# Can trainability constrain physical fitness adaptations to small-sided games and high-intensity interval training in young male basketball players? a prospective cohort study

PMID: 39703670
Journal: Frontiers in Physiology
Published: 2024-12-05
Authors: Wei L, Zheng Y

## Question

Does baseline trainability constrain responses to small-sided games and HIIT in young male team-sport players?

## Summary

In a 6-week preseason study of young male team-sport athletes, straight-line HIIT and small-sided games both improved fitness measures, especially in initially less-fit players. The NXML title mentions basketball, while the body repeatedly describes soccer players, so sport-specific conclusions are uncertain.

## Population

- Young male regional-level team-sport athletes; NXML body describes soccer players despite basketball title.
- Sample size: 43
- Age: 16.5 +/- 0.7 years
- Sex: Male
- Fitness level: Youth competitive athletes
- Health status: Healthy and injury-free during eligibility window

## Methodology

- Prospective cohort intervention study
- 6 weeks
- Team preseason training
- Controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Straight-line HIIT.
- Modality: Field running.
- Work intervals: 1 min or 3 min.
- Recovery: 3 min between repetitions.
- Sets or repetitions: 6-8 x 1 min or 3-4 x 3 min depending on week.
- Intensity: 90% VIFT for 1 min intervals; 85% VIFT for 3 min intervals.
- Session duration: Varied by weekly session.
- Frequency: 2 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: Increased repetition count and alternated 1-min/3-min formats.
- Small-sided games.
- Modality: 2v2 and 4v4 small-sided games.
- Work intervals: 1 min or 3 min games.
- Recovery: 3 min between repetitions.
- Sets or repetitions: Matched to HIIT repetitions and duration.
- Intensity: Game-based intensity not directly reported.
- Session duration: Matched to HIIT work/recovery duration.
- Frequency: 2 sessions/week.
- Program length: 6 weeks.
- Progression: 2v2 for shorter bouts and 4v4 for longer bouts according to schedule.

## Outcomes

### Jump height
Status: mixed
Non-fit SSG and HIIT players improved CMJ, while fit subgroups changed little.

Non-fit SSG p<0.001, d=1.030; non-fit HIIT p<0.001, d=0.984.

### Sprint speed
Status: improved
Sprint peak speed improved in all subgroups, with a larger non-fit effect in HIIT.

HIIT non-fit p<0.001, d=1.538.

### VIFT
Status: improved
VIFT improved in all subgroups, with large effects in non-fit players.

SSG non-fit p<0.001, d=2.200; HIIT non-fit p<0.001, d=1.692.

### Interactions
Status: no clear change
No significant time by group by baseline-fitness interaction was reported for the primary outcomes.

Example CMJ F=0.368, p=0.547.

## Practical Insights

- Baseline fitness classification can materially affect interpretation of short athlete-training studies.
- Straight-line HIIT and game-based formats may both improve youth athlete fitness markers.

## Limitations

- Short 6-week preseason block
- Youth male athlete sample
- Concurrent team training
- No objective internal-load monitoring reported
- Title/body inconsistency about sport
- Not a general-population intervention

## Safety And Adherence

- No adverse events were reported.
- Goalkeepers and players injured before or during the intervention were excluded.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39703670/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1491347) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11655448/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

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