PurposeTo describe training variations across the annual cycle in Olympic and World Champion endurance athletes, and determine whether these athletes used tapering strategies in line with recommendations in the literature.MethodsEleven elite XC skiers and biathletes (4 male; 28±1 yr, 85±5 mL. min−1. kg−1 , 7 female, 25±4 yr, 73±3 mL. min−1. kg−1 ) reported one year of day-to-day training leading up to the most successful competition of their career. Training data were divided into periodization and peaking phases and distributed into training forms, intensity zones and endurance activity forms.ResultsAthletes trained ∼800 h/500 sessions.year−1, including ∼500 h. year−1 of sport-specific training. Ninety-four percent of all training was executed as aerobic endurance training. Of this, ∼90% was low intensity training (LIT, below the first lactate threshold) and 10% high intensity training (HIT, above the first lactate threshold) by time. Categorically, 23% of training sessions were characterized as HIT with primary portions executed at or above the first lactate turn point. Training volume and specificity distribution conformed to a traditional periodization model, but absolute volume of HIT remained stable across phases. However, HIT training patterns tended to become more polarized in the competition phase. Training volume, frequency and intensity remained unchanged from pre-peaking to peaking period, but there was a 32±15% (P<.01) volume reduction from the preparation period to peaking phase.ConclusionsThe annual training data for these Olympic and World champion XC skiers and biathletes conforms to previously reported training patterns of elite endurance athletes. During the competition phase, training became more sport-specific, with 92% performed as XC skiing. However, they did not follow suggested tapering practice derived from short-term experimental studies. Only three out of 11 athletes took a rest day during the final 5 days prior to their most successful competition.

The aim of this review is to investigate methodological concerns associated with sprint performance monitoring, more specifically the influence and magnitude of varying external conditions, technology and monitoring methodologies not directly related to human physiology. The combination of different starting procedures and triggering devices can cause up to very large time differences, which may be many times greater than performance changes caused by years of conditioning. Wind, altitude, temperature, barometric pressure and humidity can all combine to yield moderate time differences over short sprints. Sprint performance can also be affected by the athlete's clothing, principally by its weight rather than its aerodynamic properties. On level surfaces, the track compliance must change dramatically before performance changes larger than typical variation can be detected. An optimal shoe bending stiffness can enhance performance by a small margin. Fully automatic timing systems, dual-beamed photocells, laser guns and high-speed video are the most accurate tools for sprint performance monitoring. Manual timing and single-beamed photocells should be avoided over short sprint distances (10-20 m) because of large absolute errors. The validity of today's global positioning systems (GPS) technology is satisfactory for long distances (>30 m) and maximal velocity in team sports, but multiple observations are still needed as reliability is questionable. Based on different approaches used to estimate the smallest worthwhile performance change and the typical error of sprint measures, we have provided an assessment of the usefulness of speed evaluation from 5 to 40 m. Finally, we provide statistical guidelines to accurately assess changes in individual performance; i.e. considering both the smallest worthwhile change in performance and the typical error of measurement, which can be reduced while repeating the number of trials.

Despite a voluminous body of research devoted to sprint training, our understanding of the training process leading to a world-class sprint performance is limited. The objective of this review is to integrate scientific and best practice literature regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance. Sprint performance is heavily dependent upon genetic traits, and the annual within-athlete performance differences are lower than the typical variation, the smallest worthwhile change, and the influence of external conditions such as wind, monitoring methodologies, etc. Still, key underlying determinants (e.g., power, technique, and sprint-specific endurance) are trainable. In this review, we describe how well-known training principles (progression, specificity, variation/periodization, and individualization) and varying training methods (e.g., sprinting/running, technical training, strength/power, plyometric training) are used in a sprint training context. Indeed, there is a considerable gap between science and best practice in how training principles and methods are applied. While the vast majority of sprint-related studies are performed on young team sport athletes and focus on brief sprints with maximal intensity and short recoveries, elite sprinters perform sprinting/running over a broad range of distances and with varying intensity and recovery periods. Within best practice, there is a stronger link between choice of training component (i.e., modality, duration, intensity, recovery, session rate) and the intended purpose of the training session compared with the “one-size-fits-all” approach in scientific literature. This review provides a point of departure for scientists and practitioners regarding the training and development of elite sprint performance and can serve as a position statement for outlining state-of-the-art sprint training recommendations and for generation of new hypotheses to be tested in future research.

