High Reps in Soccer Strength Training What the Research Shows
Soccer strength training needs a clear purpose. Building muscle, increasing maximal strength and improving explosive performance are related goals, but they are not interchangeable. Research shows that lighter weights performed for higher repetitions can stimulate muscle growth, while heavier loading can offer an advantage for maximal strength. Studies in soccer players also suggest that allowing more fatigue to accumulate within a set does not necessarily produce better performance adaptations. The evidence supports choosing the training dose around the intended outcome rather than automatically making every exercise a high-repetition challenge (Morton et al., 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2016; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017).
Higher repetitions can build muscle. Morton et al. (2016) studied 49 resistance-trained men over 12 weeks. One group performed approximately 20–25 repetitions with lighter loads, while another used heavier loads for 8–12 repetitions. Both groups trained to volitional failure and increased lean body mass and the size of Type I and Type II muscle fibers, with no statistically significant differences between groups in those growth measures. The condition matters: these were demanding sets. The findings do not establish that easy, lightly loaded repetitions produce the same result.
The explanation also needs to be anatomically accurate. High repetitions do not selectively train “surface muscle,” and heavy repetitions do not specifically unlock “deep tissue.” Research on this question examines muscle-fiber types and training adaptations. In a biopsy study involving ten recreationally trained men, Morton et al. (2019) found evidence that both Type I and Type II fibers were activated when lighter and heavier loads were lifted to task failure. Fiber glycogen depletion, used as an indicator of activation, did not differ between the loading conditions. Lighter resistance therefore should not be described as training only slow-twitch fibers.
Whether different loads preferentially grow particular fiber types remains less certain. An accepted analysis of eight studies involving 195 participants found a possible pattern favoring Type I growth at lighter loads and Type II growth at heavier loads. However, the confidence intervals for all pairwise contrasts included no difference, and the authors described the findings as preliminary. This is an area of ongoing research, not an established rule for isolating a fiber type through a specific repetition range (Varovic et al., in press).
Muscle growth and maximal strength also need separate consideration. Schoenfeld et al. (2016) compared training at 2–4 repetitions per set with 8–12 repetitions per set in trained men over eight weeks, with the number of sets matched. The heavier group improved squat one-repetition maximum more, while the moderate-load group increased lateral thigh muscle thickness more. A one-repetition maximum is the heaviest load successfully lifted once. These results illustrate why a program designed to increase muscle size may differ from one designed to maximize the amount of force an athlete can express in a heavy lift. They do not establish that the same repetition range is optimal for every exercise or athlete.
Soccer research offers a useful way to examine repetition quality: velocity loss, meaning the decline in lifting speed within a set. Pareja-Blanco et al. (2017) assigned 16 professional male soccer players to six weeks of squat training, ending sets at either 15% or 30% velocity loss. The 15% group completed fewer repetitions and achieved greater improvements in countermovement-jump height. Differences between groups were not statistically significant for the other tested outcomes. This small study supports limiting unnecessary repetition volume when jump performance is a priority; it does not prove that lower volume improves every aspect of soccer performance.
A later study provides a similar, qualified finding in younger players. Rojas-Jaramillo et al. (2024) compared 10% and 30% velocity-loss limits in 20 young soccer players over eight weeks using loads of 45–60% of one-repetition maximum. The lower-loss group completed fewer repetitions, and changes over time favored it for several outcomes, including sprint performance and strength. However, the groups did not differ significantly on the final test scores themselves. The practical implication is that useful adaptations can occur without extending every set into substantial slowing. The study does not establish a universal 10% stopping rule or an ideal rep count for every player.
Effort within a set also affects fatigue. Refalo et al. (2023) studied 24 trained adults performing six bench-press sets at 75% of one-repetition maximum, either to failure or stopping with approximately one or three repetitions remaining. Training closer to failure produced greater immediate reductions in lifting velocity and less favorable ratings of exertion, soreness and recovery. Velocity differences diminished by 48 hours. This bench-press experiment cannot establish recovery timelines for soccer players after lower-body training.
A reasonable coaching application is to consider proximity to failure alongside repetition count. When limiting acute fatigue is a priority, leaving repetitions in reserve is an available option. This interpretation does not guarantee that a particular prescription will preserve next-day sprint performance (Refalo et al., 2023).
Match demands provide the context for those choices. Krustrup et al. (2006) studied 31 Danish fourth-division players during friendly matches, collecting blood samples and muscle biopsies. Muscle glycogen declined during play, and sprint performance fell after demanding periods and at the end of the match. This demonstrates that soccer itself creates substantial metabolic demands. It does not demonstrate that high-repetition lifting reproduces those demands, or that sharing energy pathways makes two activities equivalent.
The programming implication is to give gym work a defined role alongside field training. A coach may prioritize heavier loading when maximal strength is the objective, use appropriately demanding lighter-load work when muscle growth is needed, and manage within-set slowing when explosive performance is the priority. These are applications of the research, not interchangeable prescriptions. None of the studies establishes that all soccer players should avoid sets above a particular repetition count, or that the same dose should be given to a beginner, an experienced adult and a player returning from injury.
That distinction is especially relevant in youth development. Much of the load-and-hypertrophy evidence discussed here comes from adult men, and the soccer studies used small samples and specific squat protocols. Their findings do not directly validate identical prescriptions for U12–U19 boys and girls, trap-bar exercises, split squats or every phase of a match week. They provide principles to inform coaching decisions, with the exercise, athlete and outcome kept in view.
The message for players and parents is therefore specific: higher repetitions are a legitimate training tool. They should be chosen because they serve an identified objective. Research supports developing strength and muscle through purposeful loading, while the soccer studies show that more repetitions and greater within-set slowing do not automatically deliver better performance gains. A useful question to ask about any session is what it is intended to improve and how that improvement will be assessed.
To discuss applying these principles to your soccer training, schedule a Discovery Call with Ground Force.
References
Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Steensberg, A., Bencke, J., Kjær, M., & Bangsbo, J. (2006). Muscle and blood metabolites during a soccer game: Implications for sprint performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(6), 1165–1174. View research
Morton, R. W., Oikawa, S. Y., Wavell, C. G., Mazara, N., McGlory, C., Quadrilatero, J., Baechler, B. L., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2016). Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 121(1), 129–138. View research
Morton, R. W., Sonne, M. W., Farias Zuniga, A., Mohammad, I. Y. Z., Jones, A., McGlory, C., Keir, P. J., Potvin, J. R., & Phillips, S. M. (2019). Muscle fibre activation is unaffected by load and repetition duration when resistance exercise is performed to task failure. The Journal of Physiology, 597(17), 4601–4613. View research
Pareja-Blanco, F., Sánchez-Medina, L., Suárez-Arrones, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in professional soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(4), 512–519. View research
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2023). Influence of resistance training proximity-to-failure, determined by repetitions-in-reserve, on neuromuscular fatigue in resistance-trained males and females. Sports Medicine - Open, 9, Article 10. View research
Rojas-Jaramillo, A., León-Sánchez, G., Calvo-Lluch, Á., González-Badillo, J. J., & Rodríguez-Rosell, D. (2024). Comparison of 10% vs. 30% velocity loss during squat training with low loads on strength and sport-specific performance in young soccer players. Sports, 12(2), Article 43. View research
Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., & Peterson, M. (2016). Differential effects of heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 15(4), 715–722. View research
Varovic, D., Larsen, S., & Grgic, J. (in press). Heavy or light: Is muscle fiber growth load-specific? A systematic review and meta-regression. Frontiers in Physiology. View research
Comments