SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yalova Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1

Power Determinants of 5-m and 30-m Sprint Performance: A Hierarchical Regression Analysis in Youth Soccer Players

5 m ve 30 m Sprint Performansının Güç Belirleyicileri: Genç Futbolcularda Hiyerarşik Regresyon Analizi

Abdulkadir Birol(TRABZON ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3312-9746
Erkan Tortu(TRABZON UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2816-9994
Pages
121–132
Publication Date
2026-03-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Coaches could prioritize AP and tPP over PP or MP when assessing anaerobic capacity for sprint-specific training.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) is widely used to assess anaerobic power, but its predictive validity for sprint performance remains debated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to identify which metrics derived from the WAnT; including peak power (PP), mean power (MP), average power (AP), and time to peak power (tPP) - most effectively predict sprint performance during both the early acceleration phase (5 m) and near-maximal velocity phase (30 m) in adolescent soccer players.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Coaches could prioritize AP and tPP over PP or MP when assessing anaerobic capacity for sprint-specific training.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sprint · wingate · anaerobik

Abstract

The Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT) is widely used to assess anaerobic power, but its predictive validity for sprint performance remains debated. This study aimed to identify which metrics derived from the WAnT; including peak power (PP), mean power (MP), average power (AP), and time to peak power (tPP) - most effectively predict sprint performance during both the early acceleration phase (5 m) and near-maximal velocity phase (30 m) in adolescent soccer players. Forty-one male U16 players completed 30 m sprints and a 30 s WAnT. Hierarchical multiple regression assessed the predictive capacity of anaerobic metrics. Model 1 included AP; Model 2 added tPP; Model 3 incorporated MP; and Model 4 included PP. Assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity were verified. For 5 m sprints, Model 2 (AP + tPP) explained 21.6% of variance (ΔR2 = 0.119 vs. Model 1), with AP (β = 0.426, p < 0.01) and tPP (β = 0.363, p = 0.053) as key predictors. For 30 m sprints, Model 2 explained 30.4% of variance (ΔR2 = 0.078), with AP (β = 0.568, p < 0.001) and tPP (β = 0.295, p = 0.046) remaining significant. Adding MP or PP (Models 3–4) did not improve predictions (ΔR2 < 0.012). A 1 W/kg increase in AP improved 5 m and 30 m sprint velocities by 0.219 m/s and 0.256 m/s, respectively, in Model 2. AP and tPP are the most robust WAnT-derived predictors of sprint performance in young soccer players, particularly for longer distances. Coaches could prioritize AP and tPP over PP or MP when assessing anaerobic capacity for sprint-specific training.

Özet

Wingate Anaerobik Güç Testi (WAnT), anaerobik gücü değerlendirmek için yaygın olarak kullanılmasına rağmen, sprint performansını tahmin etmedeki gücü hala tartışmalıdır. Bu çalışmada, WAnT ile elde edilen zirve güç (PP), ortalama güç (MP), azami ortalama güç (AP, her 5 saniyede elde edilen zirve gücün ortalaması) ve zirve güce ulaşma süresi (tPP) gibi metriklerden hangisinin adolesan futbolcularda hem erken ivmelenme fazındaki (5 m) hem de maksimuma yakın hız fazındaki (30 m) sprint performansını en etkili şekilde tahmin ettiğini belirlemek amaçlandı. Kırk-bir erkek U16 futbolcusu, 30 m sprint ve 30 s süren WAnT testine tabi tutuldu. Hiyerarşik çoklu regresyon analizi anaerobik metriklerin tahmin kapasitesini değerlendirmek üzere kullanıldı. Model 1 AP'yi içerirken sırasıyla; Model 2'ye tPP eklendi; Model 3’e MP dahil edildi ve Model 4’e de PP eklendi. Doğrusallık, sabit varyans ve çoklu bağlantı varsayımları kontrol edildi. 5 m sprint için, Model 2 (AP + tPP) varyansın %21,6'sını açıkladığı saptandı (Model 1'e kıyasla ΔR² = 0,119) ve güçlü tahmin ediciler AP (β = 0,426, p < 0,01) ve tPP (β = 0,363, p = 0,053) olarak belirlendi. 30 m sprintleri için ise Model 2, varyansın %30,4'ünü açıkladığı görüldü (ΔR2 = 0,078) ve AP (β = 0,568, p < 0,001) ile tPP (β = 0,295, p = 0,046) istatistiksel anlamlı bulundu. MP ve PP'nin modellere eklenmesiyle (Model 3–4) metriklerin tahmin gücünü artırmadığı anlaşıldı (ΔR2 < 0,012). Model 2'ye göre, AP'deki 1 W/kg'lik bir artış, 5 m ve 30 m sprint hızlarını sırasıyla 0,219 m/s ve 0,256 m/s artırdığı tespit edildi. Genç futbolcularda sprint performansının sprint mesafesi uzadıkça, AP ve tPP’nin en güçlü tahmin ediciler olduğu gözlemlendi. Antrenörlerin, sprint odaklı antrenmanlar için anaerobik kapasiteyi değerlendirmede PP veya MP yerine AP ve tPP’yi dikkate alması önerilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Birol, A., Tortu, E. (2026). Power Determinants of 5-m and 30-m Sprint Performance: A Hierarchical Regression Analysis in Youth Soccer Players. Yalova Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.70007/yalovaspor.1801050

