Well-being fluctuations and injuries during an entire season in male professional soccer players: an observational study.

This study aimed to describe and relate the well-being perception and injury incidence of soccer players in an entire soccer season. For 37 weeks, twenty-eight male professional soccer players (25.2 ± 4.3 years old; 22.8 ± 1.4 kg/m2) daily scored (from 1: bad; to 5: perfect) well-being perception (fatigue, sleep, muscle soreness, stress and mood and Hooper Index (HI) as general status). Injuries were also registered. Results showed that players had the lowest well-being perception during Preseason (in terms of HI, fatigue, muscle soreness and stress), being lower than EarlySeason (ps < 0.05, ds > 1.0) and/or InSeason (ps < 0.05, ds > 1.0). The injury incidence was 8.3 ± 9.2/1000 h, being always higher in training compared to competition (35.0 vs 11.1/1000 h). A lower stress perception (worse) correlated with a higher rate of new injuries during PreSeason (r = -0.84), while a greater muscle soreness and fatigue correlated with the new injuries occurring in the following week during the whole season (r = -0.38 and r = -0.39, respectively). As a conclusion, the well-being perception of professional soccer players was especially low during Preseason, with fatigue, muscle soreness and stress as the most affected items that correlated with injury incidence.

Low-load strength resistance training with blood flow restriction compared with high-load strength resistance training on performance of professional soccer players: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of low-load blood flow restriction strength resistance training (LL-BFR) compared to high load strength resistance training (HL) on performance of professional soccer players. METHODS: Eighteen male players from National Soccer Professional League were randomly allocated into two groups: LL-BFR, who performed a 6-weeks strength training program with low load (20-35% of one-repetition maximum-[1RM]), or HL, who performed a 6-week resistance training program with high load (70-85% 1RM). Before and after, thigh girth, vertical jump, lower limb strength, vertical force-velocity profile (F-v), and 30-m sprint were evaluated. RESULTS: After the training program, both LL-BFR and HL induced significant increases compared to baseline in thigh girth (+3.3% for LL-BFR and +3.1% for HL) and maximal velocity during sprinting (+6.0 and +6.2%, respectively), without between-group differences. In reference to FV, only HL players improved imbalance (-54.4%), maximal theoretical force production (+10.4%) and decreased extension velocity (-20.5%) compared to baseline, without between-group differences. Only LL-BFR induced increases in maximum voluntary contraction of left hamstring compared to baseline (+13.8%), without between-group differences. No differences were shown for the rest of variables (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although LL-BFR may increase muscle circumference and sprint ability, these results are similar to those induced with HL in male professional soccer. In terms of F-v, only HL induced improvements, but these changes were not greater than those observed after LL-BFR.

Blood Flow Restriction Is Not Useful as Soccer Competition Recovery in Youth Male National-Level Soccer Players: A Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial.

In soccer, blood flow restriction (BFR) is used to optimise between-match recovery. However, the benefits are unclear. This study evaluated the effects of BFR as a recovery strategy after a competition on countermovement jump (CMJ) height, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and the wellness of soccer players. Forty national-level soccer players were allocated into two conditions: BFR (an active recovery session wearing a BFR device, 24 h after a competition) or NoBFR (the same recovery without BFR). CMJ, RPE and wellness were evaluated the day (CMJ and RPE) or the morning (wellness) before the competition; just after the competition (CMJ and RPE); and 24, 48 (wellness) and 72 h later. After 4 weeks, the players changed conditions. All players showed impaired CMJ (p = 0.013), RPE (p < 0.001) and wellness (p < 0.001) after the match compared with the baseline. The CMJ returned to the baseline 24 h later and wellness returned 48 h later. Only in the BFR condition did the RPE remain impaired 24 h after the match, which was also the moment after finishing the BFR recovery session (p < 0.001). BFR during active recovery does not provide any additional benefits compared with traditional exercise modalities to recover CMJ, RPE and wellness in youth national-level soccer players. BFR could even induce an immediate higher RPE.

Blood flow restriction during training for improving the aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: /Objective: Combining blood flow restriction (BFR) with endurance training is exponentially increasing although the benefits are unclear in trained athletes. We aimed to describe the effects of aerobic and/or anaerobic training programmes combined with BFR on the aerobic capacity and related sport performance of trained athletes. Methods: Databases used were MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, LILACS, IBECS, CINHAL, COCHRANE, SCIELO and PEDro, through October 2021. For study selection, criteria included (a) clinical trials that recruited trained healthy athletes, that (b) proposed BFR in combination with aerobic/anaerobic training programmes (≥8 sessions) and that (c) evaluated either aerobic capacity or related sport performance. For data extraction, a reviewer extracted the data, and another reviewer independently verified it. The tool RoB 2 (Risk of bias 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria, capturing a total of 207 participants. Although it did not reveal any significant effects from training with BFR on aerobic capacity compared to the same training without BFR, effect sizes were extremely high. Subgroup analyses according to the intensity of the training programmes found similar results for low-to-moderate or high-intensity training compared to the same sessions without BFR. Conclusion: Although adding BFR to training sessions always produce benefits from baseline in aerobic capacity and sport performance of trained athletes, these results are not better than those observed after the same training sessions without BFR. The reduced number of studies, small sample sizes and some concerns regarding risk of bias should be highlighted as limitations. Registration number: CRD42021248212.