Quantification of the Perceived Training Load in Young Female Basketball Players

Methods of Monitoring Internal and External Loads and Their Relationships with Physical Qualities, Injury, or Illness in Adolescent Athletes: A Systematic Review and Best-Evidence Synthesis

BACKGROUND

With the increasing professionalisation of youth sports, training load monitoring is increasingly common in adolescent athletes. However, the research examining the relationship between training load and changes in physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes is yet to be synthesised in a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to systematically examine the research assessing internal and external methods of monitoring training load and physical qualities, injury, or illness in adolescent athletes.

METHODS

Systematic searches of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL and SCOPUS were undertaken from the earliest possible records to March 2022. Search terms included synonyms relevant to adolescents, athletes, physical qualities, injury, or illness. To be eligible for inclusion, articles were required to (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) include participants aged between 10 and 19 years and participating in competitive sport; (4) report a statistical relationship between a measure of internal and/or external load and physical qualities, injury or illness. Articles were screened and assessed for methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted to identify trends in the relationships reported.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 4125 articles. Following screening and a review of references, 59 articles were included. The most commonly reported load monitoring tools were session ratings of perceived exertion (n = 29) and training duration (n = 22). Results of the best-evidence synthesis identified moderate evidence of positive relationships between resistance training volume load and improvement in strength, and between throw count and injury. However, evidence for other relationships between training load and change in physical qualities, injury, or illness were limited or inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners should consider monitoring resistance training volume load for strength training. Additionally, where appropriate, monitoring throw counts may be useful in identifying injury risk. However, given the lack of clear relationships between singular measures of training load with physical qualities, injury, or illness, researchers should consider multivariate methods of analysing training load, as well as factors that may mediate the load-response relationship, such as maturation.

Monitoring Internal Load in Women's Basketball via Subjective and Device-Based Methods: A Systematic Review

The monitoring of internal load in basketball can be used to understand the effects and potential physiological adaptations caused by external load. The main aim of this systematic review was to identify the methods and variables used to quantify internal load in female basketball. The studies included different populations and events: youth athletes, elite, and amateur players. Subjective methods included using the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method, and sensor-based methods included monitoring the cardiac response to exercise, using heart rate (HR) as the primary metric. The results showed that the HRAvg exhibited a wider range of values during training than during competition, and different metrics were used to evaluate internal load, such as HRMax, HRmin, %HRMax, total time and % of time spent in different HR zones (2-8 zones), Banister's TRIMP, and summated HR zones. RPE and HR metrics were the most commonly used methods. However, the use of multiple metrics with little standardization resulted in significant heterogeneity among studies, limiting meaningful comparisons. The review provides a reference for current research on female basketball. Future research could address this limitation by adopting more consistent measurement protocols standardizing the use of metrics.

External and Internal Load Variables Encountered During Training and Games in Female Basketball Players According to Playing Level and Playing Position: A Systematic Review

Background

Despite the growing global participation of females in basketball and number of studies conducted on the topic, no research has summarized the external and internal load variables encountered by female basketball players during training and games.

Objective

To collate existing literature investigating external and internal load variables during training and games in female basketball players according to playing level (club, high-school, representative, collegiate, semi-professional, and professional) and playing position (backcourt and frontcourt players).

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science to identify studies published from database inception until June 11, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion were observational and cross-sectional studies, published in English, reporting external and/or internal load variables during training sessions and/or games. Methodological quality and bias were assessed for each study prior to data extraction using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Weighted means according to playing level and playing position were calculated and compared if a load variable was reported across two or more player samples and were consistent regarding key methodological procedures including the seasonal phase monitored, minimum exposure time set for including player data (playing time during games), approach to measure session duration, and approach to measure session intensity.

Results

The search yielded 5513 studies of which 1541 studies were duplicates. A further 3929 studies were excluded based on title and abstract review, with 11 more studies excluded based on full-text review. Consequently, 32 studies were included in our review. Due to the wide array of methodological approaches utilized across studies for examined variables, comparisons could only be made according to playing level for blood lactate concentration during games, revealing backcourt players experienced higher lactate responses than frontcourt players (5.2 ± 1.9 mmol·L−1 vs. 4.4 ± 1.8 mmol·L−1).

Conclusions

Inconsistencies in the methods utilized to measure common load variables across studies limited our ability to report and compare typical external and internal loads during training and games according to playing level and position in female basketball players. It is essential that standardized methodological approaches are established for including player data as well as measuring session duration (e.g., total time, live time) and intensity (e.g., consistent rating of perceived exertion scales, intensity zone cut points) in future female basketball research to permit meaningful interpretation and comparisons of load monitoring data across studies.

