Optimal Prescription for Superior Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Inter-Individual Variability in Adaptations to Small-Sided Games and Short Sprint Interval Training in Young Basketball Players

Haoming Xu, Junyi Song, Guoxing Li, Hengtong Wang
{"title":"Optimal Prescription for Superior Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Inter-Individual Variability in Adaptations to Small-Sided Games and Short Sprint Interval Training in Young Basketball Players","authors":"Haoming Xu, Junyi Song, Guoxing Li, Hengtong Wang","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2024.305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared the inter-individual variability in adaptive responses to six weeks of small-sided games (SSG) and short sprint interval training (sSIT) in young basketball players. Thirty well-trained young athletes (age: 16.4 ± 0.6 years; stature: 190 ± 8.4 cm; weight: 84.1 ± 8.2 kg) voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to SSG (3 sets of 5 min 3v3 on full length (28 m) and half-width (7.5 m) court, with 2 minutes of passive recovery in-between), sSIT (3 sets of 12 × 5 s sprinting with 20 s recovery between efforts and 2 min of rest between sets), or CON (routine basketball-specific technical and tactical drills) groups, each of ten. Before and after the training period, participants underwent a series of laboratory- and field-based measurements to evaluate their maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), oxygen pulse, peak and average power output (PPO and APO), linear speed, change of direction (COD), countermovement jump (CMJ), and vertical jump (VJ). Both SSG and sSIT sufficiently stimulated adaptive mechanisms involved in enhancement of the mentioned variables (p < 0.05). However, sSIT resulted in lower residuals in percent changes in V̇O2max (p = 0.02), O2pulse (p = 0.005), VT1 (p = 0.001), PPO (p = 0.03), and linear speed (p = 0.01) across athletes compared to the SSG. Moreover, sSIT resulted in more responders than SSG in V̇O2max (p = 0.02, φ = 0.500), O2pulse (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT1 (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT2 (p = 0.05, φ = 0.436), and linear speed (p = 0.05, φ = 0.420). Our results indicate that sSIT creates a more consistent level of mechanical and physiological stimulus than SSG, potentially leading to more similar adaptations across team members.","PeriodicalId":506848,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"3 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2024.305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study compared the inter-individual variability in adaptive responses to six weeks of small-sided games (SSG) and short sprint interval training (sSIT) in young basketball players. Thirty well-trained young athletes (age: 16.4 ± 0.6 years; stature: 190 ± 8.4 cm; weight: 84.1 ± 8.2 kg) voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to SSG (3 sets of 5 min 3v3 on full length (28 m) and half-width (7.5 m) court, with 2 minutes of passive recovery in-between), sSIT (3 sets of 12 × 5 s sprinting with 20 s recovery between efforts and 2 min of rest between sets), or CON (routine basketball-specific technical and tactical drills) groups, each of ten. Before and after the training period, participants underwent a series of laboratory- and field-based measurements to evaluate their maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), oxygen pulse, peak and average power output (PPO and APO), linear speed, change of direction (COD), countermovement jump (CMJ), and vertical jump (VJ). Both SSG and sSIT sufficiently stimulated adaptive mechanisms involved in enhancement of the mentioned variables (p < 0.05). However, sSIT resulted in lower residuals in percent changes in V̇O2max (p = 0.02), O2pulse (p = 0.005), VT1 (p = 0.001), PPO (p = 0.03), and linear speed (p = 0.01) across athletes compared to the SSG. Moreover, sSIT resulted in more responders than SSG in V̇O2max (p = 0.02, φ = 0.500), O2pulse (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT1 (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT2 (p = 0.05, φ = 0.436), and linear speed (p = 0.05, φ = 0.420). Our results indicate that sSIT creates a more consistent level of mechanical and physiological stimulus than SSG, potentially leading to more similar adaptations across team members.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优化处方,提高效果:年轻篮球运动员适应小范围比赛和短距离冲刺间歇训练的个体间差异比较分析
本研究比较了年轻篮球运动员对为期六周的小型比赛(SSG)和短程冲刺间歇训练(sSIT)的适应性反应的个体间差异。30 名训练有素的年轻运动员(年龄:16.4 ± 0.6 岁;身高:190 ± 8.4 厘米;体重:84.1 ± 8.2 千克)自愿参加,并被随机分配到 SSG(在全长(28 米)和半宽(7.5米)球场上进行3V3,中间有2分钟的被动恢复时间)、sSIT(3组12×5秒的短跑,中间有20秒的恢复时间,每组之间休息2分钟)或CON(常规篮球技战术训练)组,每组10人。在训练前后,参与者接受了一系列实验室和实地测量,以评估他们的最大摄氧量(V̇O2max)、第一和第二通气阈值(VT1 和 VT2)、氧脉搏、峰值和平均输出功率(PPO 和 APO)、线速度、变向(COD)、反运动跳跃(CMJ)和垂直跳跃(VJ)。SSG 和 sSIT 都充分刺激了参与提高上述变量的适应机制(P < 0.05)。然而,与SSG相比,sSIT使不同运动员的V.̇O2max(p = 0.02)、O2pulse(p = 0.005)、VT1(p = 0.001)、PPO(p = 0.03)和线速度(p = 0.01)的百分比变化残差更低。此外,与 SSG 相比,sSIT 在 V̇O2max(p = 0.02,φ = 0.500)、O2pulse(p = 0.003,φ = 0.655)、VT1(p = 0.003,φ = 0.655)、VT2(p = 0.05,φ = 0.436)和线性速度(p = 0.05,φ = 0.420)方面产生了更多的响应者。我们的研究结果表明,与 SSG 相比,sSIT 能产生更一致的机械和生理刺激水平,从而可能导致团队成员之间产生更相似的适应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimal Prescription for Superior Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Inter-Individual Variability in Adaptations to Small-Sided Games and Short Sprint Interval Training in Young Basketball Players Combined Aerobic and Resistance Training Improves Body Composition, Alters Cardiometabolic Risk, and Ameliorates Cancer-Related Indicators in Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors with Overweight/Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Thoracolumbar Fascia and Lumbar Muscle Stiffness in Athletes with A History of Hamstring Injury Race Dynamics in Triathlon Mixed-Team-Relay Meaningfully Changes with The New Regulation Towards Paris 2024 Neuromechanical Differences between Pronated and Supinated Forearm Positions during Upper-Body Wingate Tests
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1