KIN 585 - Coaching Manual - Programming and Periodization for Collegiate Basketball

7/24/2019 KIN 585 - Coaching Manual - Programming and Periodization for Collegiate Basketball

1/28

Running head: INTRO TO PROGRAMMING AND PERIODIZATION FOR COLLEGIATE BASKETBALL

Introduction to Programming and Periodization for Collegiate Basketball

By Aaron Chew (87504130)

Submitted in fulfillment for KIN585 - Coaching Science I to Dr. Maria Gallo

School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia

November 28th, 2014


2/28

INTRO TO PROGRAMMING AND PERIODIZATION FOR COLLEGIATE BASKETBALL

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

CHAPTER 1: Introduction....................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: Needs Analysis ...................................................................

Energy Systems ..............................................................................

Aerobic System: Oxidative System ................................................

Anaerobic Systems: Phosphagen and Glycolytic Systems .............

Position-specific Considerations ....................................................

Perimeter players ...........................................................................

Post players ....................................................................................

4

4

5

6

8

8

9

CHAPTER 3: Gap Analysis ......................................................................

Testing Battery ...............................................................................

Anthropometric Measures .............................................................

Vertical Jump ..................................................................................

Sprint Ability ...................................................................................

Agility .............................................................................................Power and Strength .......................................................................

Aerobic/Anaerobic Endurance .......................................................

11

12

13

13

15

1617

19

CHAPTER 4: Programming and Periodization ........................................

Macrocycle .....................................................................................

Mesocycle ......................................................................................

Microcycle ......................................................................................

Intra-session ...................................................................................

20

21

21

22

22

CHAPTER 5: Conclusion .........................................................................

Further Reading ..............................................................................

25

25

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 27


3/28


3

CHAPTER 1: INRODUCTION

Basketball is one of the worlds most popular sports. In Canada, the popularity of basketball is

at an all-time high, which may be attributable several cumulative factors, such as the 20th

anniversary of

the National Basketball Association (NBA) in Canada, the illustrious career of two-time NBA Most

Valuable Player (MVP) and global sports ambassador Steve Nash, the resurgence of the Toronto Raptors

as a competitive NBA franchise, and Canadians becoming the number one overall NBA draft picks for the

last two consecutive years. Additionally, within this relative timeframe, Simon Fraser University (SFU) in

Burnaby, British Columbia became the worlds first international National Collegiate Athletic Association

(NCAA) university, competing in the Greater Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) against strong

American competition.

As a result of the increasing prominence of basketball in Canada, we can expect more emphasis

to be placed on researching and studying sport science in an attempt to increase the development of

basketball players as the popularity of the game continues to flourish and Canadians begin competing at

higher levels with stronger competition. However, while much research has been conducted on the

sport of basketball with respect to performance testing, cardiovascular fitness, anaerobic fitness,

repeated sprint ability, power, jumping, and agility, it is this authors opinion that the local basketball

strength and conditioning community has been poor at translating this abundance of theory into

meaningful practice.

The National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) states that it is the role of the

Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) to apply scientific knowledge to improve sport

performance. Observationally however, the current training methodologies conducted by the local

basketball development community do not follow sound strength and conditioning principles.

Contrarily, the exercises used by local basketball trainers are often overly sport specific and instead


4/28


4

focus on inducing and enduring fatigue, rather than concentrating on sound programming, loading and

exercise selection for optimal development of the physiological characteristics such as strength and

power that will transfer to greater sport performance.

Therefore, it is the intent of the author to remedy this and increase the quality of strength and

conditioning within the local basketball community. Hence, the purpose of this coaching manual is to

provide an introductory resource for strength & conditioning professionals and a general framework for

designing and implementing a comprehensive, periodized athletic development program for collegiate

basketball.

CHAPTER II: NEEDS ANALYSIS

Energy Systems

Basketball is classified as an intermittent team sport (ITS), and requires periods of activity that

span across varying intensities, distances and durations (McInnes, Carlson, Jones and McKenna, 1995).

For example, a typical basketball play sequence may involve any combination of activities on the

intensity spectrum, from explosive jumping, bursts of acceleration, sharp changes of direction, and quick

lateral movements, down to lower level activities such as jogging, walking or standing. As a result, it is

difficult to pinpoint the exact proportion of energy system contributions as the range of activity levels

dictates that all three of the bodys energy systems are used to varying degrees. For example,

Abdelkrim, El Fazaa and Jalila (2007) conducted a comprehensive time-motion analysis study and found

that elite basketball players change actions once every two seconds, which illuminates the complexity,

variability, and intermittent nature of the sport. The authors found that approximately 41%, 5.3% and

22% of live time were spent competing in specific movements, sprinting and low to moderate-

intensity running, respectively, whereas 29.9% was spent standing still and walking (p. 70). In spite of


5/28


5

this complexity, the following section will attempt to highlight the relative importance of the bodys

energy systems on basketball performance.

