Running-based high-intensity interval training vs. small-sided game training programs: effects on the physical performance, psychophysiological responses and technical skills in young soccer players
Question
How do 5 weeks of running-based HIIT and 5 weeks of small-sided game training compare for physical performance, psychophysiological responses, and technical skills in young soccer players?
Summary
In 20 under-15 male soccer players, both 5 weeks of running-based HIIT and soccer small-sided game training improved aerobic fitness and several performance measures. HIIT produced larger speed-conditioning responses such as 1000-meter time and repeated sprint ability, while small-sided games produced better agility, technical skill, greater enjoyment, and lower perceived exertion.
Methodology
- Twenty male U-15 soccer players from the same academy league team.
- 20 participants.
- Running without a soccer ball around a pitch.
- Work intervals: 15 seconds.
- Recovery: 15 seconds passive recovery.
- Intensity: 90-95% of VIFT from the 30-15 intermittent fitness test.
- 12-20 minutes of interval work/recovery plus 15-minute standardized warm-up.
- 2 sessions per week.
- 5 weeks.
- Parallel matched-group pre-post intervention study during the junior soccer season.
- YYIRTL-1 performance and estimated VO2max, Sprint performance, Jump performance, and Agility and technical performance were tracked.
Outcomes
Aerobic fitness
Both HIIT and SSG improved YYIRTL-1 and estimated VO2max.
YYIRTL-1: SSG +12.8% (d=1.46), HIIT +16.4% (d=3.27). VO2max: SSG +3.3% (d=1.48), HIIT +4.3% (d=2.61).
Speed-based conditioning
HIIT showed larger improvements in 1000 m running time and repeated sprint ability than SSG.
1000 m time: HIIT -6.1% (p<=0.05, d=0.90), SSG -2.6% (p<=0.05, d=0.37). RSA total: HIIT -9.4% to -9.5% (p<=0.05, d=2.06), SSG -6.2% (p<=0.05, d=1.67).
Agility and technical skill
SSG improved agility and technical test performance more than HIIT.
ZAWB: SSG -5.9% vs HIIT -1.3%; ZAWOB: SSG -3.6% vs HIIT -2.6%; speed dribbling: SSG -7.2% vs HIIT -4.6%; p<=0.05 for reported improvements.
Enjoyment and perceived exertion
SSG was more enjoyable and felt less hard than HIIT.
RPE: HIIT 18.3 +/- 0.4 vs SSG 16.6 +/- 0.5, p<=0.05, d=3.75. PACES: SSG 30.6 +/- 1.0 vs HIIT 16.5 +/- 0.9, p<=0.05, d=14.82.
Anthropometrics
No significant within-group differences were found for body weight or body fat percentage.
Reported as p>0.05 with trivial to small effects.
Insights
- For athletic conditioning, 15-second work / 15-second recovery intervals can improve aerobic and repeated-sprint outcomes over 5 weeks.
- When enjoyment and skill transfer matter, game-like intervals may be preferable to generic running HIIT.
- Higher RPE in HIIT suggests recovery spacing is important even in trained youth athletes.
- This athlete protocol is not a direct consumer HIIT template without scaling and simpler intensity guidance.
Limitations
- Small sample size.
- Young male soccer-player-only sample.
- Short 5-week intervention.
- No external load measurement.
- Synthetic grass pitch may affect movement patterns and technical standards.
- Group assignment was matched, not explicitly randomized.
- No long-term follow-up.
Safety
- No subjects were excluded because of injuries, sickness, or dropout during the 5-week training period.
- Sessions were supervised, separated by at least 48 hours, and preceded by a standardized warm-up.
- Written informed consent from players/parents and ethics approval were reported.