Comparison of the Linear versus Non-Linear Repeated Sprint Training on Lower Limb Sports Performance Tasks in Team Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Seyyed Hadi Asghari, Alexei Wong, Paul Comfort et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared linear with non-linear repeated sprint training in competitive team-sport athletes. It included 13 randomized controlled trials involving 253 athletes and assessed sprint, change-of-direction, aerobic, repeated-sprint, and countermovement-jump outcomes. Non-linear training had a larger pooled effect for repeated-sprint ability (SMDC = 1.210; 95% CI: 0.559 to 1.861). Estimates also favored non-linear training for short sprint time and change of direction, but their confidence intervals included no effect. Linear training showed a pooled advantage for countermovement jump, also with a confidence interval including no effect.
Key findings
- Non-linear training favored repeated-sprint ability: SMDC = 1.210; 95% CI: 0.559 to 1.861.
- Short sprint time favored non-linear training (SMDC = 0.479; 95% CI: - 0.077 to 1.034), with larger effects reported in male athletes and high-volume or ≥ 12-session programs.
- Change-of-direction performance favored non-linear training (SMDC = 0.601; 95% CI: - 0.131 to 1.332), although the confidence interval included no effect.
- Countermovement jump favored linear training (SMDC = 0.418; 95% CI: - 0.236 to 1.072); the high-volume subgroup showed a large, statistically significant effect.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that the relative performance effects of repeated sprint training may depend on the outcome being targeted: non-linear protocols appear more favorable for repeated-sprint ability, while linear protocols may better support jump performance. This distinction can inform interpretation of training studies and the selection of sport-specific training goals, while the uncertain estimates for several outcomes warrant caution.
What to keep in mind
The review reports heterogeneity in outcome measures and training protocols, predominantly soccer-based and male samples, limited external-load reporting, and variable aerobic and repeated-sprint assessment methods, which may limit generalizability and mechanistic interpretation.