Monitoring Training Load, Immune-Endocrine, Autonomic Nervous System Responses, and Swimming Performance in Women's Water Polo

Purpose: The purposes of the study were to: i) verify the variations in training load and the subsequent effects on swimming performance parameters, biochemical parameters, and autonomic nervous activity during a water polo season; ii) investigate the sensitivity of physiological markers in tracking training load and performance variations, and iii) verify the overreaching prevalence. Method: The training load of 20 female water polo players was monitored (using the session rating of perceived exertion method [sRPE], training monotony, and strain), and the lactate minimum speed (LMS), repeated sprint ability (RSA), plasma hormone and glutamine concentration, salivary immunoglobulin A (SIgA), and heart rate variability (lnRMSSD) were evaluated during the season. Result: The training load parameters were higher in the competitive cycle (p ≤ 0.002). The LMS improved only in the general cycle from baseline (p = .015), while the RSA best time improved in the general (p = .002) and specific cycles (p = .012) from baseline and deteriorated in the competitive from general cycle (p = .008). The SIgA secretion rate presented a reduction only in the specific cycle from baseline (p = .032), while the lnRMSSD increased in the general (p = .038) and competitive (p < .001) cycles from baseline. Five athletes were diagnosed as overreaching state. Conclusion: Therefore, the physiological markers (i.e., plasma hormone and glutamine concentration, SIgA, and lnRMSSD) showed little sensitivity to detect changes in training load and swimming performance. The higher training loads applied in the competitive cycle seem to limit swimming performance gains.

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

BACKGROUND

Measuring the physical work and resultant acute psychobiological responses of basketball can help to better understand and inform physical preparation models and improve overall athlete health and performance. Recent advancements in training load monitoring solutions have coincided with increases in the literature describing the physical demands of basketball, but there are currently no reviews that summarize all the available basketball research. Additionally, a thorough appraisal of the load monitoring methodologies and measures used in basketball is lacking in the current literature. This type of critical analysis would allow for consistent comparison between studies to better understand physical demands across the sport.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically evaluate the methods and technologies used for monitoring physical demands in competitive basketball athletes. We used the term 'training load' to encompass the physical demands of both training and game activities, with the latter assumed to provide a training stimulus as well. This review aimed to critique methodological inconsistencies, establish operational definitions specific to the sport, and make recommendations for basketball training load monitoring practice and reporting within the literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science to identify studies through March 2020. Electronic databases were searched using terms related to basketball and training load. Records were included if they used a competitive basketball population and incorporated a measure of training load. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Registration # CRD42019123603), and approved under the National Basketball Association (NBA) Health Related Research Policy.

RESULTS

Electronic and manual searches identified 122 papers that met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported the physical demands of basketball during training (n = 56), competition (n = 36), and both training and competition (n = 30). Physical demands were quantified with a measure of internal training load (n = 52), external training load (n = 29), or both internal and external measures (n = 41). These studies examined males (n = 76), females (n = 34), both male and female (n = 9), and a combination of youth (i.e. under 18 years, n = 37), adults (i.e. 18 years or older, n = 77), and both adults and youth (n = 4). Inconsistencies related to the reporting of competition level, methodology for recording duration, participant inclusion criteria, and validity of measurement systems were identified as key factors relating to the reporting of physical demands in basketball and summarized for each study.

CONCLUSIONS

This review comprehensively evaluated the current body of literature related to training load monitoring in basketball. Within this literature, there is a clear lack of alignment in applied practices and methodological framework, and with only small data sets and short study periods available at this time, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the true physical demands of basketball. A detailed understanding of modern technologies in basketball is also lacking, and we provide specific guidelines for defining and applying duration measurement methodologies, vetting the validity and reliability of measurement tools, and classifying competition level in basketball to address some of the identified knowledge gaps. Creating alignment in best-practice basketball research methodology, terminology and reporting may lead to a more robust understanding of the physical demands associated with the sport, thereby allowing for exploration of other research areas (e.g. injury, performance), and improved understanding and decision making in applying these methods directly with basketball athletes.

Effect of concurrent training on trainability performance factors in youth elite golf players

Background

Due to the early specialization of golf players, examining the within session sequence of training should be considered to enhance performance and prevent injury risk. The present study analyzed the effects of an 18-week concurrent training developed before or after a specific golf session in adolescence elite golfers on several performance factors.

Methods

Sixteen right-handed male golfers, were randomly divided into two groups: after golf specific training (AG) (n = 8, age: 16.77 ± 0.58 years) and before golf specific training (BG) (n = 8, age: 16.93 ± 0.59 years). AG and BG players followed a concurrent physical conditioning program (CT) after or before the golf specific training, respectively. Body mass, body fat, muscle mass, jumping ability (CMJ), ball speed (Sball), golf movements screens (GMS), power in a golf swing-specific cable woodchop (Wmax) and the perceived training load (TL) in golf specific training (TL-G) and TL in CT (TL-CT) were measured on three separate occasions.

Results

BG demonstrates a lower TL-CT than AG (p < .001, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}${\eta }_{p}^{2}=0.90$\end{document}ηp2=0.90) along the training program without effects on TL-G, achieving significant percentage of change on CMJ (9.38%; p = .165; d = 0.73), GMS (50.52%; p = .41, d = 0.91), Wmax (16.93%; p = .001; d = 2.02) and Sball (1.82%; p = .018; d = 0.92) without interaction effects on anthropometric measures.

Conclusions

Performing CT sessions before the regular golf training can improve specific performance factors with a lower perceived TL than the same training carried out after the regular golf training.