Sports Med 2012; 42 (2): 169-173
CORRESPONDENCE
Should We be
Recommending
Repeated Sprints to
Improve Repeated-Sprint
Performance?
I also read with great interest the second part
of the recent review by Bishop et al., of repeated-
sprint (RS) ability (RSA).[1] While the authors
identified how clear and objective recommend-
ations for training were effectively lacking,[1]
I wish to provide an alternative analysis of the lit-
erature, which may have slightly different impli-
cations for training recommendations.
Is RS training (RST; as a mixed training ap-
proach, targeting both neuromuscular and meta-
bolic systems simultaneously) a worthwhile training
practice, compared with isolated training con-
tents (i.e. neuromuscular- or metabolic-oriented
sessions), to improve run-based RS performance?
This is a difficult question to answer, but an at-
tempt to do so should take the following points
into account. First, since all training interven-
tions in team sport players are implemented in-
season, it is impossible to examine the specific
effect of RST. Therefore, the emphasis should be
exclusively put on the comparison of changes
observed following two additional training pro-
grammes implemented concurrently. Comparing
the effect of an additional RST period with a
control period[2] is not very informative, since it is
evident that a greater training stimulus would lead
to a greater performance improvement. Second,
especially because of strong similarities between RS
tests and RST routines (e.g. shuttle sprints[3-6] or
circuits[2]), there is a feeling that the effectiveness of
RST may have been overestimated. Because of
training specificity, players in the RST groups are
more likely to show improvements in RS tests than
others. For example, in the study by Bravo et al.,[3]
the players in the RST group performed 42 RS
sequences with change of direction (COD) [6 40 m
shuttles, for a total of 252 sprints including 468
0112-1642/12/0002-0169/$49.95/0
2012 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
CODs at maximal speed]. There was no COD for
the other group. Despite the usual familiarization
procedures, a learning effect (e.g. improvement in
test-specific coordination and COD ability, pacing
strategies, etc.) was therefore very likely with
training repetition. In support of this hypothesis, a
progressive improvement in RS performance has
been observed when RS tests are repeated.[7]
In the only two studies to date where the effect
of RST has been compared with more neuro-
muscular-oriented programmes in team sport
players,[4,5] results have been contrasting. How-
ever, when analysing the changes in the different
determinants of RS performance individually,
results are more evident. RST was apparently
better than explosive strength training for devel-
oping RS performance.[4] However, since (i) both
training programmes induced similar improve-
ments in linear sprinting speed (figure 1A, right
panel); and (ii) explosive strength training in-
cluded very short sprints only and limited COD
work, the greater improvement in RS performance
after RST was very likely related to an improved
test-specific coordination, as discussed above. In
support of this, a speed/agility training programme
targeting the development of COD speed more
precisely, resulted in greater improvements in both
linear sprinting speed and RS performance than
RST.[5] Taken together, these data suggest that
RST is likely effective at improving pre-planned
COD speed, but not for developing linear speed
qualities and RSA per se. Therefore, the suggestion
of using repeated-sprint training to improve
sprint performance (p. 750[1]) is misleading.
Similar comments can be made when comparing
RST with high-intensity interval training (HIT).
While RST has a likely greater effect on best and
mean sprint times than HIT (figure 1A, left panel),
these improvements occur with (i) similar improve-
ments in linear sprinting speed[3,6,11] (figure 1A, right
panel; (ii) similar[3,12] or lower[11] improvements
in RSA [i.e. %Dec, figure 1B, left panel] than with
HIT; and (iii) similar[6,12] or lower
.
[3,11]
improvements
in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max, figure 1B, right
panel) than with HIT. Again, this suggests that the
greater improvement in RS performance following
RST is more likely related to the training specificity
of RST and testing, rather than to improvements in
170 Letter to the Editor

A Isolated RST/SIT Isolated

RST/SIT
training contents (mixed training contents) training contents

Neuromuscular
20 m
1 (RST vs con)

oriented
2 (RST vs ES no sprint >5 m)
10 m 30 m
3 (SIT vs S/A) *
20 m
4 (RST vs submax tennis-HIT)
10 m
5 (RST vs submax HIT no COD)
Metabolic

