ORIGINAL PAPER
Locomotor demands of 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test, Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test, and VAMEVAL test and comparisons with regular locomotor demands in training sessions and matches: a study conducted in youth male soccer players
Ana Filipa Silva
1,2,5
1
Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Viana do Castelo, Portugal
2
Research Center in Sports Performance, Recreation, Innovation and Technology, Melgaço, Portugal
3
Instituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, Covilhã, Portugal
4
Sports Science School of Rio Maior, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Rio Maior, Portugal
5
The Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Vila Real, Portugal
6
Life Quality Research Centre, Rio Maior, Portugal
7
Faculty of Sport Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
8
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
9
Kirkpinar Faculty of Sport Sciences, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
Submission date: 2022-02-02
Acceptance date: 2022-02-23
Publication date: 2022-03-21
Hum Mov. 2023;24(1):67-75
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
The study aim was 2-fold: (i) characterize and compare the locomotor demands of 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (YYIRT), and VAMEVAL test; (ii) compare the locomotor demands of these progressive multistage tests with those of training sessions and matches in youth soccer players.
Methods:
A descriptive case study lasting 3 weeks was performed to implement the tests once and to monitor the locomotor demands in training sessions and matches. Overall, 12 soccer players (age: 18.21 ± 0.34 years) from the same team participated after consideration of inclusion criteria. A Global Positioning System unit was used for each player over the training sessions, matches, and multistage tests to monitor locomotor demands. The following outcomes were extracted: total distance; peak speed; distances covered at 3.00–6.99 km/h (Z1), 7.00–10.99 km/h (Z2), 11.00–14.99 km/h (Z3), 15.00–18.99 km/h (Z4), and 19.00 km/h (Z5); accelerations at 0.50 to 0.99 m/s2 and 1.00 to 1.99 m/s2; and decelerations at –0.99 to –0.50 m/s2 and –1.99 to –1.00 m/s2.
Results:
Significant differences between progressive multistage tests were found in total distance (p = 0.028); distances covered at Z1 (p < 0.001), Z2 (p < 0.001), Z3 (p < 0.001), Z4 (p = 0.009), and Z5 (p = 0.044); accelerations at 0.50 to 0.99 m/s2 (p < 0.001) and 1.00 to 1.99 m/s2 (p < 0.001); and decelerations at –0.99 to –0.50 m/s2 (p < 0.001) and –1.99 to –1.00 m/s2 (p < 0.001). The total distance of the 3 progressive multistage tests may vary between 39% and 49% of a middle training session (match-day 3). However, as for intense locomotor demands at distance covered at Z4, 2 of the field-based tests exceeded a typical match-day 3 between 308 m (+83%) in 30-15IFT and 112 m (+30%) in YYIRT.
Conclusions:
The results suggests that 30-15IFT is more demanding considering high-intensity locomotor activities, while YYIRT and VAMEVAL are more demanding considering moderate locomotor demands. Moreover, specific adjustments in training sessions must be conducted, especially when introducing 30-15IFT and YYIRT since they may exceed the typical doses of distances covered at 11.00–14.99 km/h and 15.00–18.99 km/h.
The study aim was 2-fold: (i) characterize and compare the locomotor demands of 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15IFT), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (YYIRT), and VAMEVAL test; (ii) compare the locomotor demands of these progressive multistage tests with those of training sessions and matches in youth soccer players.
Methods:
A descriptive case study lasting 3 weeks was performed to implement the tests once and to monitor the locomotor demands in training sessions and matches. Overall, 12 soccer players (age: 18.21 ± 0.34 years) from the same team participated after consideration of inclusion criteria. A Global Positioning System unit was used for each player over the training sessions, matches, and multistage tests to monitor locomotor demands. The following outcomes were extracted: total distance; peak speed; distances covered at 3.00–6.99 km/h (Z1), 7.00–10.99 km/h (Z2), 11.00–14.99 km/h (Z3), 15.00–18.99 km/h (Z4), and 19.00 km/h (Z5); accelerations at 0.50 to 0.99 m/s2 and 1.00 to 1.99 m/s2; and decelerations at –0.99 to –0.50 m/s2 and –1.99 to –1.00 m/s2.
Results:
Significant differences between progressive multistage tests were found in total distance (p = 0.028); distances covered at Z1 (p < 0.001), Z2 (p < 0.001), Z3 (p < 0.001), Z4 (p = 0.009), and Z5 (p = 0.044); accelerations at 0.50 to 0.99 m/s2 (p < 0.001) and 1.00 to 1.99 m/s2 (p < 0.001); and decelerations at –0.99 to –0.50 m/s2 (p < 0.001) and –1.99 to –1.00 m/s2 (p < 0.001). The total distance of the 3 progressive multistage tests may vary between 39% and 49% of a middle training session (match-day 3). However, as for intense locomotor demands at distance covered at Z4, 2 of the field-based tests exceeded a typical match-day 3 between 308 m (+83%) in 30-15IFT and 112 m (+30%) in YYIRT.
Conclusions:
The results suggests that 30-15IFT is more demanding considering high-intensity locomotor activities, while YYIRT and VAMEVAL are more demanding considering moderate locomotor demands. Moreover, specific adjustments in training sessions must be conducted, especially when introducing 30-15IFT and YYIRT since they may exceed the typical doses of distances covered at 11.00–14.99 km/h and 15.00–18.99 km/h.
