Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various physical fitness qualities such as muscle strength, speed and endurance are related to soccer performance. Accordingly, the combination of strength and endurance training (i.e., concurrent training [CT]) is an often-encountered training regimen in soccer. Less is known about the effects of CT sequencing on performance in young soccer players. The aim of this study was to assess the sequencing effects of strength and intermittent endurance training applied within the same training session (intrasession) on measures of physical fitness and soccer performance in young soccer players. METHODS: Fifty male adolescent soccer players volunteered to participate in this study which was conducted in the Netherlands in 2019. Players were randomly assigned to a strength-endurance (SE) or an endurance-strength (ES) group in matched pairs based on their countermovement jump (CMJ) performance at baseline. Both groups completed a 12-weeks in-season training program with two weekly CT sessions. Training sessions consisted of 15 min plyometric exercises and 15 min soccer-specific intermittent endurance training. Both groups performed the same training volumes and the only difference between the groups was the CT intrasession sequencing scheme (SE vs. ES). Pre and post intervention, proxies of muscle power (CMJ, squat jump [SJ]), linear sprint speed (30-m sprint test), agility (Illinois test with / without ball), and soccer performance (ball kicking velocity) were tested. RESULTS: Data from 38 players aged 14.8 ± 1.0 years (body height 172.9 ± 8.1 cm, body mass: 57.0 ± 7.2 kg, soccer experience: 8.8 ± 2.8 years, age from peak-height-velocity [PHV]: +1.2 ± 1.0 years) were included. Significant main time effects were found for CMJ (p = 0.002, d = 0.55), SJ (p = 0.004, d = 0.51), the Illinois agility test with ball (p = 0.016, d = 0.51), and ball kicking velocity (p = 0.016, d = 0.51). Significant group-by-time interactions were observed for 30-m linear sprint speed (p < 0.001, d = 0.76) with ES showing greater improvements (p = 0.006, d = 0.85, Δ-5%). CONCLUSIONS: Both CT-sequencing types improved performance in the tests administered. The intrasession CT sequencing (SE vs. ES) appears not to have a major impact on physical fitness adaptations, except for linear sprint speed which was in favor of ES.