ArticleJournal of strength and conditioning research2026
Comparing Match-Related Physical Performance Using Arbitrary and Individual Running Speed, Acceleration, and Deceleration Zones in Professional Football Players (Part 1).
Article in Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Aerobic Fitness Is the Main Determinant of Match-Related Physical Performance Decline in Professional Football Players (Part 2).Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026Article
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
abstractAntenucci, L, Schmidt, C, and Malatesta, D. Comparing match-related physical performance using arbitrary and individual running speed, acceleration, and deceleration zones in professional football players (part 1). J Strength Cond Res 40(11): e1182-e1189, 2026-This study aimed to compare match-related physical performance and its match-to-match variability using arbitrary (ARB) and individualized (IND) intensity thresholds for running speed, accelerations (ACC), and decelerations (DEC) in a professional football team. Global navigation satellite system data from an entire Swiss first-division season (30 matches) were analyzed for 14 players. The match-related physical performance was assessed across 4 intensity zones for running speed, ACCs, and DECs: low-speed running, high-speed running (HSR), very high-speed running, sprinting and ACC 1/2/3/4 /DEC 1/2/3/4 . The distance covered and the number of ACCs/DECs in each zone were recorded through 3 thresholds for both ARB (speed: 14.4/19.8/25.2 km·h -1 ; ACCs/DECs: 1.0/2.0/3.0 m·s -2 ) and IND (speed: speed at the second lactate threshold, peak incremental speed, and anaerobic sprint reserve; ACCs/DECs: 25%/50%/75% of maximal ACCs/DECs). Within-player match-to-match variability coefficient of variation was also calculated. Significant differences were found between both methods across all zones ( p ≤ 0.033). Running distances were significantly greater in IND than in ARB for all zones (4.5-110.7%) except HSR (-37.0%). Accelerations/DECs were significantly greater in IND for ACC 1 (74.7%) and DEC 1 (117.9%), but lower for ACC 2/3/4 /DEC 2/3/4 (-16.0% to -96.3%). The number of ACC 4 /DEC 4 was nearly negligible in IND. Coefficients of variation were lower for sprint distance, and greater for ACC 4 /DEC 4 in IND than in ARB. The significant differences between ARB and IND running speed zones suggest that IND method should be used to assess match-related running performance accurately, while ARB method should be used for quantifying the number of ACCs/DECs.
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.