Aerobic System: Oxidative System

At the collegiate level the total live game-play time (LT) totals 40-minutes of stoppage time (i.e.

two 20-minute halves, or four 10-minute quarters, depending on league rules). However, with the

addition of stoppages in play, timeouts, and intermissions, total play time (TT), the time required to

complete an entire collegiate game, may take 1.5-2 hours. Throughout this timeframe, time-motion

analysis has demonstrated that basketball players can run between 6 to 7.5 kilometers per game

(Strumbelj, Vuckovic, Jakovljevic, Milanovic, James and Erculk, 2014). Furthermore, McInnes et al

(1995) found that the average heart rate during an elite U-19 basketball game was 165 beats per minute

(BPM), and players heart rates were greater than 85% of their maximums for over 75% of live game

play, and 65% of total time. Interestingly, while there are clear tactical and style-of-play differences

between playing positions, the cardiovascular demands remain similar in spite of this; Strumbelj et al

(2014) noted that there were no significant differences between guards, forwards, and centres with

regards to cardiovascular fitness measures, which suggests that aerobic power is equally important for

all positions. These proportions of aerobic intensity further illustrate the clear contribution and

importance of cardiovascular fitness in basketball.

Based on this evidence, basketball requires a large aerobic contribution from the bodys

oxidative energy system in order to be able to play for the entire duration of the game and to delay

fatigue as players accumulate mileage during game play. The oxidative system is primarily responsible

for exercise durations greater than two minutes. While slow to initiate relative to anaerobic systems,

the oxidative system is primarily fueled by fats and provides the highest amount of sustainable energy


6/28


6

during exercise. The oxidative systems aerobic power is primarily measured via maximum oxygen

uptake (VO2 max), which is the maximum amount of oxygen the body can utilize at once, typically

expressed in liters per minute (L/min). VO2 max is generally affected by the bodys ability to deliver and

extract oxygen. Sub-factors that contribute to oxygen delivery and extraction include cardiac output,

stroke volume, mitochondrial density, capillary density, hemoglobin content, plasma volume, and blood

volume. The development of these physiological adaptations via aerobic exercise will result in increased

cardiovascular fitness, and may lead to increased performance and recovery in basketball players.

Interestingly, Hoffman, Epstein, Einbinder and Weinstein (1999) found that there was an

insignificant relationship in basketball players between aerobic capacity and the ability to recover from

high intensity exercise. Furthermore, Castanga, Chaouachi, Rampinini, Chamari and Impellizzeri (2009)

concluded that a VO2 max of 50 ml-kg/min was a sufficient aerobic capacity level for regional level

basketball players. These findings illustrate that aerobic training has diminishing returns and may not

further improve basketball performance if it is over-emphasized.

Anaerobic Systems: The Phosphagen and Glycolytic Systems

In contrast to the overall contributions and importance of the oxidative system, anaerobic

qualities are equally, and perhaps more, important determinants of performance in basketball. The

dimensions of a basketball court are relatively small at 94x24 feet. This means the maximum uni-

directional distance a player will run in a given play is approximately 30 meters, though in typical game

play the acceleration distances may be much shorter, depending on the players position and the tactical

context of the game scenario. Further, Abdelkrim and colleagues (2007) postulate that modern rule

changes have encouraged games to be played at higher intensities. For example, with shot-clock and

ball-advancement durations being reduced from 30 to 24 seconds, and 10 to 8 seconds, respectively,


7/28


7

tactical play has shifted away from patient, methodical offensive schemes to an attacking, up-tempo

game play that promotes urgency and creativity (Abdelkrim et al, 2007). Supportively, these authors

found that players performed an average of 44 jumps per game, and Hoffman, Tenenbaum, Maresh, and

Kreamer (1996) concluded that playing time in collegiate basketball was strongly predicted by measures

of anaerobic capacity, such as jumping, sprinting, and change of direction (COD) ability As a result, the

development of alactic qualities must be the primary goal of effective basketball strength & conditioning

programs once an adequate aerobic foundation has been established.

High-intensity anaerobic activity lasting 0-15 seconds is powered primarily via the phosphagen

anaerobic pathway (alactic), which is responsible for explosive, high force/power movements such as

sprinting, jumping, and cutting. As high intensity activity exceeds 15 seconds, energy production

switches to the glycolytic system (lactic), which powers high intensity efforts lasting up to approximately

two minutes before the oxidative system becomes the primary contributor of energy.

The types of anaerobic qualities are numerous, including maximum strength, power, speed,

agility, and repeated sprint ability. Maximum strength and power can be affected by factors such as

muscle cross-sectional area, muscle fiber type distribution, motor unit recruitment, neuromuscular

synchronization and movement economy. Moreover, speed, agility and jumping ability may require pre-

requisite levels of strength and power, but may also rely on additional qualities such as the elasticity of

muscles, tendons and ligaments, and minimization of the amortization period between eccentric and

concentric muscle actions, thereby increasing the ability to utilize the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) for

performance enhancement. The development of these physiological adaptations via anaerobic exercise

will result in increased levels of power, strength and speed, leading to increased explosiveness and

performance in basketball players.