10 m
oriented

6 (RST vs supramax HIT + COD) * Mean RS time Straight-line speed

7 (RST vs HIT)

Combined

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 8 6 4 2 0 2 4
Difference in the effect (%) Difference in the effect (%)

B Isolated Isolated
RST/SIT RST/SIT
training contents training contents
Neuromuscular

c
1 (RST vs con)
oriented

2 (RST vs ES no sprint >5 m)

b
3 (SIT vs S/A)
a
4 (RST vs submax tennis-HIT) .
%Dec VO2max a
Metabolic

5 (RST vs submax HIT no COD)

oriented

b
6 (RST vs supramax HIT + COD)
a
7 (RST vs HIT)

Combined

250 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

Difference in the effect (%) Difference in the effect (%)

Fig. 1. Effect of different training regimens on repeated-sprint (RS) performance. Difference (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) in the effect of
RS training (RST) and sprint interval training (SIT) [both considered as mixed training contents] in comparison with that of isolated training
contents such as speed/agility (S/A), explosive strength (ES) or high-intensity running (HIT) including changes of direction (COD) or. not, on
(A)
. mean RS time, straight-line speed, .and (B) speed decrement during repeated sprints (%Dec) and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max).
VO2max data: (a) direct oxygen uptake (VO2) measures; . (b) estimated from the changes in the final speed reached at the end of the 3015
intermittent fitness test,[8] which is largely related
. to VO2max; (c) estimated from the changes in the final speed reached at the end of the 20 m
[9]
shuttle-run test, which is largely related to VO2max. The asterisks highlight isolated training contents, which included COD at high speeds.
The two vertical sets of dashed lines represent the . smallest worthwhile change, based on the usual between-subject SD for these variables
(mean RS time, straight-line sprinting speed and VO2max) or 0.5 coefficient of variation derived from reliability studies (%Dec). When individual
group data were not reported in the case of a nonsignificant interaction, the effect was deemed to be null (e.g. %Dec for[2,10]) with CIs adjusted
based on the overall response throughout the different studies. 1 = Walklate et al.;[2] 2 = Buchheit et al.;[4] 3 = Buchheit et al.;[5] 4 = Fernandez-
Fernandez et al.;[6] 5 = Bravo et al.;[3] 6 = Buchheit et al.;[11] 7 = Schneiker and Bishop;[12] Con = control, i.e. normal training.

RSA per se. In support of this idea, the only HIT Finally, if sessions targeting isolated physio-
programme that was more effective than RST for logical capacities need to be implemented, it is
improving RS performance included COD at high important to consider the best predictors of RS
speeds (study 6 in figure 1).[11] From a practical performance. While it is clear that maximal
perspective, while the well-known physiological sprinting speed is the strongest determinant,[1] the
and performance adaptations observed after relative importance of other parameters
. such as
isolated HIT training are likely beneficial for a maximal aerobic speed. (MAS), VO2max, and on-
wide range of effort sequences during a game and off-O2 uptake (VO2) kinetics have been
(although this is position specific[13]), whether the overlooked.[1] It was recently shown in 61 team
(somewhat limited) physiological and performance sport players that the locomotor profile of the
changes observed after RST can be transferred to players (i.e. determined by sprinting speed and
field performance through improvements in other incremental test speed, which was used as an
motion patterns, is unknown. indirect measure of MAS) was the exclusive

