Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2025
Comparing Individualized vs. Non-Individualized Locomotor Profiling on High-Intensity Interval Training Adaptations in Soccer Players: A Randomized Parallel Study.
Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effects of Training Modalities on Countermovement Jump Performance in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effects of French Contrast Method vs. Complex Training on explosive power and its endurance in youth badminton athletes.PloS one · 2025Trial
- High-Intensity Exercise Performance as a Complex Adaptive System: An Integrative Review.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of individualized versus non-individualized HIIT programming, based on players' locomotor profiles, on the magnitude of adaptations in aerobic, anaerobic, and neuromuscular capacities. A randomized, controlled, parallel-group design was conducted with 46 male youth soccer players (age: 16.5 ± 0.5 years), who were allocated into four groups: individualized HIIT (HIITind), long-interval HIIT only (HIITlong), repeated sprint training only (RST), and a control group that maintained regular training without any HIIT intervention. In the HIITind group, players were assigned to either HIITlong or RST based on their locomotor profile - endurance or speed-oriented - determined by the difference between maximal sprint speed (MSS) and maximal aerobic speed (MAS), respectively. In contrast, players in the HIITlong and RST groups followed the same protocol regardless of their profile. The training intervention lasted six weeks, with sessions conducted twice per week. Players were assessed at baseline and post-intervention for countermovement jump (CMJ), MSS over 30 meters (km/h), repeated sprint ability (RSA), and MAS, using the 5-minute running test. Significant improvements were found in all training groups compared to the control. RST showed greater improvements in CMJ (p < 0.001), MSS (p < 0.001), anaerobic speed reserve (ASR) (p < 0.001), and RSAmean (p < 0.001) compared to HIITind and HIITlong. No significant differences were observed between HIITind and HIITlong. Locomotor profiles influenced MSS (p < 0.001) and ASR (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that while both individualized and non-individualized HIIT protocols improve physical capacities, RST offers superior benefits for anaerobic and neuromuscular adaptations, whereas both HIITind and long are more effective than RST for enhancing aerobic capacity, with no significant differences observed between them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.