The importance of jumping ability in basketball is well known, but there is an evident lack of studies that have examined different jumping testing protocols in basketball players at advanced levels. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of different tests of jumping capacity in identifying differences between (i) playing position and (ii) competitive levels of professional players. Participants were 110 male professional basketball players (height: 194.92±8.09 cm; body mass: 89.33±10.91 kg; 21.58±3.92 years of age; Guards, 49; Forwards, 22; Centres, 39) who competed in the first (n = 58) and second division (n = 52). The variables included anthropometrics and jumping test performance. Jumping performances were evaluated by the standing broad jump (SBJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), reactive strength index (RSI), repeated reactive strength ability (RRSA) and four running vertical jumps: maximal jump with (i) take-off from the dominant leg and (ii) non-dominant leg, lay-up shot jump with take-off from the (iii) dominant leg and (iv) non-dominant leg. First-division players were taller (ES: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.35-1.16, moderate differences), heavier (0.69, 0.29-1.10), had higher maximal reach height (0.67, 0.26-1.07, moderate differences), and had lower body fat % (-0.87, -1.27-0.45, moderate differences) than second-division players. The playing positions differed significantly in three of four running jump achievements, RSI and RRSA, with Centres being least successful. The first-division players were superior to second-division players in SBJ (0.63, 0.23-1.03; 0.87, 0.26-1.43; 0.76, 0.11-1.63, all moderate differences, for total sample, Guards, and Forwards, respectively). Running vertical jumps and repeated jumping capacity can be used as valid measures of position-specific jumping ability in basketball. The differences between playing levels in vertical jumping achievement can be observed by assessing vertical jump scores together with differences in anthropometric indices between levels.

ObjectiveThe community of residence (ie, urban vs rural) is one of the known factors of influence on substance use and misuse (SUM). The aim of this study was to explore the community-specific prevalence of SUM and the associations that exist between scholastic, familial, sports and sociodemographic factors with SUM in adolescents from Bosnia and Herzegovina.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, which was completed between November and December 2014, the participants were 957 adolescents (aged 17 to 18 years) from Bosnia and Herzegovina (485; 50.6% females). The independent variables were sociodemographic, academic, sport and familial factors. The dependent variables consisted of questions on cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. We have calculated differences between groups of participants (gender, community), while the logistic regressions were applied to define associations between the independent and dependent variables.ResultsIn the urban community, cigarette smoking is more prevalent in girls (OR=2.05; 95% CI 1.27 to 3.35), while harmful drinking is more prevalent in boys (OR=2.07; 95% CI 1.59 to 2.73). When data are weighted by gender and community, harmful drinking is more prevalent in urban boys (OR=1.97; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.95), cigarette smoking is more frequent in rural boys (OR=1.61; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.39), and urban girls misuse substances to a greater extent than rural girls (OR=1.70; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.51,OR=2.85; 95% CI 1.88 to 4.31,OR=2.78; 95% CI 1.67 to 4.61 for cigarette smoking, harmful drinking and simultaneous smoking-drinking, respectively). Academic failure is strongly associated with a higher likelihood of SUM. The associations between parental factors and SUM are more evident in urban youth. Sports factors are specifically correlated with SUM for urban girls.ConclusionsLiving in an urban environment should be considered as a higher risk factor for SUM in girls. Parental variables are more strongly associated with SUM among urban youth, most probably because of the higher parental involvement in children’ personal lives in urban communities (ie, college plans, for example). Specific indicators should be monitored in the prevention of SUM.

Pojskic, H, Sisic, N, Separovic, V, and Sekulic, D. Association between conditioning capacities and shooting performance in professional basketball players: an analysis of stationary and dynamic shooting skills. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 1981-1992, 2018-Little is known about the influence of conditioning capacities on shooting performance in basketball. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between different conditioning capacities and shooting performance in professional basketball players. In this investigation, we examined 38 males (all perimeter players; height: 185.5 ± 6.73 cm; mass: 78.66 ± 10.35 kg). Conditioning capacities were evaluated by tests of muscular strength, aerobic endurance, jumping and throwing capacities, sprinting speed, preplanned agility, anaerobic endurance, and fatigue resistance. Shooting performance was evaluated using game statistics, as well as 6 tests of shooting performance performed in controlled settings: (a) 3 tests of static (i.e., nonfatigued) shooting performance (standardized execution of 1- [S1], 2- [S2] and 3-point shots [S3] in stationary conditions), and (b) 3 tests of dynamic (i.e., fatigued) shooting performance (standardized execution of 1- [D1], 2- (D2), and 3-point shots [D3] in dynamic conditions). All 3 dynamic shooting tests and the S1 test were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with corresponding game statistics. Multiple regression indicated that conditioning capacities were significantly related to D1 (R = 0.36; p = 0.03), D2 (R = 0.44; p = 0.03), S3 (R = 0.41; p = 0.02), and D3 (R = 0.39; p = 0.03) tests. Players with a higher fatigue resistance achieved better results on the D1 test (β = -0.37, p = 0.03). Preplanned agility (β = -0.33, p = 0.04), countermovement jump (β = 0.42, p = 0.03), and fatigue resistance (β = -0.37, p = 0.02) were significant predictors of D2 performance. The countermovement jump (β = 0.39, p = 0.04), medicine ball toss (β = 0.34, p = 0.04), and anaerobic endurance (β = 0.46, p = 0.04) predicted the results of D3 performance. Jumping, throwing, and anaerobic endurance capacities were good determinants of the skill of dynamic shooting over a long distance. These findings emphasize the importance of explosive power and anaerobic capacity as determinants of shooting performance in high-level basketball players.

No abstract