English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A desire to make fitness testing cheaper and easier to conduct in a team-sport setting has led to the development of numerous field aerobic fitness tests. This has contributed to a growing confusion among strength and conditioning coaches about which one to use. The main aim of this narrative review was to examine the reliability, validity, sensitivity and usefulness of the commonly used field aerobic fitness tests and to provide practical guidelines for their use in soccer. The University of Montreal track test (UMTT) and Vam Eval test seem the best options for estimation of maximal oxygen uptake (VO 2max ) while the highest signal-to-noise ratio of the 30-15 intermittent fitness test (30-15IFT) suggests its superior sensitivity to track changes in fitness. The UMTT and 30-15IFT are the best solutions for prescription of long and short high-intensity interval training sessions, respectively. All field tests mostly present with marginal usefulness, but the smallest worthwhile change for UMTT or Vam Eval test, Yo-YoIRT2 and 30-15IFT are smaller than their stage increment making the improvement of only one stage in the test performance already worthwhile. Strength and conditioning coaches are advised to choose the test based on their specific purpose of testing.

Applicability of Field Aerobic Fitness Tests in Soccer: Which One to Choose?