2012 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2012; 42 (2)
Letter to the Editor
predictor of RS performance (stepwise regression
analysis).[14]
. In contrast, metabolic . variables
such as VO2max and on- and off-VO2 kinetics
(measured at the onset and after submaximal
exercise only, which is a limitation) were excluded
from the model. Whilst surprising, this study was
the first to highlight the greater . importance of
MAS compared with that of VO2max and meta-
bolic control for greater RS performance. A
faster MAS is associated with a lower relative
exercise intensity during the between-sprint re-
covery periods and reduces the proportion of the
anaerobic reserve[15] that is used during the RS
exercise.[16] This likely results in a lower anaero-
bic system participation and diminished local
peripheral physiological disturbance and, in turn,
a better RSA. In a practical way, these data sug-
gest that the development of these two key run-
ning speeds (maximal sprinting speed and MAS)
should be targeted first when the goal is to de-
velop RS performance in team sport players. All
additional training strategies targeting specific
physiological adaptations (e.g. buffer capacity or
phosphocreatine resynthesis) are also obviously
welcomed.[1]
To conclude, a combination of all training
methods is probably the best option in real prac-
tice.[1] I will always keep in my records the 20045
season of my former Handball team (Selestat, First
French League), when, as a strength and con-
ditioning coach, I almost exclusively implemented
RST during the preparatory phase. While there
is obviously no direct link between the players
physical capacities and the game outcomes, the
team had the worst start to the season in years
(possible interference phenomenon[17]). Interest-
ingly, the team became much more successful
during the second part of the season, when hand-
ball specific but isolated speed and HIT training
sessions were implemented. The aforementioned
limitations of RST notwithstanding, practitioners
proceeding to implement RST should consider
variations in terms of sprint running patterns,[18,19]
sprint duration : rest ratio[20] and/or between-sprint
recovery and duration[21] and intensity,[10] to more
optimally manipulate both the systemic and pe-
ripheral stress and, in turn, to target specific
adaptations. Further research in elite athletes is
2012 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
171
needed to determine how to best periodize these
different training contents.
Martin Buchheit
Physiology Unit, Sport Science Department, Aspire,
Academy for Sports Excellence, Doha, Qatar
Acknowledgements
The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly
relevant to the content of this letter.
References
1. Bishop D, Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A. Repeated-sprint
ability: part II. Recommendations for training. Sports Med
2011; 41: 741-56
2. Walklate BM, OBrien BJ, Paton CD, et al. Supplementing
regular training with short-duration sprint-agility training
leads to a substantial increase in repeated sprint-agility
performance with national level badminton players.
J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 1477-81
3. Bravo DF, Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, et al. Sprint vs. in-
terval training in football. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 668-74
4. Buchheit M, Mendez-Villanueva A, Delhomel G, et al. Im-
proving repeated sprint ability in young elite soccer players:
repeated sprints vs. explosive strength training. J Strength
Cond Res 2010; 24: 2715-22
5. Buchheit M, Mendez-Villanueva A, Quod MJ, et al. Improv-
ing acceleration and repeated sprint ability in well-trained
adolescent handball players: speed vs. sprint interval train-
ing. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 152-64
6. Fernandez-Fernandez J, Zimek R, Wiewelhove T, et al.
High-intensity interval training vs. repeated-sprint training
in tennis. J Strength Cond Res. Epub 2011 Sep 13
7. Glaister M, Howatson G, Lockey RA, et al. Familiarization
and reliability of multiple sprint running performance
indices. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 857-9
8. Buchheit M, Al Haddad H, Lepretre PM, et al. Cardior-
espiratory and cardiac autonomic responses to 30-15 inter-
mittent fitness test. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: 93-100
9. Leger LA, Lambert JA. Maximal multistage 20-m shuttle
run test to predict VO2 max. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 1982; 49: 1-12
10. Buchheit M, Cormie P, Abbiss CR, et al. Muscle deox-
ygenation during repeated sprint running: effect of active
vs. passive recovery. Int J Sports Med 2009; 30: 418-25
11. Buchheit M, Millet GP, Parisy A, et al. Supramaximal
training and post-exercise parasympathetic reactivation in
adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008; 40: 362-71
12. Schneiker KT, Bishop D. The effects oh high-intensity in-
terval training vs intermittent sprint training on physio-