Purpose: The overall objective of this thesis was to investigate the role and development of sprinting speed in soccer. Six original studies plus a published review have been completed towards with this objective.Valid and reliable measurement of sprint times is a prerequisite to reliably detect true changes in sprinting performance. Therefore, the purpose of study I was to quantify potential sprint time differences between single beamed (SB) and dual beamed (DB) timing systems. The aim of study II was to compare different sprint start positions and generate correction factors between popular timing triggering methods on 40 m sprint. The results from these two methodological studies secured a fundamental platform for interpretation of further sprint data in the thesis. The purpose of studies III and IV was to use a large database of soccer athlete sprint and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests collected under highly standardized conditions over 15 years to estimate generalizable differences in sprinting speed and jumping height as a function of: 1) athlete playing level, 2) field position, and 3) age. Additionally, we also evaluated the evolution of sprint and CMJ ability among male professionals and female elite players in Norwegian soccer over a 15 year period. The purpose of study VI was to investigate the effect of training at 90% sprint speed on maximal and repeated sprinting performance in soccer. The aim of study VII was two fold: 1) To compare the effects of training at 90 and 100% sprint speed on maximal and repeated sprint performance, and 2) to compare the effects of directly supervised sprint training versus unsupervised training on maximal and repeated sprint performance. Results: Simultaneous measurements with SB and DB timing revealed that coefficient of variation (CV) was 0.4 and 0.7% for 0-20 m and 20-40 m sprint times, respectively, while SEM was 0.01 s for both distances when arm and leg motion was controlled for (study I, phase 1), During normal sprint action (study I, phase 2), CV increased to 1.4 and 1.2% for 0-20 m and 20-40 m splits, respectively, while SEM was 0.02 s for both distances. During normal sprint action, absolute time differences for 0-20 m sprint times ranged from -0.05 to 0.06 s between SB and DB timing. Compared to block starts reacting to gunfire, hand release, standing photo cell start and foot release start yielded 0.17 ±0.09, 0.27 ±0.12 and 0.69 ±0.11 s faster times respectively over 40 m (study II). In study III and IV, data from a large sample of athletes tested under identical conditions demonstrated small to large differences in sprinting times across playing standards. CMJ performance was practically identical among male national teams and 1 st -2 nd division players. Forwards were faster than defenders, midfielders and goalkeepers, respectively. Sprint performance peaked in the age range 20-28 years for male professional players, while no differences in sprinting velocity were observed among female age categories. Furthermore, the data revealed a small but si...

