尽管短跑间隔训练(SIT)和补强训练(PT)在改善足球运动员的身体素质方面具有有据可查的好处,目前尚不清楚这些训练方法中哪一种对提高运动员的有氧和无氧表现更有优势。因此,这项研究旨在比较SIT和PT对男性足球运动员体能指标的影响。30名男足球运动员被随机分配到PT(n=10),SIT(n=10),和一个活跃的对照组(CON,n=10)。培训前后,参与者接受了一系列的垂直跳跃测试,温盖特,有和没有运球的线性冲刺,改变方向,球踢,和Yo-Yo间歇恢复水平1(Yo-YoIR1)测试。两组在最大踢腿距离(PT,效果大小[ES]=0.68;SIT,ES=0.92)和有氧健身措施,包括最大摄氧量(PT,ES=1.24;SIT,ES=1.26)和第一(PT,ES=0.85;SIT,ES=1.08)和秒(PT,ES=0.86;SIT,ES=0.98)通气阈值。然而,PT干预导致垂直跳跃的更大变化(ES=1.72vs.0.82,p=0.001),无氧功率(峰值功率,ES=1.62vs.0.97,p=0.009;平均功率,ES=1.15vs.1.20,p=0.05),线速度(20-m,ES=-1.58vs.-0.98,p=0.038;20-m带球,ES=-0.93vs.0.71,p=0.038),和方向能力的变化(ES=-2.56vs.-2.71,p=0.046)比坐姿。总之,PT和SIT都证明了在提高男性足球运动员的有氧表现方面的有效性。然而,PT在无氧功率方面产生了优异的改善,垂直跳跃,线速度,与SIT相比,方向表现的变化。这些发现表明,PT可能提供除了有氧调理之外的额外益处。
Despite the well-documented benefits of sprint interval training (SIT) and plyometric training (PT) in improving the physical fitness of soccer players, it remains unclear which of these training methods is superior for enhancing players\' aerobic and anaerobic performance. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of SIT and PT on physical performance measures of male soccer players. Thirty male soccer players were randomly assigned to PT (n = 10), SIT (n = 10), and an active control group (CON, n = 10). Before and after the training period, participants underwent a battery of tests consisting of vertical jump, Wingate, linear sprint with and without ball dribbling, change of direction, ball kick, and the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) tests. Both groups exhibited similar improvements in maximal kicking distance (PT, effect size [ES] = 0.68; SIT, ES = 0.92) and measures of aerobic fitness including maximum oxygen uptake (PT, ES = 1.24; SIT, ES = 1.26) and first (PT, ES = 0.85; SIT, ES = 1.08) and second (PT, ES = 0.86; SIT, ES = 0.98) ventilatory thresholds. However, PT intervention resulted in greater changes in vertical jump (ES = 1.72 vs. 0.82, p = 0.001), anaerobic power (peak power, ES = 1.62 vs. 0.97, p = 0.009; mean power, ES = 1.15 vs. 1.20, p = 0.05), linear speed (20-m, ES = -1.58 vs. -0.98, p = 0.038; 20-m with ball, ES = -0.93 vs. 0.71, p = 0.038), and change of direction ability (ES = -2.56 vs. -2.71, p = 0.046) than SIT. In conclusion, both PT and SIT demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing aerobic performance among male soccer players. However, PT yielded superior improvements in anaerobic power, vertical jump, linear speed, and change of direction performance compared to SIT. These findings suggest that PT may offer additional benefits beyond aerobic conditioning.