Incorporating Squat-Based Training into the Warm-Up Twice Weekly Improves Sprint, Jump, and Change-of-Direction Performance in Young Soccer Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for their efforts so far. I am providing some comments to enhance the quality of the work further:

Abstract: The abstract is quite brief (148 words), and it lacks statistical indicators and possibly an introductory sentence.

Introduction: Please add a few lines after lines 62–63 to strengthen the presentation of the research gap and the theoretical background of your study.

Results: Figure 1 is not very clear; please enlarge it and improve its clarity.

Limitations: It should be mentioned that the control group performed rondo drills, which are technical-tactical exercises, not equivalent in strength load. Hence, differences in outcomes may be due to the type of exercise, not solely the inclusion of squats. Additionally, there is a limitation regarding generalization to female athletes, older age groups, and adult or professional players.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Please, see the attach. Thank you for your time

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This manuscript tests whether adding a brief, progressive squat protocol at the end of the warm-up improves sprint , jump , agility , and aerobic endurance in U17 male soccer players. This manuscript presents relevant information for those dealing with youth teams. Practitioners are suggested to include strength-based activity rather than a mere rondo-based drill to get the WU complete and beneficial for players' performance. However, the authors should clarify some conceptual mismatch (acute potentiation effect vs chronic strength adaptations) that add confusion to the content. Moreover, the methodology appears weak (time-equating of the control condition seems unclear).

Specific comments are provided below

Title

I would suggest adding at least the timeframe in the title. "twice weekly" or similar. I also would suggest including the mechanism (acute?)

Abstract

The term optimizes reflects acute adaptations. However, the design you chose better reflects a training adaptation.

Specify also (even within the discussion section) that the results are training-induced and not acute potentiation. 

Please ensure that the % change aligns with that in Table 5. Please check

Introduction

In terms of PAP vs PAPE vs chronic adaptation, I suggest using consistent terminology.

Regarding "rondo", I invite the authors not to overstate its limitation without a clear scientific support. Please reinforce this context that represents the core of the rationale

Please justify why the authors included "aerobic performance"? It is unlikely to change from either condition (WU).

Methods

Remove repetition and be precise: either you inflated the planned sample or you did not. Moreover, the authors stated that the effect sizes were drawn from “preliminary data”, but the used reference is a G*Power citation. Again, be precise

How did the authors ensure a balanced distribution of the players' roles by tossing a coin?
How did the authors arrange the blinded assessor? What was blinded?

Training protocol
The text states the final phase is 10–12 min, but Table 2 lists “Final phase (5 min)” for EG, while CG is “2 × 4–6 min rondo” (8–12 min). Please check it.

The Squat protocol appears not to fit a 5-12 min time window as written. Indeed, 3–4 sets with 2–3 min rest cannot be completed in 5 minutes. Please report the actual  session time.

The title of the Tbale 3 is wrong. Check it.

Sprint performance

How many trials did the players undergo? Unclear and inconsistent

What about the environmental conditions for the aeorbic test?

Statistical analysis

Multiple Mann-Whitney tests inflate type 1 error...any correction applied?

Results

You write “For all other sessions, (p˂0.05)” while Table 4 shows p-values all > 0.13 (no significant differences)...please check

Pre/post table is labeled Table 5, ANOVA is Table 6, but text references Tables 6 and 7

What about CMJ interaction?

Discussion

Reframe it moving away from PAPE concept as the main explanation.

Are the authors sure to suggest including 50% to 85% 1-RM within a a pre-competition warm-up in youth? Please better elaborate on it. Doing strength-based WU in the morning and playing in the afternoon? Doing it right before playing a match?

What about a limitation paragraph?

Potential confounding from additional resistance volume, maturity status/PHV not assessed, no direct strength measure post-intervention, no monitoring of overall weekly load beyond RPE post warm-up should all be acknowledged. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

 

Please, see the attach. Thank you for your time

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed all my comments, and I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Thank you for your appreciation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The auhtors have addressed all the concerns previously raised by the Reviewer. I wouls suggest to implement the introduction and practical applications sections by better supporting the use of repeated neuromuscualr stimuli over time in youth soccer.
Introduction
Line 58: I suggest the authors reinforcing the expressed concept about repeated low-volume, high intensity stimuli. Indeed, recent evidence in male adolescent soccer players showed that weekly high-frequency strength-based training (e.g., plyometrics) can improve physical performance outcomes while helping to manage muscle soreness, indicating that frequent, time-efficient neuromuscular stimuli can be feasible and effective in youth (Trapletti et al. 2025). This would also help to strenghten the Practical Applications section, when discussing feasible in-season low-volume approaches. 

Essential Role of Weekly High-Frequency Plyometric Training to Enhance Physical Performance and Manage Muscle Soreness in Male Adolescent Soccer Players 
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2025-0006

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

 

We have taken your suggestion into account and thank you for the effort you put into the analysis and recommendations made to our manuscript.

 

Comment: The auhtors have addressed all the concerns previously raised by the Reviewer. I wouls suggest to implement the introduction and practical applications sections by better supporting the use of repeated neuromuscualr stimuli over time in youth soccer.

Introduction
Line 58: I suggest the authors reinforcing the expressed concept about repeated low-volume, high intensity stimuli. Indeed, recent evidence in male adolescent soccer players showed that weekly high-frequency strength-based training (e.g., plyometrics) can improve physical performance outcomes while helping to manage muscle soreness, indicating that frequent, time-efficient neuromuscular stimuli can be feasible and effective in youth (Trapletti et al. 2025). This would also help to strenghten the Practical Applications section, when discussing feasible in-season low-volume approaches. 

Essential Role of Weekly High-Frequency Plyometric Training to Enhance Physical Performance and Manage Muscle Soreness in Male Adolescent Soccer Players , DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2025-0006

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. We have reinforced the rationale for repeated low-volume, high-intensity neuromuscular stimuli in the Introduction (Line 58) by adding the recent youth-soccer evidence from Trapletti et al. (2025) as follows: “Recent evidence in male adolescent soccer players supports the feasibility and effectiveness of frequent, time-efficient neuromuscular micro-doses in-season, showing that weekly high-frequency, strength-based training (e.g., plyometrics) can enhance physical performance outcomes while helping to manage muscle soreness (Trapletti et al., 2025)”.

We also updated the Practical Applications to cite this work and to emphasize an in-season, warm-up-integrated approach using brief repeated weekly exposures (e.g., 2-3 sessions·week¹) as a feasible strategy for youth players as follows: “In line with recent youth-soccer evidence showing benefits of distributing neuromuscular training across multiple weekly exposures (Trapletti et al., 2025), coaches may implement warm-up-integrated strength/power work as brief, repeated exposures across the week (e.g., 2-3 sessions·week-¹) rather than concentrating volume into a single session”.

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf