This study examined the physical differences in adult male basketball players of different competitive level and playing position using a large cohort. In the middle of the regular season, 129 players from four different Divisions completed a Yo-YoIR1 and, after 3-to-8 days, they performed a 6-min continuous running test (Mognoni's test), a counter-movement jump (CMJ) test and a 5-min High-intensity Intermittent running test (HIT). Magnitude-based inferences revealed that differences in HIT were very likely moderate between Division I and II and likely small between Division II and III. The differences in absolute peak power and force produced during CMJs between Division I and II and between Division II and III were possibly small. Differences in Yo-YoIR1 and Mognoni's test were very likely-to-almost certain moderate/large between Division III and VI. We observed possibly-to-likely small differences in HIT and Mognoni's test between guards and forwards and almost certainly moderate differences in absolute peak power and force during CMJs between guards and centres. The ability to sustain high-intensity intermittent efforts (i.e. HIT) and strength/power characteristics can differentiate between competitive level, while strength/power characteristics discriminate guards from forwards/centres. These findings inform practitioners on the development of identification programs and training activities in basketball.

Ferioli, D, Schelling, X, Bosio, A, La Torre, A, Rucco, D, and Rampinini, E. Match activities in basketball games: comparison between different competitive levels. J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 172–182, 2020—This study examined the (a) differences in the activity demands of official basketball games between different competitive levels (from elite to amateur levels) among a large cohort of adult male players and (b) match-to-match variations of basketball physical demands. Video-based time-motion analysis (TMA) was performed to assess the players' physical activity among 136 players. Match-to-match variations were determined analyzing 2 consecutive matches of the same level on 35 players. The frequency of occurrence (n per minutes) and the duration in percentage of playing time were calculated for high-intensity activity (HIA), moderate-intensity activity (MIA), low-intensity activity (LIA), and recovery (REC). Division I performed an almost certain greater number of HIA, MIA, and total actions per minutes of playing time compared with Division II that performed similarly to Division III. Division VI performed a likely-to-very likely lower number of LIA, MIA, and total actions per minute compared with Division III. Division I spent almost certain greater playing time competing in HIA and MIA compared with lower divisions. Time spent at REC was very likely greater in Division VI compared with all other Divisions. The frequency of occurrence was less reliable than percentage duration of game activities. Matches of different competitive levels are characterized by different physical activities. The ability to sustain greater intermittent workloads and HIA, and the ability to quickly recover from high-intensity phases during competitions should be considered as key components of basketball. The match-to-match variations values observed in this study might be useful to correctly interpret individual TMA data.

The preparation period induced minimal changes in the CMJ, while the ability to sustain repeated COD efforts was improved. Reaching high session rating of perceived exertion training loads might partially and negatively affect the ability to produce strength and power.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the single and combined effects of sleep restriction (SR) and mental fatigue (MF) on free-throw (FT) performance among adult male basketball players. Methods: A total of 19 amateur male basketball players performed, in a randomized, counterbalanced, and crossover order, 2 identical experimental sessions separated by an interval of 1 week. The difference between the 2 sessions was in the quantity of sleep the night before the sessions, as follows: in one case, the participants followed their habitual sleep–wake routines; in the other session, they were forced to sleep not more than 5 hours. During the experimental sessions, the participants performed 60 basketball FTs on 2 occasions, separated by watching a basketball tactical video for 30 minutes designed to induce MF. As such, the FT test was completed in 4 different conditions: control, MF, SR, and SR and MF combined. Results: The participants registered a significantly lower total sleep time in acute SR (P < .001). The subjective rating of MF was lower in the control than in MF, SR, and SR and MF combined (P < .001). There were no differences between conditions for the subjective ratings of motivation. FT accuracy was higher in the control than in MF, SR, and SR and MF combined (P = .010), while no differences were observed between the 3 experimental conditions (all P > .05). Conclusion: The results indicate that a combined effect of MF and SR induces a small reduction in basketball FT performance, similar to MF or SR alone.

