Sports Medicine - Open

Williams, Jason J.; Roshinski, William C.; Watso, Joseph C.

2025 Sports Medicine - Open

doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00795-5pmid: 39786705

BackgroundLittle is known about the lower extremity muscle co-contraction patterns during sprinting and its relation to running velocity (i.e., performance). Therefore, we compared lower extremity muscular activation patterns during sprinting between slower and faster collegiate club hockey athletes. We hypothesized that faster athletes would have lower EMG-assessed co-contraction index (CCI) values in the lower extremities during over-ground sprinting.MethodsTwenty-two males (age = 21 [1] yrs (median[IQR]); body mass = 77.1 ± 8.6 kg (mean ± SD)) completed two 20-m over-ground sprints with concomitant EMG and asynchronous force plate testing over four days in Tallahassee, Florida, USA. We split participants using median running velocity (FAST: 8.5 ± 0.3 vs. SLOW: 7.7 ± 0.3 m/s, p < 0.001).ResultsFaster athletes had lower CCI between the rectus femoris and biceps femoris (group: p = 0.05), particularly during the late swing phase of the gait cycle (post hoc p = 0.02). Early swing phase duration was moderately inversely related to Hip CCI in the stance phase (ρ=-0.58, p < 0.01) and weakly related to Knee CCI in the swing phase (ρ = 0.44, p = 0.046). Finally, swing phase duration was moderately inversely related to Hip CCI in the stance phase (ρ=-0.50, p = 0.02).ConclusionsIn agreement with our hypothesis, we found lower CCI values in the upper leg musculature during maximal-speed over-ground sprinting. These data from collegiate club hockey athletes corroborate other reports in clinical populations that the coordination between the rectus femoris and biceps femoris is associated with linear over-ground sprinting velocity.

Clemente, Filipe Manuel; Ramirez-Campillo, Rodrigo; Moran, Jason; Zmijewski, Piotr; Silva, Rui Miguel; Randers, Morten Bredsgaard

2025 Sports Medicine - Open

doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00808-3

BackgroundA small number of reviews have explored lower- versus higher-volume training in non-athletes, but the growing challenge of congested schedules in team sports highlights the need to synthesize evidence specific to team sport athletes. Thus, the objectives of this systematic review with meta-analysis are twofold: (i) to summarize the primary physiological and physical fitness outcomes of lower-volume versus higher-volume training interventions in team sports players; and (ii) to compare the effects of lower-volume training with higher, considering the training modalities used.MethodsWe conducted searches across key databases, including PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. We included team sports players with at least a trained or developmental level, focusing on studies comparing different training volumes (lower vs higher) within the same research. Lower volume training was defined in comparison to another load, emphasizing smaller training volume in terms of repetitions, duration, or frequency. The studies had to examine key physical performance adaptations and use two-arm or multi-arm designs. Methodological assessments of the included studies were performed using the Rob2 and ROBINS-I instruments, with evidence certainty evaluated through GRADE.ResultsThe initial search yielded 5,188 records, with 17 articles deemed eligible for the review. There was a non-significant trend favoring the higher-volume training group over the lower-volume group in resistance-based training when considering all pooled physical fitness outcomes (effect size − 0.05, 95% CI − 0.19 to 0.09, p = 0.506, I2 = 0.0%). A meta-analysis was not conducted for aerobic-based training due to only two studies being available, with one showing that lower volume training improved maximal oxygen uptake by 3.8% compared to 1.3% for higher volume, while the other indicated that lower training volumes enhanced performance by 1.6% versus 0.8%. The evidence certainty for physical performance outcomes was very low.ConclusionsIn newly introduced resistance training, lower volumes—regardless of repetitions or frequency—can achieve similar fitness gains to higher volumes. More pronounced tapering also appears more effective for supercompensation. However, the variability in study designs and training methods makes it difficult to establish a clear minimal dose. The main contribution of this review is mapping current research, providing a foundation for future studies and training optimization.

Ben-Ari, Asaf; Silverman, Yedidya; Obolski, Uri; Halperin, Israel

2025 Sports Medicine - Open

doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00803-8pmid: 39806263

BackgroundStudies on rest durations during high-intensity interval training (HIIT) often compare fixed and self-selected (SS) rest allocation approaches. Frequently, the rest duration under SS conditions is unlimited, leading to inconsistent total rest durations compared to fixed rest conditions. To address this limitation, we recently compared fixed and SS rest conditions during cycling HIIT sessions, while keeping the total rest duration equivalent. However, our protocol required athletes to divide a long total rest duration (720 s) across nine intervals, which may have been overly cognitively demanding. The current study aimed to explore the effects of the SS approach with a simplified rest allocation task on performance, physiological, and psychological outcomes.MethodsFollowing a familiarization session, 24 professional female soccer players completed two running HIIT sessions on a non-motorized treadmill. Each session consisted of twelve 15 s intervals, divided into three blocks, with the goal of maximizing the distance covered. In both conditions, the between-interval rest duration per block amounted to 270 s. In the fixed condition, the rest was uniformly allocated to 90 s between each interval, whereas in the SS condition, the athletes chose how to allocate the entirety of the 270 s of rest. We compared the following outcomes: distance, heart rate, perception of fatigue, effort, autonomy, enjoyment, boredom, and athletes’ preferences. Outcomes were compared using aggregated measures via paired univariate tests, and across the intervals via mixed-effects models.ResultsWe observed comparable results in most outcomes with the exception of higher autonomy (1–15 points) in the SS condition (mean difference = 2.1, 95%CI (0.9, 3.3) points) and a negligibly higher heart rate in the SS condition when comparing the observations across intervals (estimate = 2.5, 95%CI (0.9, 4.2) beats × min−1). Additionally, participants chose to rest for longer durations as the block progressed. Finally, the majority of participants (65%) favored the SS condition.ConclusionThis study further solidifies that SS and fixed approaches with matched total rest durations result in similar performance, physiological, and psychological responses. This effect persists even when the total rest duration required to be allocated is relatively short. Therefore, coaches and trainees can choose either approach based on their preferences and training goals.