Examination of Coach and Player Perceptions of Recovery and Exertion

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.

Internal Training Load Perceived by Athletes and Planned by Coaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and session RPE (sRPE) has been widely used to verify the internal load in athletes. Understanding the agreement between the training load prescribed by coaches and that perceived by athletes is a topic of great interest in sport science.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate differences between the training/competition load perceived by athletes and prescribed/intended/observed by coaches.

Methods

A literature search (September 2020 and updated in November 2021) was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SPORTDiscus databases. The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/wna4x). Studies should include athletes and coaches of any sex, age, or level of experience. The studies should present outcomes related to the RPE or sRPE for any scale considering overall training/competition sessions (physical, strength, tactical, technical, games) and/or classified into three effort categories: easy, moderate, and hard.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between coaches and athletes for overall RPE (SMD = 0.19, P = 0.10) and overall sRPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.75). There was a difference for easy RPE (SMD = − 0.44, small effect size, P = 0.04) and easy sRPE (SMD = − 0.54, moderate effect size, P = 0.04). No differences were found for moderate RPE (SMD = 0.05, P = 0.74) and hard RPE (SMD = 0.41, P = 0.18). No difference was found for moderate (SMD = -0.15, P = 0.56) and hard (SMD = 0.20, P = 0.43) sRPE.

Conclusion

There is an agreement between coaches and athletes about overall RPE and sRPE, and RPE and sRPE into two effort categories (moderate and hard). However, there were disagreements in RPE and sRPE for easy effort category. Thus, despite a small disagreement, the use of these tools seems to be adequate for training monitoring.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-022-00420-3.

Factors Influencing the Association Between Coach and Athlete Rating of Exertion: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subjective monitoring of rate of perceived exertion is common practice in many sports. Typically, the information is used to understand the training load and at times modify forthcoming sessions. Identifying the relationship between the athlete and coach's interpretation of training would likely further benefit understanding load management. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the relationship between coaches' rating of intended exertion (RIE) and/or rating of observed exertion (ROE) and athletes' reported rating of perceived exertion (RPE).

METHODS

The review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases. We assessed the correlation between coach-reported RIE and/or ROE and RPE. Assessment for risk of bias was undertaken using the Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Inclusion criteria were (1) male and/or female individuals, (2) individual and/or team sport active participants, and (3) original research article published in the English language.

RESULTS

Data from 19 articles were found to meet the eligibility criteria. A random effect meta-analysis based on 11 studies demonstrated a positive association of player vs. coach rating of RIE (r = 0.62 [95% CI 0.5 to 0.7], p < 0.001). The pooled correlation from 7 studies of player vs. coach rating on ROE was r = 0.64 95% CI (0.5 to 0.7), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

There was a moderate to high association between coach RIE and/or ROE and athlete-reported RPE and this association seems to be influenced by many factors. The suggestions we present in this review are based on imploring practitioners to consider a multi-modal approach and the implications of monitoring when using RPE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42020193387.

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.

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Basketball is a court-based team-sport that requires a broad array of demands (physiological, mechanical, technical, tactical) in training and competition which makes it important for practitioners to understand the stress imposed on the basketball player during practice and match-play. Therefore, the main aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the training and match-play demands of basketball in elite, sub-elite, and youth competition. A search of five electronic databases (PubMed, SportDiscus, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane) was conducted until December 20^th, 2019. Articles were included if the study: (i) was published in English; (ii) contained internal or external load variables from basketball training and/or competition; and (iii) reported physiological or metabolic demands of competition or practice. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type of study participants into elite (20), sub-elite (9), and youth (6). A total of 35 articles were included in the systematic review. Results indicate that higher-level players seem to be more efficient while moving on-court. When compared to sub-elite and youth, elite players cover less distance at lower average velocities and with lower maximal and average heart rate during competition. However, elite-level players have a greater bandwidth to express higher velocity movements. From the present systematic review, it seems that additional investigation on this topic is warranted before a “clear picture” can be drawn concerning the acceleration and deceleration demands of training and competition. It is necessary to accurately and systematically assess competition demands to provide appropriate training strategies that resemble match-play.

Using differential ratings of perceived exertion to assess agreement between coach and player perceptions of soccer training intensity: An exploratory investigation

We aimed to assess the coach-player agreement of subjective soccer training loads via differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE). The coach initially underwent quantifiable familiarisation (blackness test) with the Borg CR100 scale. Data were collected from 16 semi-professional soccer players across seven consecutive training sessions. For the measurement of subjective training load, the coach and players provided dRPE (CR100) for legs (RPE-L), breathlessness (RPE-B) and technical exertion (RPE-T). Coach-prescribed dRPE were recorded prior to training, with coach observed and player reported dRPE collected post training. Statistical equivalence bounds for agreement between coach (prescribed and observed) and player reported dRPE scores were 4 arbitrary units on the CR100 and we used a probability outcome of likely (≥75%) to infer realistic equivalence. Following three familiarisation sessions, the coach improved their blackness test score from 39% to 83%. Coach observed and player reported RPE-T scores were likely equivalent, with all other comparisons not realistically equivalent. Since training prescription is coach-led, our data highlight the importance of accurate internal load measurement and feedback in soccer. The improved accuracy and precision of coach intensity estimation after three attempts at the blackness test suggests that this method could be worthwhile to researchers and practitioners employing dRPE.

The Development of a Personalised Training Framework: Implementation of Emerging Technologies for Performance

Over the last decade, there has been considerable interest in the individualisation of athlete training, including the use of genetic information, alongside more advanced data capture and analysis techniques. Here, we explore the evidence for, and practical use of, a number of these emerging technologies, including the measurement and quantification of epigenetic changes, microbiome analysis and the use of cell-free DNA, along with data mining and machine learning. In doing so, we develop a theoretical model for the use of these technologies in an elite sport setting, allowing the coach to better answer six key questions: (1) To what training will my athlete best respond? (2) How well is my athlete adapting to training? (3) When should I change the training stimulus (i.e., has the athlete reached their adaptive ceiling for this training modality)? (4) How long will it take for a certain adaptation to occur? (5) How well is my athlete tolerating the current training load? (6) What load can my athlete handle today? Special consideration is given to whether such an individualised training framework will outperform current methods as well as the challenges in implementing this approach.