logical capacities important for team sport performance.
In: Burnett A, editor. Science and nutrition in exercise and
sport. Melbourne (VIC): Exerc Sport Sci Aust, 2008
13. Buchheit M, Mendez-Villanueva A, Simpson BM, et al.
Match running performance and fitness in youth soccer.
Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 818-25
Sports Med 2012; 42 (2)
172
14. Buchheit M. Repeated-sprint performance in team sport play-
ers: associations with measures of aerobic fitness, metabolic
control and locomotor function. Int J Sports Med. In press
15. Bundle MW, Hoyt RW, Weyand PG. High-speed running
performance: a new approach to assessment and predic-
tion. J Appl Physiol 2003; 95: 1955-62
16. Mendez-Villanueva A, Hamer P, Bishop D. Fatigue in repeated-
sprint exercise is related to muscle power factors and reduced
neuromuscular activity. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008; 103: 411-9
17. Docherty D, Sporer B. A proposed model for examining the
interference phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and
strength training. Sports Med 2000; 30: 385-94
18. Buchheit M, Bishop D, Haydar B, et al. Physiological re-
sponses to shuttle repeated-sprint running. Int J Sports
Med 2010; 31: 402-9
19. Buchheit M. Performance and physiological responses to
repeated-sprint and jump sequences. Eur J Appl Physiol
2010; 101: 1007-18
20. Little T, Williams AG. Effects of sprint duration and exercise:
rest ratio on repeated sprint performance and physiological
responses in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
2007; 21: 646-8
21. Glaister M, Stone MH, Stewart AM, et al. The influence of
recovery duration on multiple sprint cycling performance.
J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 831-7
The Authors Response
Part II
It is difficult to respond to the comments of
Dr Buchheit on part II of our review (recommen-
dations for training),[1] as it seems that we either
(a) agree, or (b) are talking about different aspects
of performance. For example, Dr Buchheit begins
his letter by suggesting that an alternative anal-
ysis of the literature may have slightly different
implications for training recommendations.
However, he then concludes his letter by citing his
own anecdotal evidence on the benefits of iso-
lated speed and HIT training sessions, and re-
plicating the conclusions made in our review.
Dr Buchheit also suggests that. we have overlooked
the relative
. importance of VO2max and on- and
off-VO2 kinetics, but proceeds to cite his own
research (in press[2]) in which these very same
variables were excluded from a model that pre-
dicted repeated-sprint performance. He does add
the interesting observation that in one yet-to-be
published article, an indirect measure of maximum
2012 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Letter to the Editor
aerobic speed (MAS) predicted repeated-sprint
performance. However, it is somewhat trivial to
suggest that we have overlooked his unpub-
lished results. Furthermore, while he provides no
concrete recommendations for how to improve
MAS, the interval training that we recommend
will also improve MAS.[3] Thus, once again, his
recommendations for training maximal running
speed and MAS are virtually identical to ours
some training to improve single-sprint perfor-
mance and some interval training to best improve
the ability to recover between sprints. However,
we would be more circumspect than to base train-
ing recommendations (i.e. the need to improve
MAS) on the regression-analysis results of one
study. Instead, we base our recommendation con-
cerning the utility of interval training on its abil-
ity to affect multiple physiological variables that
have been associated with repeated-sprint ability
(RSA).[4]
We disagree with Dr Buchheits jaundiced in-
terpretation of our discussion of the repeated-
sprint training literature. We clearly state that
It is therefore difficult to make solid conclu-
sions about the benefits of repeated-sprint train-
ing in comparison to other types of training[1]
(p. 748). Furthermore, while we do conclude that
the literature suggests that repeated-sprint train-
ing can produce improvements in sprint perfor-
mance, the two key recommendations in our
summary do not include the use of repeated-
sprint training.
Dr Buchheits alternative analysis of the lit-
erature seems to be influenced by an emphasis
on the results of studies that have used shuttle
sprints in both training and testing. We agree
that it is very likely that issues of improved test-
specific coordination may affect repeated-sprint
tests that incorporate a change of direction (COD)
[i.e. shuttle sprints]. We also agree that repeated-
sprint training that incorporates COD is more
likely to improve RSA involving COD, and may
not best develop linear speed qualities. In hind-
sight, we should have emphasized these issues
more in our review. However, we would argue
that Dr Buchheits emphasis on the results ob-
tained from studies incorporating a COD (i.e.
shuttle sprints) only distorts and obfuscates our
Sports Med 2012; 42 (2)