Objective Our objective was to explore the training-related knowledge, beliefs, and practices of athletes and the influence of lockdowns in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods Athletes (n = 12,526, comprising 13% world class, 21% international, 36% national, 24% state, and 6% recreational) completed an online survey that was available from 17 May to 5 July 2020 and explored their training behaviors (training knowledge, beliefs/attitudes, and practices), including specific questions on their training intensity, frequency, and session duration before and during lockdown (March–June 2020). Results Overall, 85% of athletes wanted to “maintain training,” and 79% disagreed with the statement that it is “okay to not train during lockdown,” with a greater prevalence for both in higher-level athletes. In total, 60% of athletes considered “coaching by correspondence (remote coaching)” to be sufficient (highest amongst world-class athletes). During lockdown, < 40% were able to maintain sport-specific training (e.g., long endurance [39%], interval training [35%], weightlifting [33%], plyometric exercise [30%]) at pre-lockdown levels (higher among world-class, international, and national athletes), with most (83%) training for “general fitness and health maintenance” during lockdown. Athletes trained alone (80%) and focused on bodyweight (65%) and cardiovascular (59%) exercise/training during lockdown. Compared with before lockdown, most athletes reported reduced training frequency (from between five and seven sessions per week to four or fewer), shorter training sessions (from ≥ 60 to < 60 min), and lower sport-specific intensity (~ 38% reduction), irrespective of athlete classification. Conclusions COVID-19-related lockdowns saw marked reductions in athletic training specificity, intensity, frequency, and duration, with notable within-sample differences (by athlete classification). Higher classification athletes had the strongest desire to “maintain” training and the greatest opposition to “not training” during lockdowns. These higher classification athletes retained training specificity to a greater degree than others, probably because of preferential access to limited training resources. More higher classification athletes considered “coaching by correspondence” as sufficient than did lower classification athletes. These lockdown-mediated changes in training were not conducive to maintenance or progression of athletes’ physical capacities and were also likely detrimental to athletes’ mental health. These data can be used by policy makers, athletes, and their multidisciplinary teams to modulate their practice, with a degree of individualization, in the current and continued pandemic-related scenario. Furthermore, the data may drive training-related educational resources for athletes and their multidisciplinary teams. Such upskilling would provide athletes with evidence to inform their training modifications in response to germane situations (e.g., COVID related, injury, and illness).

Purpose:To compare sprint and countermovement-jump (CMJ) performance among competitive soccer players as a function of performance level, field position, and age. In addition, the authors wanted to quantify the evolution of these physical characteristics among professional players over a 15-y period. Methods: 939 athletes (22.1 ± 4.3 y), including national-team players, tested 40-m sprint with electronic timing and CMJ on a force platform at the Norwegian Olympic Training Center between 1995 and 2010. Results: National-team and 1st-division players were faster (P < .05) than 2nd-division (1.0-1.4%), 3rd-to 5th-division (3.0-3.8%), junior national-team (1.7-2.2%), and junior players (2.8-3.7%). Forwards were faster than defenders (1.4%), midfielders (2.5%), and goalkeepers (3.2%) over 0-20 m (P < .001). Midfielders jumped ~2.0 cm lower than the other playing positions (P < .05). Sprinting velocity peaked in the age range 20-28 y and declined significantly thereafter (P < .05). Players from 2006-2010 had 1-2% faster 0-20 m and peak velocity than players from the 1995-1999 and 2000-2005 epochs, whereas no differences in CMJ performance were observed. Conclusions: This study provides effect-magnitude estimates for the influence of performance level, position, and age on sprint and CMJ performance in soccer. While CMJ performance has remained stable over the time, there has been a small but positive development in sprinting velocity among professional players.Keywords: sprint, vertical jump, anaerobic characteristics Speed and power are critical performance factors in soccer. Male soccer players conduct high-intensity actions every 60 to 90 seconds during games, each lasting 2 to 3 seconds on average. 1-3 Although sprinting and high-intensity actions represent only 8% to 12% of covered running distance, these capabilities are considered critical. [3][4][5][6] In this decisive portion of match play, it is likely that maximal-sprint situations represent particularly critical moments. Both horizontal acceleration (sprinting) and vertical acceleration (jumping power) are involved in ball possession, repossession, defense play, corner kicks, and attack on goal.Arnason et al 7 reported that players at high competition level jumped higher than players at lower performance levels. However, Cometti et al 8 and Rösch et al 9 observed no differences in speed or jump height as a function of performance level. A few studies have investigated speed and power characteristics according to playing position. [10][11][12][13][14][15] Davis et al 10 concluded that forwards were the fastest players, ahead of defenders, midfielders, and goalkeepers. Boone et al 11 reported differences in speed and countermovement jump (CMJ) according to playing position. Sporis et al 12 found differences in speed but not for CMJ, while Taskin 13 found no speed differences as a function of position. The literature also remains unclear regarding potential sprint-performance differences across age among elite players. 9,16 Most previously published studies w...

