A comparison of training modality and total genotype scores to enhance sport-Specific biomotor abilities in under 19 male soccer players

Bruce Suraci, Charlie Quigley, Richard Thelwell, Gemma Milligan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

82 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Soccer-specific training (SST) and small-sided games (SSGs) have been shown to develop physical proficiency in soccer. Research on genetics and epigenetics in the prescription of training is limited. The aims of this study were to compare the impact of three different SST/SSG methods and investigate if a total genotype score (TGS) influences training response. Subjects (n = 30 male soccer players, mean ± SD; age 17.2 ± 0.9 years, stature = 172.6 ± 6.2 cm; body mass = 71.7 ± 10.1 kg) were stratified into a ‘power’ (PG) or ‘endurance’ (EG) gene profile group, where a 15 Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) panel was used to produce algorithmically weighted TGS. Training 1 (T1 – SSGs only), Training 2 (T2 – SSGs / SST) and Training 3 (T3 – SST only) were completed (in that respective order), lasting 8 weeks each, interspersed by 4-week washouts. Acceleration (10 m sprint) was improved by T2 only (1.84 ± 0.09 s v 1.73 ± 0.05 s; Effect Size (ES) = 1.59, p < 0.001). Speed (30 m sprint) was improved by T2 (4.46 ± 0.22 s v 4.30 ± 0.19 s; ES = 0.81, p < 0.001) and T3 (4.48 ± 0.22 s v 4.35 ± 0.21 s; ES = 0.58, p < 0.001). Agility (T-test) was improved by T1 (10.14 ± 0.40 s v 9.84 ± 0.42 s; ES = 0.73, p < 0.05) and T3 (9.93 ± 0.38 s v 9.66 ± .45 s; ES = 0.66, p < 0.001). Endurance (Yo-Yo Level 1) was improved by T1 (1682.22 ± 497.23 m v 2028.89 ± 604.74 m; ES = 0.63, p < 0.05), T2 (1904.35 ± 526.77 m v 2299.13 ± 606.97 m; ES = 0.69, p < 0.001) and T3 (1851.76 ± 490.46 m v 2024.35 ± 588.13 m; ES = 0.35, p < 0.05). Power (Countermovement Jump) was improved by T3 only (36.01 ± 5.73 cm v 37.14 ± 5.62 cm; ES = 0.20, p < 0.05). There were no differences in T1, T2 and T3 combined when comparing PG and EG. The PG reported significantly (X2 ¬20)) = 4.42, p = 0.035, ES = 0.48) better training responses to T3 for power than the EG. These results demonstrate the efficacy of SSGs and SSTs in developing biomotor abilities. Although these results refute talent identification through the use of a TGS, there may be use in aligning training method to TGS to develop power-based qualities in soccer.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Early online date27 Nov 2019
DOIs
Publication statusEarly online - 27 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of training modality and total genotype scores to enhance sport-Specific biomotor abilities in under 19 male soccer players'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this