Background: Proprioception, the ability to sense the body’s position and movement, is essential for athletic performance and physical well-being. The literature highlights the importance of proprioceptive training in rehabilitation, sports performance, injury prevention, and motor function enhancement. Targeted training programs can improve balance, coordination, motor learning, and overall physical performance. This systematic review aimed to examine the effects of proprioceptive training methods on sports and athletic performance. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases, and a literature review was performed based on the PICO criteria outlined in the abstract and title. Results: Following the search, 178 articles were identified using relevant keywords, of which 19 directly addressed sports performance and were included in this study. The findings revealed that proprioceptive training had a positive influence on various aspects of athletic performance, including physiological capacity, balance, explosive strength, speed, agility, postural stability, knee joint position sense, muscle activation, reduction of chronic joint instability, dribbling, passing, and technical ball-control skills. Conclusions: These results indicate that proprioceptive training can be an effective strategy for experts and coaches to enhance athletes’ physical performance. Primarily, proprioceptive exercises should be used inside and outside the training sessions to enable athletes to interact more effectively with their bodies, reduce the risk of injury, and improve power transfer.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of the 6-week small-sided games training (SSGs) vs. high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on the psychophysiological and performance responses, and technical skills of young basketball players. Thirty-two male players (age: 14.5 ± 0.5 years of age) were randomly divided into SSGs group (n = 16) and HIIT group (n = 16) training methods thrice per week for 6 weeks. The players in the SSGs group performed two 5–8 min of 2 vs. 2 with 2 min rest periods, while the players in HIIT performed 12–18 min of runs at intensities (90 to 95%) related to the velocity obtained in the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (IFT). Pre-testing and post-testing sessions involved assessments of Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1, 30-15 intermittent fitness test, 5 and 30 m sprint times, vertical jump height, repeated sprint ability, defensive and offensive agility, and technical skills. The SSGs group demonstrated significantly higher agility-based technical responses in terms of the control dribbling and shooting skills (d = 1.71 vs. 0.20, d = 1.41 vs. 0.35, respectively) compared with the HIIT group. Conversely, the HIIT induced greater improvements in 30 m sprint times (d = 3.15 vs. 0.68). These findings provided that SSGs in youth basketball players may allow similar positive physical adaptations to HIIT, with an extra advantage of improving technical skills while improving enjoyability.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of mental fatigue (MF) on the psychophysiological responses, kinematic profiles, and technical performance of young soccer players in small-sided games (SSGs). Twenty-four young soccer players (age: 15.9 ± 1.0 years) played 2vs2, 3vs3, and 4vs4...

Background: The aim of this study was two-fold: (i) analyze the within-group physical fitness adaptations promoted by a detraining period (4 weeks) followed by an intervention period (4 weeks) using small-sided games (SSGs) or running-based high intensity interval training (HIIT); and (ii) analyze the between-group differences aiming to identify the effectiveness of each training intervention on the physical fitness of youth male soccer players. Methods: This study followed a randomized parallel study design. Forty male soccer players (age: 16.4 ± 0.5 years old) were assessed three times: (i) baseline; (ii) after 4 weeks of detraining; and (iii) after a retraining period of 4 weeks. After returning from detraining, players were randomized to an SSG-based training intervention (n = 20) or running-based HIIT (n = 20). Interventions lasted 4 weeks, with a training frequency of three sessions per week. At all timepoints, players were assessed by: (i) anthropometry (height, body mass, fat mass (FM)), countermovement jump (CMJ), standing broad jump (SBJ), triple hop jump (THJ), linear sprint test (5-, 10-, and 20-m), zig-zag test with (ZZwB) and without (ZZwoB) ball, three corner run test (3CRT), Y-balance test and the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1 (YYIRT). Mixed ANOVA (time * group) was conducted for testing interactions between the three timepoints of repeated measures and the two groups. Effect size (ES) for pairwise comparisons was calculated using Cohen’s. Results: Between-group analysis revealed significantly smaller SBJ (t = −2.424, p = 0.020, d = −0.767 small ES) and THT (t = −4.353, p < 0.001, d = −1.376 large ES) in the SSG group after the retraining period. At the same time, SSG presented significantly greater FM after retraining compared to HIIT (t = 3.736, p < 0.001, d = 1.181 large ES). Additionally, SSG had significantly smaller values than HIIT in the ZZwB (t = −3.645, p < 0.001, d = −1.153 large ES), but greater times in the ZZwoB (t = 2.679, p = 0.011, d = 0.847 large ES) and 3CRT (t = 3.126, p = 0.003, d = 0.989 large ES). Conclusions: Although SSG and HIIT interventions improved physical fitness outcomes after a period of detraining, they were not able to effectively restore body composition, CMJ, 20-m sprint, ZZwB, and YYIRT compared with the baseline assessments (before detraining). Only HIIT was significantly effective for restoring SBJ, short linear sprin speed, and change-of-direction compared with baseline. HIIT was also significantly better than SSG in improving SBJ and ZZwoB. Although the small sample, the non determination of maturation status and the need to be cautious regarding generalization, HIIT appears to be more beneficial than SSG after a detraining period for recovery of body composition and physical fitness qualities in this specific context of youth soccer players.

This study aimed to compare the order effects of combined small-sided games (SSGs) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on the psychophysiological responses and physical and technical performances of young soccer players. Twenty-four soccer players (aged 14.63 ± 0.71 years) were randomly divided into SSGs + HIIT (n = 12) and HIIT + SSGs (n = 12) for 6 weeks. The SSGs consisted of two 4–16 min rounds of 2, 3, and four-a-side games with 2 min of passive resting, whereas the HIIT consisted of 6–10 min of high-intensity runs at varying intensities (from 90 to 100%). Pre-test and post-test elements included a 5–30 m sprint test, countermovement jump test, zigzag agility test with the ball and without the ball, repeated sprint ability test, speed dribbling ability test, three-corner run test, and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1. Both combined training interventions produced similar improvements in physical performance and technical responses (p ≥ 0.05, d values ranging from 0.40 to 1.10). However, the combined HIIT + SSGs training produced meaningfully lower perceived exertion (p = 0.00, d = 2.98) and greater physical enjoyment (p = 0.00, d = 4.28) compared with the SSGs + HIIT intervention. Furthermore, the SSGs + HIIT group showed a higher training load than those from the HIIT + SSGs group for all weeks (p ≤ 0.05, d values ranging from 1.36 to 2.05). The present study’s results might be used by coaches and practitioners to design training programmes for youth soccer players.

This study aimed to compare the effects of 8-week self-paced high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. self-paced moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on the physical performance and psychophysiological responses of young adults. Twenty-eight recreationally active young adults (age:...