Ferioli, D, Bosio, A, La Torre, A, Carlomagno, D, Connolly, DR, and Rampinini, E. Different training loads partially influence physiological responses to preparation period in basketball. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 790-797, 2018-The aim of this study was to compare the session rating of perceived exertion training load (sRPE-TL), training volume (TV), and the changes in physical fitness between professional (n = 14) and semiprofessional (n = 18) basketball players during the preparation period. Furthermore, relationships between sRPE-TL and TV with changes in physical fitness level were investigated. The players performed the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test-level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) before and after the preparation period. In addition, physiological responses to a standardized 6-minute continuous running test (Mognoni's test) and to a standardized 5-minute high-intensity intermittent running test (HIT) were measured. Session rating of perceived exertion-TL and TV were greater for professional (5,241 ± 1787 AU; 914 ± 122 minutes) compared with semiprofessional players (2,408 ± 487 AU; 583 ± 65 minutes). Despite these differences, Yo-Yo IR1 performance improvements (∼30%) and physiological adaptations to the Mognoni's test were similar between the 2 groups. Furthermore, physiological adaptations to HIT were slightly greater for professional compared with semiprofessional players; however, the magnitude of these effects was only small/moderate. No clear relationships were found between sRPE-TL and changes in Yo-Yo IR1 performance and Mognoni's test (rs ± 90% confidence interval [CI]: Yo-Yo IR1, 0.18 ± 0.30; Mognoni's test, -0.14 ± 0.29). Only moderate relationships were found between sRPE-TL and changes in HIT (rs ± 90% CI: [La], -0.48 ± 0.23; [H], -0.42 ± 0.25). These results raise doubts on the effectiveness of using high sRPE-TL and TV during the preparation period to improve the physical fitness level of players. The Yo-Yo IR1 seems to be sensitive to monitor changes induced by the preparation period; however, its use is not recommended to discriminate between adult basketball players of different competitive level.

Understanding the game demands encountered in basketball provides useful insight for developing specific, individualized and team-based training sessions. This study quantified and compared the game activity demands encountered by basketball players of different playing positions: i) strictly when in possession of the ball and ii) overall during live playing time (irrespective of ball possession). The activity demands encountered by 44 (22 guards, 14 forwards, 8 centres) adult, professional, male basketball players were assessed across 10 official games. Time-motion analysis was used to determine the frequency and proportion (%) of playing time performing recovery (REC), low- (LIA), moderate- (MIA), and high- (HIA) intensity activities. Linear mixed models were constructed to examine differences in dependent variables between playing positions, accounting for repeated measures. Guards, forwards, and centres spent 11.9±5.9%, 3.5±1.3%, and 2.9±1.1% of live playing time in possession of the ball, respectively. Guards performed more activities at all intensities (total movements, REC, LIA, MIA, and HIA) than forwards ( P < 0.05) and centres ( P < 0.05) when in possession of the ball. The proportion of time spent performing HIA in possession of the ball was greater for forwards ( P = 0.001) and centres ( P = 0.001) than guards. During live playing time overall across games, centres performed more HIA per minute ( P = 0.049) and spent a greater proportion of time performing HIA ( P = 0.047) than guards. Activities performed when in possession of the ball and during live playing time across basketball games are affected by playing position. These data highlight the need to develop position-specific training drills, particularly with ball possession.

No abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to quantify changes in physical capacities of thirty-eight basketball players selected from different teams, as well as from varying competitive levels (i.e. Division I, Division II and Division III) during the preparation and in-season periods. MethodsPre (T1) and post (T2) preparation period and during regular season (T3), the players completed a Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test-level 1. Following a 3 to 8 days-break, players performed a 6-min continuous running test (Mognoni's test), a counter-movement jump test and a 5-min high-intensity intermittent running test. ResultsBlood lactate concentration measured after the Mognoni's test was significantly reduced from T1 to T2, and from T2 to T3 (P<0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.424). The distance covered during the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test was significantly increased only from T1 to T2 in Division II and III (P<0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.789). Similarly, the physiological responses to high-intensity intermittent running test were improved only from T1 to T2 (all P<0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.495 to 0.652). Despite significant changes observed in running tests from T1 to T2, at individual level 35-55% of players did not show a very likely improvement. Relative peak power produced during vertical jumps at T3 by Division I players was increased compared to T1 (ANOVA interaction, P = 0.037, ƞ 2 = 0.134). ConclusionsThe main improvements in physical capacities occurred during the preparation period, when the aerobic fitness and the ability to sustain high-intensity intermittent efforts were moderately-to-largely improved. However, it appears that the preparation period does not PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.