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to quantify maximal aerobic power (VO 2max ) in soccer as a function of performance level, position, age, and time of season. In addition, the authors examined the evolution of VO 2max among professional players over a 23-y period. Methods: 1545 male soccer players (22 ± 4 y, 76 ± 8 kg, 181 ± 6 cm) were tested for VO 2max at the Norwegian Olympic Training Center between 1989 and 2012. Results: No differences in VO 2max were observed among national-team players, 1st-and 2nd-division players, and juniors. Midfielders had higher VO 2max than defenders, forwards, and goalkeepers (P < .05). Players <18 y of age had ~3% higher VO 2max than 23-to 26-y-old players (P = .016). The players had 1.6% and 2.1% lower VO 2max during off-season than preseason (P = .046) and in season (P = .021), respectively. Relative to body mass, VO 2max among the professional players in this study has not improved over time. Professional players tested during 2006-2012 actually had 3.2% lower VO 2max than those tested from 2000 to 2006 (P = .001). Conclusions:This study provides effect-magnitude estimates for the influence of performance level, player position, age, and season time on VO 2max in men's elite soccer. The findings from a robust data set indicate that VO 2max values ~62-64 mL · kg -1 · min -1 fulfill the demands for aerobic capacity in men's professional soccer and that VO 2max is not a clearly distinguishing variable separating players of different standards.Keywords: relative VO 2max , aerobic capacity, soccer, physical performanceThe importance of high maximal aerobic power (VO 2max ) in modern soccer is heavily debated. Reported test results have varied widely with VO 2max values between 50 and 75 mL · kg -1 · min -1 among outfield athletes. 1 Some investigations indicate that lower-ranked teams have lower VO 2max than the best teams. 2,3 Reilly et al 4 claim that VO 2max is not a sensitive measure of performance capability in soccer and suggest that VO 2max >60 mL represents a threshold to possess the physiological attributes for success in men's elite soccer. In contrast, Stølen et al 1 claim that it would be reasonable to expect about 70 mL · kg -1 · min -1 for a 75-kg professional soccer player, a value similar to that in elite middle-distance athletes. 5 It is also unclear whether there are positional differences in VO 2max among male soccer athletes. 4,6,7 The Norwegian Olympic training center has served as a standard testing facility for a large number of teams across a broad range of performance levels, including essentially all national-team players. A database of VO 2max results collected over 2 decades provided the potential for more rigorously testing the hypotheses presented in previous studies. Thus, the aim of this study was to quantify possible differences in VO 2max as a function of athlete playing standard, field position, age, and time of season. In addition, we evaluated the evolution of VO 2max in the Norwegian national squad over a 23-year period. Materia...

Purpose:The purpose of this investigation was to compare sprint and countermovement-jump (CMJ) performance among female competitive soccer players as a function of performance level, field position, and age. In addition, the authors wanted to quantify the evolution of these physical characteristics among elite players over a 15-y period.Methods:194 female elite players (22± 4.1 y, 63 ± 5.6 kg), including an Olympic winning squad, tested 40-m sprint with electronic timing and CMJ on a force platform at the Norwegian Olympic training center from 1995 to 2010.Results:Moderate to large velocity differences across performance levels and positions were observed. National-team players were 2% faster than 1st-division players (P = .027, d = 0.5) and 5% faster than 2nd-division players (P < .001, d = 1.3) over 0–20 m. National-team players jumped 8–9% higher than 1st-division players (P = .001, d = 0.6) and junior elite players (P = .023, d = 0.5). Forwards were 3–4% faster than midfielders (P < .001, d = 0.8) and goalkeepers (P = .003, d = 0.9) over 0–20 m. No differences in velocity or CMJ height were observed among the age categories. Players from 2006–2010 were 2% faster (P < .05, d = 0.6) than players from 1995–1999 over 20 m, whereas no differences in 20- to 40-m velocity or CMJ performance were observed.Conclusions:This study provides effect-magnitude estimates for the influence of performance level, age, and player position on sprint and CMJ performance in female soccer players. While 20- to 40-m velocity and CMJ performance have remained stable over the time, there has been a moderate but positive development in 0- to 20-m velocity among elite performers.