Results

Serum BDNF, Mental Effort, and Cognitive Performance

Descriptive statistics for serum BDNF, mental effort, and cognitive performance are presented in Table 2, whereas their acute responses across conditions, including paired individual data points, are illustrated in Supporting Information S1: Figure S1.

A‐ Within‐condition responses (Pre–Post)
Variable | SSGf | SSGt | Condition × time
Pre | Post | Mean diff | 95% CI | Pre | Post | Mean diff | 95% CI | F | p | ηp 2
Lactate (mmol/L) | 1.64 ± 0.23 | 8.08 ± 0.37 | −6.44a | [−6.57, −6.31] | 1.59 ± 0.24 | 8.19 ± 0.26 | −6.60a | [−6.72, −6.48] | 2.582 | 0.118 | 0.077
Serum BDNF (ng/mL) | 368.48 ± 184.03 | 391.30 ± 135.17 | −22.82 | [−109.49, 63.86] | 396.44 ± 171.85 | 567.28 ± 265.92 | −170.85a | [−259.40, −82.29] | 7.59 | 0.010 | 0.197
Feeling scale (−5,+5) | 2.63 ± 1.84 | 2.78 ± 2.07 | −0.16 | [−1.05, 0.74] | 2.19 ± 2.15 | 1.75 ± 2.40 | 0.44 | [−0.62, 1.50] | 0.841 | 0.366 | 0.026
Stroop 1 time (s) | 12.90 ± 0.51 | 12.86 ± 0.64 | 0.05 | [−0.09, 0.18] | 12.78 ± 0.42 | 12.63 ± 0.50 | 0.16 | [−0.11, 0.41] | 1.184 | 0.285 | 0.037
Stroop 2 time (s) | 16.51 ± 0.46 | 16.48 ± 0.51 | 0.03 | [−0.08, 0.14] | 16.44 ± 0.38 | 16.37 ± 0.45 | 0.08 | [−0.14, 0.30] | 0.274 | 0.604 | 0.009
Stroop 3 time (s) | 19.94 ± 0.66 | 19.89 ± 0.68 | 0.05 | [−0.12, 0.22] | 19.92 ± 0.40 | 19.82 ± 0.42 | 0.10 | [−0.09, 0.29] | 0.291 | 0.593 | 0.009
Stroop 4 time (s) | 20.01 ± 0.93 | 20.27 ± 1.08 | −0.26 | [−0.63, 0.11] | 20.03 ± 0.92 | 19.11 ± 0.86 | 0.92a | [0.55, 1.30] | 20.517 | < 0.001 | 0.398
Stroop 5 time (s) | 30.42 ± 0.44 | 30.52 ± 0.36 | −0.10 | [−0.26, 0.06] | 30.23 ± 0.45 | 29.57 ± 0.46 | 0.66a | [0.50, 0.82] | 36.051 | < 0.001 | 0.538
B‐ Between‐condition responses
Variable | SSGf | SSGt | Mean diff | 95% CI | F | p | ηp 2
Successful pass (n) | 29.03 ± 1.47 | 44.69 ± 1.87 | −15.66a | [−16.30, −15.01] | 1113.65 | < 0.001 | 0.973
Unsuccessful pass (n) | 3.66 ± 0.48 | 3.38 ± 0.49 | 0.28a | [0.07, 0.49] | 6.51 | 0.016 | 0.174
Successful shot n) | 1.53 ± 0.51 | 1.81 ± 0.40 | −0.28a | [−0.53, −0.03] | 7.496 | 0.010 | 0.195
Unsuccessful shot ((n) | 1.66 ± 0.48 | 1.53 ± 0.51 | 0.13 | [−0.07, 0.32] | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000
Interception (n) | 3.13 ± 0.34 | 1.84 ± 0.37 | 1.28a | [1.09, 1.47] | 36.270 | < 0.001 | 0.539
Lost ball (n) | 1.72 ± 0.52 | 1.44 ± 0.50 | 0.28a | [0.05, 0.51] | 10.62 | 0.003 | 0.255
HRmean (bpm) | 168.79 ± 6.96 | 170.44 ± 5.66 | −1.65 | [−4.52, 1.22] | 2.659 | 0.113 | 0.079
%HR (bpm) | 84.14 ± 3.77 | 84.95 ± 3.03 | −0.82 | [−1.85, 0.22] | 2.594 | 0.117 | 0.077
Mental effort (0–150 mm) | 51.72 ± 7.89 | 85.13 ± 12.18 | −33.41a | [−37.90, −28.91] | 229.692 | < 0.001 | 0.881
RPE (6–20 score) | 16.88 ± 0.71 | 17.16 ± 0.72 | −0.28 ± 0.16 | [−0.60 ± 0.04] | 3.207 | 0.083 | 0.094

