed 2-7 times during the competitive season on 18 top-class and 24 moderate professional soccer players. In addition, the players performed the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test. The top-class players performed 28 and 58% more (P < 0.05) high-intensity running and sprinting, respectively, than the moderate players (2.43 +/- 0.14 vs 1.90 +/- 0.12 km and 0.65 +/- 0.06 vs 0.41 +/- 0.03 km, respectively). The top-class players were better (11%; P < 0.05) on the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test than the moderate players (2.26 +/- 0.08 vs 2.04 +/- 0.06 km, respectively). The amount of high-intensity running, independent of competitive standard and playing position, was lower (35-45%; P < 0.05) in the last than in the first 15 min of the game. After the 5-min period during which the amount of high-intensity running peaked, performance was reduced (P < 0.05) by 12% in the following 5 min compared with the game average. Substitute players (n = 13) covered 25% more (P < 0.05) ground during the final 15 min of high-intensity running than the other players. The coefficient of variation in high-intensity running was 9.2% between successive matches, whereas it was 24.8% between different stages of the season. Total distance covered and the distance covered in high-intensity running were higher (P < 0.05) for midfield players, full-backs and attackers than for defenders. Attackers and full-backs covered a greater (P < 0.05) distance in sprinting than midfield players and defenders. The midfield players and full-backs covered a greater (P < 0.05) distance than attackers and defenders in the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test (2.23 +/- 0.10 and 2.21 +/- 0.04 vs 1.99 +/- 0.11 and 1.91 +/- 0.12 km, respectively). The results show that: (1) top-class soccer players performed more high-intensity running during a game and were better at the Yo-Yo test than moderate professional players; (2) fatigue occurred towards the end of matches as well as temporarily during the game, independently of competitive standard and of team position; (3) defenders covered a shorter distance in high-intensity running than players in other playing positions; (4) defenders and attackers had a poorer Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test performance than midfielders and full-backs; and (5) large seasonal changes were observed in physical performance during matches.

High-intensity interval training (HIT), in a variety of forms, is today one of the most effective means of improving cardiorespiratory and metabolic function and, in turn, the physical performance of athletes. HIT involves repeated short-to-long bouts of rather high-intensity exercise interspersed with recovery periods. For team and racquet sport players, the inclusion of sprints and all-out efforts into HIT programmes has also been shown to be an effective practice. It is believed that an optimal stimulus to elicit both maximal cardiovascular and peripheral adaptations is one where athletes spend at least several minutes per session in their 'red zone,' which generally means reaching at least 90% of their maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). While use of HIT is not the only approach to improve physiological parameters and performance, there has been a growth in interest by the sport science community for characterizing training protocols that allow athletes to maintain long periods of time above 90% of VO2max (T@VO2max). In addition to T@VO2max, other physiological variables should also be considered to fully characterize the training stimulus when programming HIT, including cardiovascular work, anaerobic glycolytic energy contribution and acute neuromuscular load and musculoskeletal strain. Prescription for HIT consists of the manipulation of up to nine variables, which include the work interval intensity and duration, relief interval intensity and duration, exercise modality, number of repetitions, number of series, as well as the between-series recovery duration and intensity. The manipulation of any of these variables can affect the acute physiological responses to HIT. This article is Part I of a subsequent II-part review and will discuss the different aspects of HIT programming, from work/relief interval manipulation to the selection of exercise mode, using different examples of training cycles from different sports, with continued reference to T@VO2max and cardiovascular responses. Additional programming and periodization considerations will also be discussed with respect to other variables such as anaerobic glycolytic system contribution (as inferred from blood lactate accumulation), neuromuscular load and musculoskeletal strain (Part II).

High-intensity interval training (HIT) is a well-known, time-efficient training method for improving cardiorespiratory and metabolic function and, in turn, physical performance in athletes. HIT involves repeated short (<45 s) to long (2-4 min) bouts of rather high-intensity exercise interspersed with recovery periods (refer to the previously published first part of this review). While athletes have used 'classical' HIT formats for nearly a century (e.g. repetitions of 30 s of exercise interspersed with 30 s of rest, or 2-4-min interval repetitions ran at high but still submaximal intensities), there is today a surge of research interest focused on examining the effects of short sprints and all-out efforts, both in the field and in the laboratory. Prescription of HIT consists of the manipulation of at least nine variables (e.g. work interval intensity and duration, relief interval intensity and duration, exercise modality, number of repetitions, number of series, between-series recovery duration and intensity); any of which has a likely effect on the acute physiological response. Manipulating HIT appropriately is important, not only with respect to the expected middle- to long-term physiological and performance adaptations, but also to maximize daily and/or weekly training periodization. Cardiopulmonary responses are typically the first variables to consider when programming HIT (refer to Part I). However, anaerobic glycolytic energy contribution and neuromuscular load should also be considered to maximize the training outcome. Contrasting HIT formats that elicit similar (and maximal) cardiorespiratory responses have been associated with distinctly different anaerobic energy contributions. The high locomotor speed/power requirements of HIT (i.e. ≥95 % of the minimal velocity/power that elicits maximal oxygen uptake [v/p(·)VO(2max)] to 100 % of maximal sprinting speed or power) and the accumulation of high-training volumes at high-exercise intensity (runners can cover up to 6-8 km at v(·)VO(2max) per session) can cause significant strain on the neuromuscular/musculoskeletal system. For athletes training twice a day, and/or in team sport players training a number of metabolic and neuromuscular systems within a weekly microcycle, this added physiological strain should be considered in light of the other physical and technical/tactical sessions, so as to avoid overload and optimize adaptation (i.e. maximize a given training stimulus and minimize musculoskeletal pain and/or injury risk). In this part of the review, the different aspects of HIT programming are discussed, from work/relief interval manipulation to HIT periodization, using different examples of training cycles from different sports, with continued reference to the cardiorespiratory adaptations outlined in Part I, as well as to anaerobic glycolytic contribution and neuromuscular/musculoskeletal load.