Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Club Brugge NV, Knokke-Heist, Belgium.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2024 Jan;34(1):e14508. doi: 10.1111/sms.14508. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
Muscle typology is heterogeneous among national level football (soccer) players, but positional differences remain unclear. Furthermore, fast typology (FT) individuals fatigue more than slow typology (ST) individuals in lab conditions. Therefore, we investigated if muscle typology is different between playing positions and if the decay in high-intensity activities from the first to the second half is larger in FT football players than in ST players. We estimated muscle typology in 147 male professional football players by measuring soleus and gastrocnemius muscle carnosine via proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Players were classified as ST, intermediate typology (IT) or FT and categorized as goalkeeper, center back, full back, midfielder, winger or forward. Across four seasons in-game distances covered in multiple running speed, acceleration and deceleration zones were collected during the first and second half. We found no differences in muscle typology between positions (p = 0.412). FT players covered 10.9% more high acceleration distance (>3 m.s ) in the first half than ST players (p = 0.021) and high acceleration distance decay was larger for FT players (-12.4%) than ST (-7.7%; p = 0.006) and IT players (-7.3%; p = 0.010). Moreover, the decline in distance covered in several high-intensity zones tended to be larger in FT players (-11.2% high-intensity >15 km.h ; -12.7% high deceleration <-3 m.s ; -11.5% medium acceleration 2-3 m.s ) than in ST players (-7.1% high-intensity; -8.1% high deceleration; -8.1% medium acceleration; 0.05 < p < 0.1). In conclusion, possessing a particular muscle typology is not required to play any football position at the national level. However, there are indications that FT players might fatigue more toward the end of the game compared to ST players.
肌肉类型在国家级足球(足球)运动员中存在异质性,但位置差异仍不清楚。此外,在实验室条件下,快速型(FT)个体比慢速型(ST)个体更容易疲劳。因此,我们研究了肌肉类型是否在比赛位置之间存在差异,以及 FT 足球运动员与 ST 运动员相比,高强度活动从上半场到下半场的衰减是否更大。我们通过质子磁共振波谱法测量比目鱼肌和腓肠肌中的肌肽来估计 147 名男性职业足球运动员的肌肉类型。球员被分为 ST、中间类型(IT)或 FT,并分为守门员、中后卫、后卫、中场、边锋或前锋。在四个赛季中,在比赛的上半场和下半场收集了在多个跑动速度、加速和减速区的距离。我们发现位置之间的肌肉类型没有差异(p=0.412)。FT 球员在上半场比 ST 球员多覆盖 10.9%的高加速度距离(>3 m.s )(p=0.021),FT 球员的高加速度距离衰减也大于 ST 球员(-12.4%比-7.7%;p=0.006)和 IT 球员(-7.3%比-7.3%;p=0.010)。此外,FT 球员在几个高强度区域的距离下降趋势也比 ST 球员更大(-11.2%高强度>15 km.h ;-12.7%高减速<-3 m.s ;-11.5%中加速 2-3 m.s )(-7.1%高强度;-8.1%高减速;-8.1%中加速;0.05<p<0.1)。总之,在国家级足球比赛中,拥有特定的肌肉类型并不是担任任何位置的必要条件。然而,有迹象表明 FT 球员在比赛结束时可能比 ST 球员更容易疲劳。