As presented in Table 2, serum BDNF levels exhibited a significant condition × time interaction, suggesting that temporal changes in BDNF differed significantly between conditions. There was no significant difference between SSGf and SSGt (MD = −27.95, 95% CI −124.30 to 68.39, p = 0.558) at pre‐exercise. A significant difference was observed, with SSGt showing higher values than SSGf (MD [SSGf − SSGt] = −204.12, 95% CI −289.84 to −118.41, p < 0.001) at post‐exercise (Supporting Information S1: Figure S1A). A highly significant main effect of condition (SSGf vs. SSGt) on mental effort level was observed, indicating greater mental effort in SSGt (Supporting Information S1: Figure S1B). Stroop 4 Completion time (sec) demonstrated a significant condition × time interaction (Supporting Information S1: Figure S1C). Bonferroni‐adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that there was no difference between SSGf and SSGt (MD = −0.021, p = 0.919) at pre‐exercise. But SSGt differed significantly from SSGf (MD = 1.164, p < 0.0001; 95% CI [0.708, 1.620]) at post‐exercise, indicating better performance in SSGt. Stroop 5 Completion time (sec) revealed a significant condition × time interaction (Supporting Information S1: Figure S1D). Bonferroni‐adjusted comparisons indicated no significant difference between SSGf and SSGt (MD = 0.198, p = 0.090) at pre‐exercise. But SSGf and SSGt differed significantly (MD = 0.958, p < 0.0001; 95% CI [0.734, 1.182]) at post‐exercise, indicating better performance in SSGt. There were no statistically significant differences between conditions in the number of corrections and errors across all sections of the Stroop Test (1–5), both before and after exercise (p > 0.05). Descriptive statistics for Stroop 1, 2, and 3 Completion times (sec) are presented in Table 2. Stroop 1 Completion time (sec) showed no significant condition × time interaction. Stroop 2 Completion time (sec) showed no significant condition × time interaction. Stroop 3 Completion time (sec) revealed no significant condition × time interaction.

Technical Actions

Descriptive statistics for technical actions are presented in Table 2, whereas their acute responses across conditions, including paired individual data points, are illustrated in Supporting Information S1: Figure S2.

Successful pass number revealed a significant main effect of condition, indicating that SSGt resulted in a greater number of successful passes than SSGf (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2A). Lost ball number revealed a significant main effect of condition on the outcome variable; the number of lost balls was lower in SSGt than in SSGf (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2B). Unsuccessful pass number revealed a significant main effect of condition; the number of unsuccessful passes was lower in SSGt than in SSGf (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2C). Interception number demonstrated a significant main effect of condition (SSGf vs. SSGt) on the outcome variable; the number of interceptions was greater in SSGf than in SSGt (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2D). Successful shot number revealed a significant main effect of condition; the number of successful shots was significantly greater in SSGt than in SSGf (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2E). Unsuccessful shot number showed no main effect of condition (SSGf vs. SSGt) on the outcome variable (Supporting Information S1: Figure S2F).

Physiological and Perceptual Responses

Descriptive statistics for lactate, FS, RPE, and heart rate responses are presented in Table 2, whereas their acute responses across conditions, including paired individual data points, are illustrated in Supporting Information S1: Figure S3. Lactate levels showed a significant main effect of time (pre vs. post) (F(1,31) = 15329.595, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.998), but the condition × time interaction was not significant (Supporting Information S1: Figure S3A). Both SSGf and SSGt showed significant pre–post changes, supporting a robust main effect of time irrespective of conditions. FS revealed no statistically significant condition × time interaction (Supporting Information S1: Figure S3B). No significant main effects of condition were observed for HR% (Supporting Information S1: Figure S3C), mean HR (Supporting Information S1: Figure S3D), or RPE (Supporting Information S1: Figure S3E).