Zhu DongMing, Song DongMei, Huang ZhiDa
College of Sports and Health, Nanchang Institute of Science & Technology, Nanchang, China.
J Sports Sci Med. 2025 Sep 1;24(3):503-512. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2025.503. eCollection 2025 Sep.
This study aimed to compare the effects of individualized versus non-individualized HIIT programming, based on players' locomotor profiles, on the magnitude of adaptations in aerobic, anaerobic, and neuromuscular capacities. A randomized, controlled, parallel-group design was conducted with 46 male youth soccer players (age: 16.5 ± 0.5 years), who were allocated into four groups: individualized HIIT (HIITind), long-interval HIIT only (HIITlong), repeated sprint training only (RST), and a control group that maintained regular training without any HIIT intervention. In the HIITind group, players were assigned to either HIITlong or RST based on their locomotor profile - endurance or speed-oriented - determined by the difference between maximal sprint speed (MSS) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), respectively. In contrast, players in the HIITlong and RST groups followed the same protocol regardless of their profile. The training intervention lasted six weeks, with sessions conducted twice per week. Players were assessed at baseline and post-intervention for countermovement jump (CMJ), MSS over 30 meters (km/h), repeated sprint ability (RSA), and MAS, using the 5-minute running test. Significant improvements were found in all training groups compared to the control. RST showed greater improvements in CMJ (p < 0.001), MSS (p < 0.001), anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) (p < 0.001), and RSAmean (p < 0.001) compared to HIITind and HIITlong. No significant differences were observed between HIITind and HIITlong. Locomotor profiles influenced MSS (p < 0.001) and ASR (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while both individualized and non-individualized HIIT protocols improve physical capacities, RST offers superior benefits for anaerobic and neuromuscular adaptations, whereas both HIITind and long are more effective than RST for enhancing aerobic capacity, with no significant differences observed between them.
本研究旨在比较基于运动员运动能力概况的个性化与非个性化高强度间歇训练(HIIT)方案对有氧、无氧和神经肌肉能力适应程度的影响。对46名男性青少年足球运动员(年龄:16.5±0.5岁)进行了一项随机、对照、平行组设计,他们被分为四组:个性化HIIT(HIITind)组、仅进行长时间间歇HIIT(HIITlong)组、仅进行重复冲刺训练(RST)组以及维持常规训练且无任何HIIT干预的对照组。在HIITind组中,根据运动员的运动能力概况(分别通过最大冲刺速度(MSS)和最大有氧速度(MAS)之间的差异确定为耐力型或速度型)将他们分配到HIITlong组或RST组。相比之下,HIITlong组和RST组的运动员无论其运动能力概况如何,都遵循相同的方案。训练干预持续六周,每周进行两次训练。在基线和干预后,使用5分钟跑步测试对运动员进行反向纵跳(CMJ)、30米MSS(千米/小时)、重复冲刺能力(RSA)和MAS评估。与对照组相比,所有训练组均有显著改善。与HIITind组和HIITlong组相比。RST组在CMJ(p<0.001)、MSS(p<0.001)、无氧速度储备(ASR)(p<0.001)和RSA均值(p<0.001)方面有更大改善。HIITind组和HIITlong组之间未观察到显著差异。运动能力概况影响MSS(p<0.001)和ASR(p<0.001)。这些发现表明,虽然个性化和非个性化HIIT方案均可提高身体能力,但RST在无氧和神经肌肉适应方面具有更大优势,而HIITind组和HIITlong组在增强有氧能力方面比RST更有效,且二者之间未观察到显著差异。