Objective: Short-interval high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is widely used in soccer conditioning, yet it remains unclear whether distributing recovery periods differently within a session influences neuromuscular and performance adaptations. This study compared ascending, descending, and constant rest-time models during short-interval HIIT in semi-professional male soccer players.
Methods: Twenty-four players were stratified by playing position and randomly allocated to ascending-rest (A-HIIT), descending-rest (D-HIIT), or constant-rest (C-HIIT) groups (n = 8 each). Participants completed eight preseason HIIT sessions, performed twice weekly. Each session comprised two sets of seven 30-s shuttle-running bouts prescribed relative to individual 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test velocity. Recovery duration increased progressively in A-HIIT, decreased progressively in D-HIIT, and remained constant in C-HIIT, while total work and recovery time were matched across protocols. Countermovement jump (CMJ), 30-m sprint, 5-0-5 change-of-direction (COD), and Wingate peak power were assessed before and after training. Within-group changes were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and between-group differences in change scores using Kruskal–Wallis tests, with Holm correction for multiple comparisons.
Results: All participants completed the intervention, although valid observations varied by outcome because of incomplete or unusable post-intervention data. Before correction, nominally significant within-group changes were observed for CMJ height, sprint time, right- and left-leg COD times, and Wingate peak power (unadjusted p = 0.012–0.046). These changes reflected an improvement only in CMJ height in D-HIIT; the significant sprint, COD, and Wingate changes represented performance decrements. However, none remained statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.180–0.460). No significant between-group differences were found for any outcome (p = 0.191–0.914).
Conclusion: Ascending, descending, and constant recovery distributions produced limited and broadly comparable neuromuscular and performance responses, with no evidence that any protocol was superior. Given the small sample, short intervention, and absence of a non-HIIT control group, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and hypothesis-generating.