Effects of repeated-sprint training on intermittent aerobic endurance, anaerobic performance, and repeated-sprint ability in female collegiate basketball players

Objective: This study examined the effects of a 6-week repeated-sprint training (RST) intervention on intermittent aerobic endurance, anaerobic power, and repeated-sprint ability (RSA) in female collegiate basketball players compared with duration-matched continuous running.

Methods: In this assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 24 female collegiate basketball players were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to a repeated-sprint ability group (RSAG; n = 12) or a duration-matched continuous-running control group (CG; n = 12). Both groups continued their regular basketball training. In addition, the RSAG completed two RST sessions per week for 6 weeks, consisting of 2–3 sets of 6–10 repetitions of 30-m (2 × 15-m) shuttle sprints with an approximate work-to-rest ratio of 1:4, whereas the CG completed continuous running matched to the elapsed duration of the corresponding RSAG sessions. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1), the 30-s Wingate Anaerobic Test, and a 6 × 30-m shuttle-sprint test.

Results: Significant Group × Time interactions were observed for Yo-Yo IR1, peak power (PP), mean power (MP), and fatigue index (FI). After 6 weeks, the RSAG showed greater improvements than the CG in Yo-Yo IR1 ( p < 0.001, d = 1.202), PP ( p < 0.001, d = 0.855), MP ( p < 0.001, d = 1.004), and FI ( p < 0.001, d = 1.635). Both groups showed significant pre- to post-intervention improvements in RSA-best, whereas no significant Group × Time interaction was observed for RSA-best or the individual sprint-time outcomes.

Conclusion: In this sample of female collegiate basketball players and under the present duration-matched training conditions, RST combined with regular basketball training was associated with greater improvements in intermittent aerobic endurance, anaerobic power, and fatigue resistance than continuous running. However, because internal training load was not quantified, the observed between-group differences cannot be attributed solely to training modality or interpreted as evidence that RST is superior under equivalent physiological-load conditions.