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Hoff J. Training and testing physical capacities for elite soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):573–582; doi: 10.1080/02640410400021252.
2.
Turner A, Walker S, Stembridge M, Coneyworth P, Reed G, Birdsey L, et al. A testing battery for the assessment of fitness in soccer players. Strength Cond J. 2011;33(5):29–39; doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e31822fc80a.
3.
Svensson M, Drust B. Testing soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):601–618; doi: 10.1080/02640410400021294.
4.
Mendez-Villanueva A, Buchheit M, Kuitunen S, Poon TK, Simpson B, Peltola E. Is the relationship between sprinting and maximal aerobic speeds in young soccer players affected by maturation? Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2010;22(4):497–510; doi: 10.1123/pes.22.4.497.
5.
Bok D, Foster C. Applicability of field aerobic fitness tests in soccer: which one to choose? J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021;6(3):69; doi: 10.3390/jfmk6030069.
6.
Schmitz B, Pfeifer C, Kreitz K, Borowski M, Faldum A, Brand S-M. The Yo-Yo intermittent tests: a systematic review and structured compendium of test results. Front Physiol. 2018;9:870; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00870.
7.
Grgic J, Oppici L, Mikulic P, Bangsbo J, Krustrup P, Pedisic Z. Test-retest reliability of the Yo-Yo test: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2019;49(10):1547–1557; doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01143-4.
8.
Buchheit M. The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test: 10 year review. Myorobie J. 2010;1:1–9.
9.
Grgic J, Lazinica B, Pedisic Z. Test-retest reliability of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test: a systematic review. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(4):413–418; doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.04.010.
10.
Kaufmann S, Hoos O, Kuehl T, Tietz T, Reim D, Fehske K, et al. Energetic profiles of the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Tests 1 and 2. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(10):1400–1405; doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0702.
11.
Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T, Rysgaard T, Johansen J, Steensberg A, et al. The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test: physiological response, reliability, and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(4):697–705; doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000058441.94520.32.
12.
Buchheit M. The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test: accuracy for individualizing interval training of young intermittent sport players. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(2):365–374; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181635b2e.
13.
Buchheit M, Rabbani A. The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test versus the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1: relationship and sensitivity to training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(3):522–524; doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2012-0335.
14.
Buchheit M, Brown M. Pre-season fitness testing in elite soccer: integrating the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test into the weekly microcycle. Sport Perform Sci Rep. 2020;111:1–3.
15.
Hasan UC, Silva R, Clemente FM. Weekly variations of biomechanical load variables in professional soccer players: comparisons between playing positions. Hum Mov. 2021;22(3):19–34; doi: 10.5114/hm.2021.100321.
16.
Gonçalves L, Camões M, Lima R, Bezerra P, Nikolaidis PT, Rosemann T, et al. Characterization of external load in different types of exercise in professional soccer. Hum Mov. 2022;23(1):89–95; doi: 10.5114/hm.2021.104190.
17.
Clemente FM, González-Fernández FT, Ceylan HI, Silva R, Ramirez-Campillo R. Effects of recreational soccer on fat mass in untrained sedentary adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Mov. 2022;23(3):15–32; doi: 10.5114/hm.2022.109797.
18.
Bizzini M, Impellizzeri FM, Dvorak J, Bortolan L, Schena F, Modena R, et al. Physiological and performance responses to the “FIFA 11+” (part 1): is it an appropriate warm-up? J Sports Sci. 2013;31(13):1481–1490; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.802922.
19.
Cazorla G, Léger L. How to evaluate and develop your aerobic capacity: progressive shuttle run test, progressive VAMEVAL track test [in French]. Cestas: AREAPS; 1993.
20.
Akyildiz Z, Yildiz M, Clemente FM. The reliability and accuracy of Polar Team Pro GPS units. Proc Inst Mech Eng P J Sport Eng Technol. 2020;175433712097666; doi: 10.1177/1754337120976660.
21.
Pereira DG, Afonso A, Medeiros FM. Overview of Friedman’s test and post-hoc analysis. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2015;44(10):2636–2653; doi: 10.1080/03610918.2014.931971.
22.
Younesi S, Rabbani A, Clemente FM, Silva R, Sarmento H, Figueiredo AJ. Dose-response relationships between training load measures and physical fitness in professional soccer players. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8):4321; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084321.
23.
Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test: a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med. 2008;38(1):37–51; doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838010-00004.
24.
Miguel M, Oliveira R, Loureiro N, García-Rubio J, Ibáñez SJ. Load measures in training/match monitoring in soccer: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2721; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052721.
25.
Nédélec M, McCall A, Carling C, Legall F, Berthoin S, Dupont G. Recovery in soccer: Part I – Post-match fatigue and time course of recovery. Sports Med. 2012;42(12):997–1015; doi: 10.2165/11635270-000000000-00000.
26.
Oliveira R, Brito JP, Moreno-Villanueva A, Nalha M, Rico-González M, Clemente FM. Reference values for external and internal training intensity monitoring in young male soccer players: a systematic review. Healthcare. 2021;9(11):1567; doi: 10.3390/healthcare9111567.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
