###### Abstract
Such studies observed minor enhancements during the later stages of acceleration without significant changes in the initial phases [42; 43]. The variability in outcomes across these studies might stem from differences in intervention durations, participant characteristics, or specific loading dynamics, further complicating comparisons given the existing research gap [14; 15]. Moreover, comparing the effectiveness of these methods with game-based strategies is challenging, mainly due to the lack of research focused on this objective. Most existing research on game-based interventions has demonstrated subpar outcomes in terms of enhancing acceleration when sport only is implemented [14], a finding reinforced by our study. Studies conducted by [PERSON] et al. [44] or [PERSON] et al. [45] have examined game-based approaches, highlighting their Efficacy in reaching top speeds, which may be due to an overreliance on technical-tactical contexts or the intrinsic motivation of the athlete. Performance improvements were noted in two conditions: (i) when specific sprint training was incorporated while maintaining a comparable overall workload to other intervals (e.g., P1 vs. P2); and (ii) when integrated training increased both absolute and relative workloads, particularly for key metrics (e.g., P1 vs. P3 and P2 vs. P3). In the periods characterized by integrated training that did not emphasize speed actions (P1 vs. P2), significant differences were only observed in variables such as \"speed events\" and \"max dec\". Both variables showed higher average intensities during P2. However, despite recording equal or lower average intensities for the previously mentioned variables, performance improvements were only notable when the stimuli of that period (P1) were complemented with resisted sprint training. In contrast, during P3, the increase in maximum deceleration intensity was notable. These higher deceleration intensities likely reflect increased overall physical demands, which may be partly due to improved acceleration capabilities or elevated velocities preceding decelerations as a result of task design modifications. For example, extending the acceleration phase before a change of direction--such as accelerating over 15 m compared to 5 m--results in higher approach speeds (approximately 83% versus 54% of maximum velocity), which, in turn, requires a greater number of braking steps (around five to six steps versus three steps) [46], and also increases the deceleration load not in terms of training volume but in intensity [47]. Specifically, T1 0-20 recorded 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.03, T2 0-20 had 3.36 \(\pm\) 0.04, and T3 0-20 was at 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.03, with differences \(\Delta\)T1-T2 = 0.08 and \(\Delta\)T2-T3 = 0.01. Similarly, T1 0-30 had 4.81 \(\pm\) 0.05, T2 0-30 was 4.66 \(\pm\) 0.05, and T3 0-30 recorded 4.69 \(\pm\) 0.04, with differences \(\Delta\)T1-T2 = 0.15 and \(\Delta\)T2-T3 = \(-\)0.03. Lastly, T1 20-30 showed 1.37 \(\pm\) 0.01, T2 20-30 was 1.31 \(\pm\) 0.01, and T3 20-30 registered 1.32 \(\pm\) 0.02, with variations \(\Delta\)T1-T2 = 0.05 and \(\Delta\)T2-T3 = \(-\)0.01. During the final phase, P3 (T3-T4), notable reductions in sprint times were observed across all distances. Specifically, the 0-20 m segment showed a difference \(\Delta\)T3-T4 = 0.06 (\(p\) = 0.019), the 0-30 m segment showed a difference \(\Delta\)T3-T4 = 0.11 (\(p\) < 0.001), and the 20-30 m segment had a difference \(\Delta\)T3-T4 = 0.05 (\(p\) < 0.001). These reductions indicate further improvements in acceleration capability, particularly during the latter portions of the sprint. It is noteworthy that longitudinal observational studies [48; 49] have reported enhancements in acceleration performance during the preseason and first stages of competitive periods. Remarkably, these gains were observed even without specialized training interventions targeting these capabilities, suggesting that sport practice during these phases might inherently foster the development of such capabilities.