Author(s): GRASSICK, S., Ó CATHÁIN, C., KELLY, D., NÍ CHÉILLEACHAIR, N., Institution: TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE SHANNON: MIDLANDS MIDWEST, ATHLONE CAMPUS, Country: IRELAND, Abstract-ID: 2213

INTRODUCTION:
Field-based invasion team sports (FITS), including camogie, require a combination of endurance, speed, and power to complement technical and tactical performance (Connors et al., 2022). High-intensity interval training (HIIT), characterized by alternating bouts of near maximal/maximal exercise with recovery, is a popular conditioning method within FITS (Laursen and Buchheit, 2019). However, limited research has compared the effects of different types of HIIT on the physical performance of FITS players. Therefore this study aimed to compare the effects of sprint interval training (SIT) versus short intervals (SIs) on female FITS players.
METHODS:
Eighteen inter-county camogie players were randomly assigned to a SIT (n = 10) or SI’s (n = 8) group for 6 weeks. The SIT group performed 6-8 120m all-out sprints with 3 minutes recovery twice per week. The SI’s group completed 4-5 sets of 6x15s runs at 120% maximal aerobic speed (MAS) with 15s rest between reps and 2 minutes recovery between sets twice per week. Pre and post-test measures included the YoYo-intermittent recovery test level 1 (YYIR1), repeated sprint ability (RSA), MAS, speed and jump performance. Physical outputs including total distance, high speed running (HSR), accelerations, decelerations and number of sprints were also assessed for each group using individual Global Positioning System devices during each training session.
RESULTS:
A significant group x time interaction for YYIR1 was observed (p < .032). Specifically, SIT (p < .001) led to a significantly greater improvement compared to SIs (p = 0.006). No interaction effects were observed for any other measure. A significant main effect for time was observed for MAS (p < .001), RSA percentage decrement (p < .001) and RSA mean time (p = .005). However, no significant changes were found in RSA best, RSA overall time, sprint performance, or jump performance. Significant differences were observed among the physical outputs between the training groups, with the SI’s group covering significantly more total distance (p = .014) and engaging in significantly more HSR (p <.001). However, the SIT group completed significantly more accelerations (p < .001) and decelerations (p < .001) compared to SI’s.
CONCLUSION:
The results of this study highlight the effectiveness of both SIT and SI’s in improving key components of fitness associated with FITS performance. However, the findings indicate that SIT is a significantly more effective approach in enhancing the aerobic capacity of FITS players. Notably, given the significant differences in the physical outputs between the two groups, coaches must carefully evaluate the players training load and the stage of the season when determining the most appropriate training method. Therefore, both SIT and SIs serve as valuable tools for FITS coaches as they target multiple fitness components, optimizing training efficiency.