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Almansba, R., Boucher, V.G., Parent, A.A., and Comtois, A.S. (2019). Repeated linear and quadrangular sprint as a function of anaerobic power. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 33(8), 2177–2184.
  2. Arslan, C. (2005). Relationship between the 30-second Wingate test and characteristics of isometric and explosive leg strength in young subjects. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(3), 658–666.
  3. Aziz, A.R., and Chuan, T.K. (2004). Correlation between tests of running repeated sprint ability and anaerobic capacity by Wingate cycling in multi-sprint sports athletes. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 16(1), 14–22.
  4. Baker, J.S., McCormick, M.C., and Robergs, R.A. (2010). Interaction among skeletal muscle metabolic energy systems during intense exercise. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2010(1), 905612.
  5. Bar-Or, O. (1987). The Wingate anaerobic test an update on methodology, reliability and validity. Sports Medicine, 4(6), 381–394.
  6. Beneke, R., Pollmann, C.H., Bleif, I., Leithäuser, R., and Hütler, M. (2002). How anaerobic is the Wingate Anaerobic Test for humans? European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87(4), 388–392.
  7. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., and Aiken, L.S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  8. Del Coso, J., and Mora-Rodríguez, R. (2006). Validity of cycling peak power as measured by a short-sprint test versus the Wingate anaerobic test. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 31(2), 186–189.
  9. Dotan, R., and Bar-Or, O. (1983). Load optimization for the Wingate anaerobic test. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 51(3), 409–417.
  10. Galvan-Alvarez, V., Gallego-Selles, A., Martinez-Canton, M., Perez-Suarez, I., Garcia-Gonzalez, E., Martin-Rincon, M., and Calbet, J.A. (2024). Physiological and molecular predictors of cycling sprint performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 34(1), e14545.
  11. Hargreaves, M., and Spriet, L.L. (2020). Skeletal muscle energy metabolism during exercise. Nature Metabolism, 2(9), 817–828.
  12. Haugen, T.A., Breitschädel, F., and Samozino, P. (2020). Power-force-velocity profiling of sprinting athletes: methodological and practical considerations when using timing gates. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(6), 1769–1773.
  13. Hayes, A.F., and Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722.
  14. Jaafar, H., Rouis, M., Coudrat, L., Attiogbé, E., Vandewalle, H., and Driss, T. (2014). Effects of load on Wingate test performances and reliability. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3462–3468.
  15. McKie, G.L., Islam, H., Townsend, L.K., Howe, G.J., and Hazell, T.J. (2018). Establishing a practical treadmill sprint as an alternative to the Wingate anaerobic test. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 22(2), 138–144.
  16. Michalik, K., Smolarek, M., Ochmann, B., and Zatoń, M. (2023). Determination of optimal load in the Wingate Anaerobic Test is not depend on number of sprints included in mathematical models. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, 1146076.
  17. Nara, K., Kumar, P., Rathee, R., and Kumar, J. (2022). The compatibility of running-based anaerobic sprint test and Wingate anaerobic test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 26(2), 134–143.
  18. Nesser, T.W., Latin, R.W., Berg, K., and Prentice, E. (1996). Physiological determinants of 40-meter sprint performance in young male athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 10(4), 263–267.
  19. Nikolaidis, P.T., Dellal, A., Torres-Luque, G., and Ingebrigtsen, J. (2015). Determinants of acceleration and maximum speed phase of repeated sprint ability in soccer players: A cross-sectional study. Science & Sports, 30(1), e7–e16.
  20. Ørtenblad, N., Westerblad, H., and Nielsen, J. (2013). Muscle glycogen stores and fatigue. The Journal of Physiology, 591(18), 4405–4413.
  21. Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
  22. Tharp, G.D., Newhouse, R.K., Uffelman, L., Thorland, W.G., and Johnson, G.O. (1985). Comparison of sprint and run times with performance on the Wingate Anaerobic Test. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(1), 73–76.