Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Repeated-sprint training is an effective training strategy, yet the impact of manipulating rest intervals is equivocal. Using a parallel group, randomised trial, we explored the effects of two six-week, twice-weekly, time- and volume-matched repeated-sprint protocols with different passive rest intervals on fitness outcomes in male soccer players. Twenty-three semi-professional soccer players were randomly allocated to Group 1 (10 s within-set, 80 s between-set rest; n = 12) or Group 2 (20 s within-set, 40–54 s between-set rest; n = 11). Both groups continued their regular soccer, gym training, and matches with all activities monitored using differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE, centiMax® scale). Fitness outcomes were: 10 m, 20 m, 40 m sprint times, maximum velocity (VMax), countermovement jump (CMJ), and maximal aerobic speed (MAS). A linear mixed model and equivalence testing explored between-group differences in dRPE with analyses of covariance comparing between-group change differences in fitness. Repeated-sprint session intensity was 57.2 ± 6.9 AU with equivalence between groups for all activities. Between-group change differences in fitness were: 0.00 (95% Confidence Interval −0.05, 0.06) s, 0.03 (−0.05, 0.12) s, and 0.05 (−0.06, 0.16) s for 10 m, 20 m, and 40 m sprints, −0.09 (−0.36, 0.17) m.s−1 for VMax, −0.9 (−3.0, 1.2) cm for CMJ, and 0.05 (−0.09, 0.19) m.s−1 for MAS. These findings suggest little impact of our rest period manipulations on between-group training loads or fitness changes following a 6-week repeated-sprint intervention. Given the limited sample size, our results must be interpreted as preliminary, requiring further confirmation.
Gupta et al. (Fri,) studied this question.