Athletic Performance, Physical Fitness
Conditions
Keywords
Soccer, Small-Sided Games, Repeated Sprint Training, Anaerobic Power, Body Composition, Agility
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of 6-week Small-Sided Games (SSG) and Repeated Sprint Training (RST) on body composition, anaerobic power, and selected physical performance qualities in young male soccer players. A total of 24 active male soccer players (aged 16 to 20 years) participating in the Regional Amateur League were randomly assigned into three equal groups: Small-Sided Games Group (SSGG) completing a 4 vs. 4 transition possession game 3 days a week in addition to routine training, Repeated Sprint Training Group (RSTG) completing a 20-meter maximal repeated sprint protocol 3 days a week in addition to routine training, and Control Group (CG) continuing only their routine soccer practice schedule. Before and after the 6-week intervention, participants underwent laboratory and field testing to evaluate body composition (body fat percentage, fat-free mass, BMI), acceleration and maximal speed (10m and 20m sprint tests), agility (Illinois Agility Test), explosive lower-body power (countermovement jump), and maximal anaerobic power (30-second Wingate test) to determine which specific training method provides superior athletic adaptations.
Detailed description
High-intensity intermittent actions, such as accelerations, change-of-direction movements, jumps, and repeated sprints, are critical determinants of competitive performance in soccer. To optimize these physical attributes, coaches commonly utilize Small-Sided Games (SSG) and Repeated Sprint Training (RST). However, comparative evidence regarding the specific adaptations induced by these two distinct conditioning strategies alongside regular soccer practice remains crucial for athletic periodization. This 6-week randomized controlled trial evaluated 24 young male soccer players randomly allocated into three parallel arms (n=8 per group): SSGG, RSTG, and a Control Group (CG). Training Protocols: * SSGG Protocol: Performed a "4 vs. 4 Transition Possession" format on two adjacent zones 3 days per week (Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays) after the technical section of regular practice. Training volume progressed from 3 sets x 3 min (weeks 1-2) to 4 sets x 3 min (weeks 3-4) and 4 sets x 4 min (weeks 5-6), with 2-minute passive recovery between sets. * RSTG Protocol: Performed 20-meter linear maximal sprints with 20 seconds of active recovery (slow walking) between repetitions and 3-4 minutes of passive rest between sets. Volume progressed from 2 sets x 6 reps (weeks 1-2) to 2 sets x 8 reps (weeks 3-4) and 3 sets x 6 reps (weeks 5-6). * Control Group: Maintained standard soccer training sessions planned by the head coach, without any additional physical conditioning intervention. Assessments: Body composition parameters were evaluated via bioelectrical impedance analysis (Tanita BC-418 MA). Laboratory testing included the 30-second Wingate Anaerobic Test (Monark 834 E) with a load equal to 7.5% of body weight to assess peak and mean anaerobic power. Field testing included 10m and 20m sprint times using electronic photocells (Smart Speed Lite), change-of-direction performance via the Illinois Agility Test, and lower-body explosive power via the Countermovement Jump test (Smart Jump mat).
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSmall-Sided Games Protocol
4 vs. 4 transition possession game played 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Loading progressed from 3 sets x 3 min (weeks 1-2) to 4 sets x 3 min (weeks 3-4) and 4 sets x 4 min (weeks 5-6), with 2 min rest between sets.
BEHAVIORALRepeated Sprint Protocol
20-meter linear repeated sprints at 100% maximal effort 3 days/week for 6 weeks. Loading progressed from 2 sets x 6 reps (weeks 1-2) to 2 sets x 8 reps (weeks 3-4) and 3 sets x 6 reps (weeks 5-6), with 20s active recovery between reps and 3-4 min rest between sets.
BEHAVIORALRoutine Soccer Training
Standard technical, tactical, and physical conditioning soccer training sessions directed by the team's head coach.
Sponsors
Bitlis Eren University
Muş Alparslan University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
A three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial design. Participants were randomly allocated into three equal parallel groups: Small-Sided Games Group (n=8), Repeated Sprint Training Group (n=8), and Control Group (n=8).
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
16 Years to 20 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Active male soccer players competing in the Regional Amateur League (BAL) * Age between 16 and 20 years * Voluntary participation with signed informed consent (and parental consent for minors) * No history of severe musculoskeletal injuries or orthopedic surgeries in the lower extremities within the past 6 months * Regular participation in team soccer practices
Exclusion criteria
* Missing more than 10% of the scheduled training sessions during the 6-week intervention * Occurrence of any acute musculoskeletal injury or illness preventing full participation in tests or training * Simultaneous participation in external structured strength or conditioning programs outside the study protocol * Failure to complete all pre- or post-intervention performance tests
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 10-Meter Sprint Time | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Measured using a wireless photocell timing gate system (Smart Speed Lite) to evaluate short-distance acceleration. The best time of two trials was recorded in seconds. |
| 20-Meter Sprint Time | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Measured using a wireless photocell timing gate system (Smart Speed Lite) to evaluate maximal linear speed. The best time of two trials was recorded in seconds. |
| Illinois Agility Test Time | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Evaluated using electronic photocell gates to assess change-of-direction ability and reactivity on a 10x5 meter course. The best time of two trials was recorded in seconds. |
| Countermovement Jump Height | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Lower-body explosive power was measured using a jump mat system (Smart Speed Lite Smart Jump). Participants performed maximal vertical jumps with hands on hips. The best height of two trials was recorded in centimeters. |
| Wingate Peak Power | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Maximal anaerobic power evaluated via a 30-second Wingate Anaerobic Test on a Monark 834 E bicycle ergometer with a load equal to 7.5% of body weight. Expressed in Watts per kilogram (W/kg). |
| Wingate Mean Power | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Anaerobic capacity evaluated via a 30-second Wingate test. Expressed in Watts per kilogram (W/kg). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Body Fat Percentage | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Evaluated via bioelectrical impedance analysis using Tanita BC-418 MA to measure total body fat percentage (%). |
| Fat-Free Mass | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Evaluated via bioelectrical impedance analysis using Tanita BC-418 MA to assess lean body mass in kilograms. |
| Body Mass Index | Baseline (Week 0) and Post-intervention (Week 6) | Calculated as body weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m²) using Tanita BC-418 MA. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Contacts
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORMuhammed Z Kahraman, PhD
Bitlis Eren University
Outcome results
None listed