Scanlan Aaron T, Fox Jordan L, Borges Nattai R, Dalbo Vincent J
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Feb;12(2):260-263. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0005. Epub 2016 Aug 24.
Declines in high-intensity activity during game play (in-game approach) and performance tests measured pre- and postgame (across-game approach) have been used to assess player fatigue in basketball. However, a direct comparison of these approaches is not available. Consequently, this study examined the commonality between in- and across-game jump fatigue during simulated basketball game play.
Australian, state-level, junior male basketball players (n = 10; 16.6 ± 1.1 y, 182.4 ± 4.3 cm, 68.3 ± 10.2 kg) completed 4 × 10-min standardized quarters of simulated basketball game play. In-game jump height during game play was measured using video analysis, while across-game jump height was determined pre-, mid-, and postgame play using an in-ground force platform. Jump height was determined using the flight-time method, with jump decrement calculated for each approach across the first half, second half, and entire game.
A greater jump decrement was apparent for the in-game approach than for the across-game approach in the first half (37.1% ± 11.6% vs 1.7% ± 6.2%; P = .005; d = 3.81, large), while nonsignificant, large differences were evident between approaches in the second half (d = 1.14) and entire game (d = 1.83). Nonsignificant associations were evident between in-game and across-game jump decrement, with shared variances of 3-26%.
Large differences and a low commonality were observed between in- and across-game jump fatigue during basketball game play, suggesting that these approaches measure different constructs. Based on our findings, it is not recommended that basketball coaches use these approaches interchangeably to monitor player fatigue across the season.
比赛过程中的高强度活动下降(比赛中方法)以及赛前和赛后测量的性能测试(跨比赛方法)已被用于评估篮球运动员的疲劳程度。然而,这些方法之间尚无直接比较。因此,本研究考察了模拟篮球比赛中比赛中与跨比赛跳跃疲劳之间的共性。
澳大利亚州级青少年男子篮球运动员(n = 10;16.6±1.1岁,182.4±4.3厘米,68.3±10.2千克)完成了4×10分钟的标准化模拟篮球比赛四节。比赛过程中的跳跃高度通过视频分析测量,而跨比赛跳跃高度则在比赛前、中、后使用地面力平台测定。跳跃高度采用飞行时间法确定,计算每种方法在上半场、下半场和全场比赛中的跳跃下降幅度。
上半场比赛中方法的跳跃下降幅度明显大于跨比赛方法(37.1%±11.6%对1.7%±6.2%;P = 0.005;d = 3.81,大),而下半场(d = 1.14)和全场比赛(d = 1.83)两种方法之间差异虽不显著,但差异较大。比赛中与跨比赛跳跃下降幅度之间的关联不显著,共同方差为3 - 26%。
篮球比赛中比赛中与跨比赛跳跃疲劳之间存在较大差异且共性较低,表明这些方法测量的是不同的结构。基于我们的研究结果,不建议篮球教练在整个赛季中交替使用这些方法来监测运动员的疲劳。