The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between performance of the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (Yo-YoIR1) and the 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) and to compare the sensitivity of both tests to training. Fourteen young soccer players performed both tests before and after an 8-wk training intervention, which included 6 sessions/wk: 2 resistance training sessions, 2 high-intensity interval training sessions after technical training (4 sets of 3:30 min of generic running and small-sided games [4v4] during the first and second 4-wk periods, respectively [90–95% maximal HR], interspersed with 3 min at 60–70% maximal HR), and 2 tactical-only training sessions. There was a large correlation between 30-15IFT and Yo-YoIR1 (r = .75, 90% confidence limits [CL] 0.57;0.86). While within-test percentage changes suggested a greater sensitivity to training for the Yo-YoIR1 (+35%, 90%CL 24;45) than for the 30-15IFT (+7%; 4;10), these changes were similarly rated as almost certain (with chances for greater/similar/lower values after training of 100/0/0 for both tests) and moderate, ie, standardized difference, ES = +1.2 90%CL (0.9;1.5) for Yo-YoIR1 and ES = +1.1 (0.7;1.5) for 30-15IFT. The difference in the change between the 2 tests was clearly trivial (0/100/0, ES = –0.1, 90%CL –0.1;–0.1). Both tests might evaluate slightly different physical capacities, but their sensitivity to training is almost certainly similar. These results also highlight the importance of using standardized differences instead of percentage changes in performance to assess the actual training effect of an intervention.
Martin Buchheit and Alireza Rabbani
Alireza Rabbani, Mehdi Kargarfard, Carlo Castagna, Filipe Manuel Clemente and Craig Twist
Purpose: To investigate the relationship between accumulated global positioning system–accelerometer-based and heart rate–based training metrics and changes in high-intensity intermittent-running capacity during an in-season phase in professional soccer players. Methods: Eleven male professional players (mean [SD] age 27.2 [4.5] y) performed the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT) before and after a 5-wk in-season training phase, and the final velocity (VIFT) was considered their high-intensity intermittent-running capacity. During all sessions, Edwards training impulse (Edwards TRIMP), Banister TRIMP, Z5 TRIMP, training duration, total distance covered, new body load (NBL), high-intensity running performance (distance covered above 14.4 km·h−1), and very-high-intensity running performance (distance covered above 19.8 km·h−1) were recorded. Results: The players’ VIFT showed a most likely moderate improvement (+4.3%, 90% confidence limits 3.1–5.5%, effect size 0.70, [0.51–0.89]). Accumulated NBL, Banister TRIMP, and Edwards TRIMP showed large associations (r = .51–.54) with changes in VIFT. A very large relationship was also observed between accumulated Z5 TRIMP (r = .72) with changes in VIFT. Large to nearly perfect within-individual relationships were observed between NBL and some of the other training metrics (ie, Edwards TRIMP, Banister TRIMP, training duration, and total distance) in 10 out of 11 players. Conclusions: Heart rate–based training metrics can be used to monitor high-intensity intermittent-running-capacity changes in professional soccer players. The dose–response relationship is also largely detected using accelerometer-based metrics (ie, NBL) to track changes in high-intensity intermittent-running capacity of professional soccer players.