Search

Purpose To examine the skeletal muscle and performance responses across two different exercise training modalities which are highly applied in soccer training. Methods Using an RCT design, 39 well-trained male soccer players were randomized into either a speed endurance training (SET; n = 21) or a small-sided game group (SSG; n = 18). Over 4 weeks, thrice weekly, SET performed 6–10 × 30-s all-out runs with 3-min recovery, while SSG completed 2 × 7–9-min small-sided games with 2-min recovery. Muscle biopsies were obtained from m. vastus lateralis pre and post intervention and were subsequently analysed for metabolic enzyme activity and muscle protein expression. Moreover, the Yo–Yo Intermittent Recovery level 2 test (Yo–Yo IR2) was performed. Results Muscle CS maximal activity increased (P P P +–K+ ATPase α1 subunit protein expression increased (P P P P P Conclusion Speed endurance training improved muscle oxidative capacity and exercise performance more pronouncedly than small-sided game training, but comparable responses were in muscle ion transporters and antioxidative capacity in well-trained male soccer players.

Aim: To evaluate whether high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with a lower time commitment can be as effective as endurance training (END) on glycaemic control, physical fitness and body composition in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: A total of 29 individuals with type 2 diabetes were allocated to control (CON; no training), END or HIIT groups. Training groups received 3 training sessions per week consisting of either 40 minutes of cycling at 50% of peak workload (END) or 10 1-minute intervals at 95% of peak workload interspersed with 1 minute of active recovery (HIIT). Glycaemic control (HbA1c, oral glucose tolerance test, 3-hour mixed meal tolerance test with double tracer technique and continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]), lipolysis, VO 2peak and body composition were evaluated before and after 11 weeks of intervention. Results: Exercise training increased VO 2peak more in the HIIT group (20% ± 20%) compared with the END group (8% ± 9%) despite lower total energy expenditure and time usage during the training sessions. HIIT decreased whole body and android fat mass compared with the CON group. In addition, visceral fat mass, HbA1c, fasting glucose, postprandial glucose, glycaemic variability and HOMA-IR decreased after HIIT. The reduced postprandial glucose in the HIIT group was driven primarily by a lower rate of exogenous glucose appearance. In the CON group, postprandial lipolysis was augmented over the 11-week control period. Conclusions: Despite a ~45% lower training volume, HIIT resulted in similar or even better improvements in physical fitness, body composition and glycemic control compared to END. HIIT therefore appears to be an important time-efficient treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes.