Recent developments in field-based sprint assessments 1 – 5 enable athlete-specific force–velocity profiling allowing targeted training. 6 , 7 These employ a simple model describing a sprinter’s velocity ( v ) over time ( t ) as per the following equation 8 : d v d t = a m − v τ . (1) The model
Reed D. Gurchiek, Hasthika S. Rupasinghe Arachchige Don, Lasanthi C. R. Pelawa Watagoda, Ryan S. McGinnis, Herman van Werkhoven, Alan R. Needle, Jeffrey M. McBride and Alan T. Arnholt
Neil Gibson, Callum Brownstein, Derek Ball and Craig Twist
To examine the physiological and perceptual responses of youth footballers to a repeated sprint protocol employing standardized and self-selected recovery.
Eleven male participants (13.7 ± 1.1 years) performed a repeated sprint assessment comprising 10 × 30 m efforts. Employing a randomized cross-over design, repeated sprints were performed using 30 s and self-selected recovery periods. Heart rate was monitored continuously with ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and lower body muscle power measured 2 min after the final sprint. The concentration of blood lactate was measured at 2, 5 and 7 min post sprinting. Magnitude of effects were reported using effect size (ES) statistics ± 90% confidence interval and percentage differences. Differences between trials were examined using paired student t tests (p < .05).
Self-selected recovery resulted in most likely shorter recovery times (57.7%; ES 1.55 ± 0.5; p < .01), a most likely increase in percentage decrement (65%; ES 0.36 ± 0.21; p = .12), very likely lower heart rate recovery (-58.9%; ES -1.10 ± 0.72; p = .05), and likely higher blood lactate concentration (p = .08–0.02). Differences in lower body power and RPE were unclear (p > .05).
Self-selected recovery periods compromise repeated sprint performance.
Jorge Carlos-Vivas, Elena Marín-Cascales, Tomás T. Freitas, Jorge Perez-Gomez and Pedro E. Alcaraz
Sprint Assessment For sprint assessment, we followed the protocol proposed in a recent study by Carlos-Vivas et al. 24 The main difference was that we used a wider loads range to see the effect of using higher loads on WV sprinting. Players started from a standing position, straight behind the starting
Maria C. Madueno, Vincent J. Dalbo, Joshua H. Guy, Kate E. Giamarelos, Tania Spiteri and Aaron T. Scanlan
Plains, Australia) to the nearest 0.001 seconds. All sprint assessments were conducted on the same indoor, hardwood flooring, with the position of each timing light marked for consistent placement across trials (width: 2.0 m; height: 1.2 m). Figure 1 —Layout of the (A) linear sprint and (B) Agility 5
Patrick P.J.M. Schoenmakers, Florentina J. Hettinga and Kate E. Reed
Participants performed 2 repeated sprint assessments of 10 × 30-m sprint efforts (∼5 s) 30 s, SS AR: Training sequence shorter in SS, as SS recovery duration is significantly shorter (∼10 s). Mean sprint time significantly faster in 30 s. No differences in peak HR, [BLa], and RPE. Glaister et al 8 N = 25, 20
Paola Rodriguez-Giustiniani, Ian Rollo, Oliver C. Witard and Stuart D. R. Galloway
dribbling performance, players dribbled a ball between six cones (3 m apart) toward a camera as fast and precisely as possible. For the sprint assessment, players ran as fast as possible through timing gates (Brower timing system, , Draper, UT) placed 15 m apart, with a 1-m run-in. At the end of each of the