I saw this recent story across a number of news outlets. The article recaps a recent study that compares jogging versus soccer. Participants were split into three groups: jogging, playing soccer for an hour three times a week, and a control group.
The soccer players lost 3.7 percent body fat, while the joggers lost 2 percent. The soccer players also gained muscle, while the joggers didn't gain any. Obviously, there were no real changes in the control group.
Clearly, the soccer players had the better outcomes in this study. But as mentioned in the article, the two groups were not matched for intensity. Jogging is mostly low-intensity, while soccer mixes in high-intensity efforts. So it's not a surprise to me that the soccer players came out on top. This study does provide an good lesson though, and that is the importance of intensity in reshaping the body.
Here's a different study that shows how running (instead of jogging) can actually help improve soccer performance. For this study, soccer players engaged in high-intensity running: 4 cycles of 4 minutes at 90-95% heart rate max followed by 3 minutes low-intensity work. This was in addition to the regular practice and games the players were already doing.
The improvement in these players was quite dramatic. They had an 11% increase in vo2max, and lactate-threshold running speed, and running economy improved. And these improvements translated over to the field as well: total distance covered in the game increased by 20%, and number of involvements with the ball rose 24%.
So if someone wanted to say soccer is "better" than jogging, than they would also have to say that high-intensity running is "better" than soccer. But putting these activities on a single continuum is pretty useless. A well-rounded program will mix in different activities and intensities to maximally improve health.
