Immune responses, upper respiratory illness symptoms, and load changes in young athletes during the preparatory period of the training periodization

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.

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.

Seasonal changes in physical capacities of basketball players according to competitive levels and individual responses

Purpose

The aim of this study was to quantify changes in physical capacities of thirty-eight basketball players selected from different teams, as well as from varying competitive levels (i.e. Division I, Division II and Division III) during the preparation and in-season periods.

Methods

Pre (T1) and post (T2) preparation period and during regular season (T3), the players completed a Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test—level 1. Following a 3 to 8 days-break, players performed a 6-min continuous running test (Mognoni’s test), a counter-movement jump test and a 5-min high-intensity intermittent running test.

Results

Blood lactate concentration measured after the Mognoni’s test was significantly reduced from T1 to T2, and from T2 to T3 (P<0.001, ƞ² = 0.424). The distance covered during the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test was significantly increased only from T1 to T2 in Division II and III (P<0.001, ƞ² = 0.789). Similarly, the physiological responses to high-intensity intermittent running test were improved only from T1 to T2 (all P<0.001, ƞ² = 0.495 to 0.652). Despite significant changes observed in running tests from T1 to T2, at individual level 35–55% of players did not show a very likely improvement. Relative peak power produced during vertical jumps at T3 by Division I players was increased compared to T1 (ANOVA interaction, P = 0.037, ƞ² = 0.134).

Conclusions

The main improvements in physical capacities occurred during the preparation period, when the aerobic fitness and the ability to sustain high-intensity intermittent efforts were moderately-to-largely improved. However, it appears that the preparation period does not consistently impact on vertical jump variables. Aerobic fitness and force/power production during vertical jumps appear to improve across the competitive season (slightly-to-moderately). Physical tests should be used to identify weaknesses in physical performance of players and to monitor their fatigue status, with the aim to develop individualized training programs.

Effects of low-level laser therapy on performance, inflammatory markers, and muscle damage in young water polo athletes: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 5 days of 810-nm low-level laser therapy (LLLT) intervention on inflammatory and muscle damage markers and performance in young water polo players. Twenty young male water polo players participated in the study, which was designed as a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Active LLLT or an identical placebo LLLT were delivered to eight points on the adductor muscle region immediately after each training day. Performance was measured by a 200-m maximal swimming (P200) and a 30-s crossbar jump test (30CJ) which was performed every day before training, and blood samples were drawn pre and post the final LLLT intervention to measure interleukins (IL) and muscle damage markers. There was no significant change in the P200 exercise in the LLLT group compared with the placebo group but there was a moderate improvement in the 30CJ (8.7 ± 2.6 %). IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor-alpha presented increased (P < 0.016) concentration within group 48 h after the last LLLT intervention compared to pre, 0, and 24 h, but did not differ between groups. IL-10 increased over time in the placebo group and reached a moderate effect compared to the LLLT group. The creatine kinase decreased significantly (P = 0.049) over the time within the LLLT treatment group, but there was no significant change in lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.150). In conclusion, LLLT resulted in a non-significant, but small to moderate effect on inflammatory and muscle damage markers and a moderate effect on performance in water polo players. In addition, the lack of positive results could be due to the small area covered by irradiation and this should be considered in future studies.