Intermittent Endurance and Repeated Sprint Ability in Soccer Players
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".