TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of training modality and total genotype scores to enhance sport-Specific biomotor abilities in under 19 male soccer players
AU - Suraci, Bruce
AU - Quigley, Charlie
AU - Thelwell, Richard
AU - Milligan, Gemma
PY - 2019/11/27
Y1 - 2019/11/27
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003299
DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003299
M3 - Article
SN - 1064-8011
JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
ER -