The Isometric Midthigh Pull in Basketball: An Effective Predictor of Sprint and Jump Performance in Male, Adolescent Players

Evaluation of Athlete Monitoring Tools across 10 Weeks of Elite Youth Basketball Training: An Explorative Study

The growth of sport science technology is enabling more sporting teams to implement athlete monitoring practices related to performance testing and load monitoring. Despite the increased emphasis on youth athlete development, the lack of longitudinal athlete monitoring literature in youth athletes is concerning, especially for indoor sports such as basketball. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of six different athlete monitoring methods over 10 weeks of youth basketball training. Fourteen state-level youth basketball players (5 males and 9 females; 15.1 ± 1.0 years) completed this study during their pre-competition phase prior to their national basketball tournament. Daily wellness and activity surveys were completed using the OwnUrGoal mobile application, along with heart rate (HR) and inertial measurement unit (IMU) recordings at each state training session, and weekly performance testing (3x countermovement jumps [CMJs], and 3x isometric mid-thigh pulls [IMTPs]). All of the athlete monitoring methods demonstrated the coaching staff's training intent to maintain performance and avoid spikes in workload. Monitoring IMU data combined with PlayerLoad™ data analysis demonstrated more effectiveness for monitoring accumulated load (AL) compared to HR analysis. All six methods of athlete monitoring detected similar trends for all sessions despite small-trivial correlations between each method (Pearson's correlation: -0.24 < r < 0.28). The use of subjective monitoring questionnaire applications, such as OwnUrGoal, is recommended for youth sporting clubs, given its practicability and low-cost. Regular athlete education from coaches and support staff regarding the use of these questionnaires is required to gain the best data.

Anthropometric and Power-Related Attributes Differ Between Competition Levels in Age-Matched Under-19-Year-Old Male Basketball Players

PURPOSE

To compare anthropometric and power-related attributes between competition levels in under-19-year-old (U19) male basketball players.

METHODS

National-level (n = 7; age: 17.7 [0.5] y), first-division state-level (n = 8; 17.4 [0.4] y), and second-division state-level (n = 8; 17.1 [0.4] y) players from Australian basketball programs participated in this pilot study. Players had various anthropometric attributes (height, standing reach height, wingspan, and body mass) and power-related attributes (isometric midthigh pull, linear sprint, countermovement jump, 1-step vertical jump, standing long jump, repeated lateral bound, and Modified Agility T Test) measured in the preseason. Differences between groups were assessed using 1-way analyses of variance with Tukey post hoc tests and effect sizes (ES) interpreted as trivial, <0.20; small, 0.20 to 0.59; moderate, 0.60 to 1.19; large, 1.20 to 1.99; and very large, ≥2.00.

RESULTS

Regarding anthropometric attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) height (ES = 2.09), standing reach height (ES = 1.54), wingspan (ES = 1.45), and body mass (ES = 1.77) than second-division state-level players. For power-related attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) isometric midthigh-pull peak force (ES = 1.46-2.57), sprint momentum (ES = 1.17-2.18), and countermovement jump peak force (ES = 1.73-2.01) than state-level players. Moreover, national-level players demonstrated greater (P < .05) 1-step vertical jump height (ES = 1.95, large) than second division state-level players.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific anthropometric and power-related attributes clearly differ between competition levels in U19 male basketball players. This information can inform development of testing protocols, reference ranges, and training programs in practice. Further research is encouraged on this topic to confirm our findings across larger samples of basketball players.

A comparison of manual and automatic force-onset identification methodologies and their effect on force-time characteristics in the isometric midthigh pull

The aim of this study was to assess the agreement of three different automated methods of identifying force-onset (40 N, 5 SDs, and 3 SDs) with manual identification, during the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). Fourteen resistance-trained participants with >6 months experience training with the power clean volunteered to take part. After three familiarisation sessions, the participants performed five maximal IMTPs separated by 1 min of rest. Fixed bias was found between 40 N and manual identification for time at force-onset. No proportional bias was present between manual identification and any automated threshold. Fixed bias between manual identification and automated was present for force at onset and F150. Proportional but not fixed bias was found for F50 between manual identification and all automated thresholds. Small to moderate differences (Hedges g = -0.487- -0.692) were found for F90 between all automated thresholds and manual identification, while trivial to small differences (Hedges g = -0.122--0.279) were found between methods for F200 and F250. Based on these results, strength and conditioning practitioners should not use a 40 N, 5 SDs, or 3 SDs threshold interchangeably with manual identification of force-onset when analysing IMTP force-time curve data.

Identifying Reliable and Relatable Force-Time Metrics in Athletes-Considerations for the Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull and Countermovement Jump

The purpose of this study was to evaluate intrasession reliability of countermovement jump (CMJ) and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) force-time characteristics, as well as relationships between CMJ and IMTP metrics. Division I sport and club athletes (n = 112) completed two maximal effort CMJ and IMTP trials, in that order, on force plates. Relative and absolute reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.80 and coefficients of variation (CVs) < 10%. Intrasession reliability was acceptable for the majority of the CMJ force-time metrics except for concentric rate of force development (RFD), eccentric impulse and RFD, and lower limb stiffness. The IMTP's time to peak force, instantaneous force at 150 ms, instantaneous net force, and RFD measures were not reliable. Statistically significant weak to moderate relationships (r = 0.20-0.46) existed between allometrically scaled CMJ and IMTP metrics, with the exception of CMJ eccentric mean power not being related with IMTP performances. A majority of CMJ and IMTP metrics met acceptable reliability standards, except RFD measures which should be used with caution. Provided CMJs and IMTPs are indicative of distinct physical fitness capabilities, it is suggested to monitor athlete performance in both tests via changes in those variables that demonstrate the greatest degree of reliability.

Utility of a Shortened Isometric Midthigh Pull Protocol for Assessing Rapid Force Production in Athletes

Suarez, DG, Carroll, KM, Slaton, JA, Rochau, KG, Davis, MW, and Stone, MH. Utility of a shortened isometric midthigh pull protocol for assessing rapid force production in athletes. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-The purpose of this investigation was to determine the magnitude of difference, reliability, and relationship to performance of a shortened isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) protocol. Fourteen strength-trained men (age: 26.8 ± 5.0 years, height: 176.3 ± 6.9 cm, body mass: 86.8 ± 13.9 kg, and training age: 8.5 ± 6.9 years) performed 1-second (SHORT) and traditional (TRAD) IMTP protocols during consecutive weeks. Peak force (PF), instantaneous force (90 & 200 ms), rate of force development (RFD) (0-90 ms & 0-200 ms), and impulse (0-90 ms & 0-200 ms) from each protocol were collected. Paired samples t test and Hedge's g were calculated to determine the magnitude of difference in each variable between protocols. Within-session and between-session reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation, and 95% confidence intervals. Static jumps were performed to compare relationships of the IMTP variables from each protocol with jumping performance. There was no statistically significant (p > 0.05) difference in PF between the protocols (p = 0.345; g = -0.07). All early force-time variables were significantly higher in the SHORT protocol (p = <0.001-0.018; g = 0.38-0.79). The SHORT protocol resulted in more reliable RFD measures within-session. Correlations with jumping performance were mostly similar between protocols (r = 0.253-0.660). The SHORT IMTP protocol resulted in comparable PF values and considerably higher early force-time characteristics despite a restrained time to produce force and shorter rest. The SHORT protocol allows for an accurate assessment of rapid force-generating abilities while necessitating shorter collection periods than typical IMTP protocols.