Acute Responses to 10×15 m Repeated Sprint Ability Exercise in Adolescent Athletes: the Role of Change of Direction and Sport Specialization

Abstract

BackgroundThe repeated sprint ability (RSA) has been studied with protocols using distances longer than 20 m per sprint, whereas basketball players cover on average less than 20-meter distance per sprint during match.ObjectivesThe aim of the present study was to examine the physiological impact of 10 × 15 m RSA test in straight-line (RSASL) or with change of direction (RSACOD), i.e. 10 × (7.5 + 7.5 m)) in young national level basketball players.Patients and MethodsYoung basketball players (n = 11, age 17.1 (1.0) years, body mass 76 (6) kg, height 184 (4) cm, body mass index 22.6 (1.8) kgm-2, sport experience 6.9 (2.7) years, mean (standard deviation)) and a control group consisting of high-school athletes (n = 7, 16.1 (0.7) years, 67 (6) kg, 177 (6) cm, 21.5 (1.0) kgm-2, 7.7 (1.6) years, respectively) performed RSASL and RSACOD on a counter-balanced order. Sprints started every 30 seconds (active recovery) and there was 30 minutes break between RSA protocols; time variables were total time (TT), best time (BT) and fatigue index (FI). Countermovement jump (CMJ) was tested before and after each RSA protocol. Heart rate (HR) was continuously monitored during testing procedures.ResultsCompared with RSASL, TT and BT were worst in RSACOD (38.13 vs. 27.52 s and 3.67 vs. 2.66 s, P < 0.001, respectively), whereas FI did not differ (3.8 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.388). A 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA showed main effect of RSA on CMJ (pre-test vs. post-test, increase + 1.8 cm, P = 0.020, η2 = 0.28); there was neither main effect of RSA protocols (RSASL vs. RSACOD +0.7 cm, P = 0.251, η2 = 0.08) nor an interaction between pre-post measurements and RSA protocols (P = 0.578, η2 = 0.02). Compared with RSASL, RSACOD induced higher mean and peak HR responses (175 vs 172 bpm, P < 0.001, and 185 vs 182 bpm, P = 0.002, respectively). No statistical difference was observed between basketball players and control group neither for TT (27.98 vs. 26.80 seconds, + 4.4%, P = 0.149) and BT (2.71 vs. 2.59 seconds, + 4.5%, P = 0.157) in RSASL nor for TT (38.55 vs. 37.47 seconds, + 2.9%, P = 0.169) and BT (3.70 vs. 3.63 seconds, 1.8%, P = 0.414) in RSACOD.ConclusionsIn conclusion, RSASL and RSACOD differed for time variables (TT and BT) and HR responses. Despite being non-significant, the trend that adding COD reduced the percentage differences in TT and BT between the two groups highlighted the role of sport specialization.

Variation in Lower Limb Power and Three Point Shot Performance Following Repeated Sprints: One vs. Five Changes of Direction in Male Basketball Players

“…However, the extent of change, while significant, is relatively small and associated to small effect sizes and hence further studies are needed to confirm our findings. In contrast with our results, Nikolaidis et al (2016) found a significant improvement in CMJ performance (+1.8 cm) following ten 15-m sprints performed either in a straight line or in shuttles (7.5 m + 7.5 m) in male junior basketball players, with no difference between the effects of these two repeated sprint designs. The main difference between this protocol and those of the above mentioned studies consists of the shorter sprints used (15-m straight line or 7.5-m shuttles vs. 25-35 m straight line or 12.5 m shuttles in previous studies; Balsalobre-Fernández et al, 2014 ; Buchheit 2010 ), which are closer to the distances used in our IRSA5COD test.…”

“…Balsalobre-Fernandez et al (2014) showed that a repeated sprint sequence (6 x 35 m, separated by 10 s of recovery) induced a 7.7% reduction in countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in male professional players, with a significant correlation between the fatigue index calculated from the RSA test and the decrease in CMJ height. In contrast with these findings, Nikolaidis et al (2016) found a significant improvement in CMJ performance (+1.8 cm) following ten 15-m sprints performed either in a straight line or in shuttles (15 m + 15 m) in male junior players, with no difference between these two RSA designs. These contrasting findings could be due to the different types of RSA tests used or the populations tested, and highlight the needs to further investigate these aspects with more relevant RSA tests, especially in adult players.…”

Influence of Maturation and Determinants of Repeated-Sprint Ability in Youth Basketball Players

“…One of the most interesting findings was the almost perfect (r 5 0.93-0.99) relationships between the best and the mean time in both RSA tests. These results are very similar to those found in a group of junior basketball players (in addition to other sports players) who performed 2 RSA tests (i.e., linear [RSG] and COD [repeated specific sprint test]; best times r 5 0.74; mean times r 5 0.74) (31). Although correlations do not imply a cause-effect relationship, it may indicate that both tests (i.e., general and specific RSA tests) assess a similar ability or at least share similar performance factors despite between-test differences in drill design.…”

Repeated Sprint Ability in Elite Basketball Players: The Effects of 10 × 30 m Vs. 20 × 15 m Exercise Protocols on Physiological Variables and Sprint Performance

“…Also, shorter and consecutive accelerations/decelerations are more frequent in-game specific situations ( Schimpchen et al, 2016 ). Accordingly, previous works that used RSA protocols ranged the distance per sprint between 15 to 35 m, however, the longest distances exceed the basketball court dimensions, which questions the suitability of such protocols ( Balciunas et al, 2006 ; Nikolaidis et al, 2016 ). As previously mentioned, the reported La results are usually higher in RSA tests than the mean levels in competition ( Castagna et al, 2008 ).…”

“…However, the official basketball court is 28 m long and 15 m wide, and the suggested average sprint length and duration were 7.38 ± 0.86 m (range, 5– 32 m) and 1.41 ± 0.16 s (1–8 s), respectively (mean bout speed, 19.12 ± 0.72 km/h) ( Castagna et al, 2007 ). In this sense, the aforementioned distances used in different studies may be too long ( Nikolaidis et al, 2016 ). It is reasonable to assume that basketball players are often engaged in sprint distances lesser than 15 m, thus, designing protocols using shorter distances may better deem the dynamics of the competitive environment.…”