# 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

PMID: 32508384
Journal: Biology of sport
Published: 2020 Jun
Authors: Arslan E, Orer GE, Clemente FM

## 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.

## Population

- Twenty male U-15 soccer players from the same academy league team.
- Sample size: 20
- Age: 14.2 +/- 0.5 years
- Sex: Male
- Fitness level: Youth soccer players with more than 4 training units per week and at least 3 years of soccer training/match experience.
- Health status: Apparently healthy athletes; no exclusions for injury, sickness, or dropout during the study.

## Methodology

- Parallel matched-group pre-post intervention study during the junior soccer season.
- 8-week study design with 1.5 weeks pre-testing, 5 weeks intervention, and 1.5 weeks post-testing
- Supervised soccer training environment on a synthetic grass pitch.
- Controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Running-based HIIT.
- Modality: Running without a soccer ball around a pitch.
- Work intervals: 15 seconds.
- Recovery: 15 seconds passive recovery.
- Sets or repetitions: 2 x 6 minutes progressing to 2 x 10 minutes of 15-second/15-second intervals.
- Intensity: 90-95% of VIFT from the 30-15 intermittent fitness test.
- Session duration: 12-20 minutes of interval work/recovery plus 15-minute standardized warm-up.
- Frequency: 2 sessions per week.
- Program length: 5 weeks.
- Progression: 2 x 6 min at 90% VIFT, 2 x 7 min at 90%, 2 x 8 min at 90%, 2 x 9 min at 95%, and 2 x 10 min at 95%.
- Small-sided game training.
- Modality: Two-a-side soccer small-sided games using possession, goalkeeper, small-goal, and two-floater formats.
- Work intervals: 2 x (2 x 2.5 to 4.5 minutes) game bouts depending on week.
- Recovery: 2 minutes passive rest.
- Sets or repetitions: Two sets of two game bouts.
- Intensity: Selected because 2-a-side SSG has similar exercise intensity to HIIT types above 85% HRmax; actual average RPE 16.6 +/- 0.4.
- Session duration: 10-18 minutes of SSG block plus 15-minute standardized warm-up.
- Frequency: 2 sessions per week.
- Program length: 5 weeks.
- Progression: Progressed from 2 x (2 x 2.5 min) to 2 x (2 x 4.5 min), with format changes across weeks.

## Outcomes

### Aerobic fitness
Status: improved
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
Status: improved
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
Status: improved
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
Status: mixed
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
Status: no clear change
No significant within-group differences were found for body weight or body fat percentage.

Reported as p>0.05 with trivial to small effects.

## Practical 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 And Adherence

- 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.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32508384/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2020.94237) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7249797/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.