Intermittent Endurance and Repeated Sprint Ability in Soccer Players
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to perform high-intensity intermittent exercise (i.e., Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test [Yo-Yo IR1]) and to repeat sprints with relatively short recovery times (i.e., 20- to 30-seconds, relatively short time interval [repeated sprint ability (RSA)]) has been shown to be relevant fitness variables in soccer. However, though they potentially share common features, it is not known whether these 2 abilities are associated. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between Yo-Yo IR1 and RSA performances in elite soccer players. Twenty-three soccer players (age 19 ± 1 years, height 181 ± 5.7 cm, body mass 73.2 ± 4.1 kg, %body fat 11 ± 2.4) performed the Yo-Yo IR1 and a test for RSA (7 × 30 m with 25-second recovery). Results were 2,289 ± 409 m, 31.21 ± 1.13 seconds, and 4 ± 2.1% for Yo-Yo IR1, total sprint time, and sprint decrement, respectively. Yo-Yo IR1 showed a significant and moderate relationship with sprint decrement (r² = -0.44, p = 0.04). Splitting the sample into Best and Worst Yo-Yo IR1 performers according to median score (2,320 m), the Best group showed lower RSA total time (30.69 ± 0.99 vs. 31.79 ± 1.06, p < 0.05) and speed decrement (2.90 ± 0.86 vs. 5.09 ± 2.42, p < 0.01) compared to the Worst group. Sprint-time deterioration over 30 m occurred earlier (from the second sprint on) in the Yo-YoWorst compared with in the Yo-YoBest group (from the fourth sprint on, p < 0.001). Intermittent high-intensity endurance is poorly associated with RSA performance (r² = 0.19). Consequently, coaches and strength and conditioning professionals should consider both Yo-Yo IR1 and RSA in their testing batteries. A Yo-Yo IR1 performance ≥2,320 m could be considered as a reasonable indicator of physical fitness in elite soccer. Relatively short time interval test protocols similar to the present study should consist of at least 5 sprint bouts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it