8/28


8

POSITION-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

Traditionally, the research literature, such as that by Abdelkrim, Chaouachi, Chamari, Chtara and

Castagna (2010) has studied position-specific literature in terms of three categories: guards (i.e. point

guards and shooting guards, positions 1 and 2), forwards (small forwards and power forwards, positions

3 and 4), and centres (position 5). However, due to the evolution of basketball insofar as the

overlapping skill sets, versatility and interchangeability of player positions in modern tactical setups,

these previous positional distinctions may be outdated when discussing contemporary collegiate

basketball. While differences between the old classification of positions still certainly exist, it may be

more appropriate to discuss player-specific considerations in terms of perimeter players (positions 1-3)

and post players (positions 4-5) based on the similarity in skill, relative size, and physiological

requirements. Consequently, the specific demands for perimeter players and post players will be

compared and contrasted in the section below.

Perimeter Players

Perimeter players, also sometimes referred to as wings, are the smallest, quickest, and most

skilled players on the court (Ostojic, Mazic, and Dikic, 2006). The guard positions are subdivided into

two categories, point guards and shooting guards. The primary responsibility of point guards include

handling the ball, dictating the pace of the game, organizing and running offensive tactics, and

distributing the ball to teammates for scoring opportunities. Shooting guards, as their name implies,

have a large offensive role and their primary responsibility is scoring, whether by perimeter shooting or

slashing and driving to the basket. Small forwards, in contrast, are perhaps the games most versatile

player. They must be skilled and fast enough to attack and defend on the perimeter and run the floor in


9/28


9

transition, while also big and strong enough to battle physically in the paint while they guard and

rebound against opposing post players.

Due to their offensive styles of play and the corresponding responsibility of defending opposing

wings, perimeter players require a multitude of anaerobic qualities such as acceleration, sprinting,

agility, and jumping. Time-motion analysis has shown that perimeter players participate in high

intensity activities more often than posts and are also in a static position for only 28% of total playing

time (Miller and Barlett, 1994). Moreover, Ostojic et al (2006) found that vertical jump scores were

higher amongst perimeter players when compared to post players. Similarly, Latin, Berg, and Baechele

(1994) found that guards had the best vertical jump, speed, and strength to weight ratio, and mile run

times.

These points illustrate a high requirement of anaerobic markers to improve explosive

movements such as jumping, cutting, accelerating and sprinting after a baseline of aerobic qualities have

been established to support the overall volume of work.

Post Players

Anthropometrically, post players are taller, heavier, and stronger than perimeter players and

have a higher body fat percentage (Abdelkrim et al, 2010). In terms of physiological performance

measures, Latin et al (1994) found that centres had the poorest levels of speed, agility and

cardiovascular fitness. These differences are likely due to the tactical responsibilities of post players.

Both offensively and defensively, posts typically play near the rim and the low-block area, and tactical

play involves reading and watching plays unfold from a distance. Offensively, post players establish

position near the rim and wait for entry passes from the perimeter players, and shoot in close proximity


10/28


10

to the basket. Defensively, post players generally stand near the basket to block or alter the shots of

opponents, and lateral movements are more positional in nature (i.e. defensive rotations) and are

confined within a small area near the basket.

Due to these tactical requirements, time-motion analysis has shown that centres engage in

fewer high-intensity plays than guards or forwards (Abdelkrim et al, 2010), and may only be in motion

during 33% of game play (Miller and Barlett, 1994). This relative lack of motion (and in turn, caloric

expenditure) may provide an explanation for the higher body fat and lower fitness levels seen in post

players.

In contrast to the lack of mobility requirements, post players necessitate higher levels of

absolute strength in both the upper body and lower body, as they need to sustain high force isometric

contractions when setting screens, fighting for position, defending opposing post-players and boxing out

for rebounds (Abdelkrim et al, 2010). Post players also may travel a longer distance in transition

compared to perimeter players; perimeter players typically run from three-point line to three-point line

(~50 feet) during changes of possession, whereas posts typically run from rim-to-rim (~94 feet), which

indicates that aerobic fitness is still a concern for posts. It is noteworthy that while higher body fat

percentages might assist post players with establishing low-block position and presence, lower body fat

percentages are also helpful with improving movement economy and power-to-weight ratio, which will

increase the athletes ability to accelerate, sprint, and jump, while also decreasing energy expenditure by

limiting the need to carry excess, non-functional mass (i.e. adipose tissue).

These findings illustrate that post players require high levels of both anaerobic and aerobic

qualities, and coaches must determine what is optimal in terms of striking balance between size,

strength, mobility, and cardiovascular fitness. In general, however, post players will have a diminished


11/28


11

emphasis on acceleration, sprint ability, agility and lateral quickness, and a heightened emphasis of size

and absolute strength on top of adequate cardiovascular endurance.

CHAPTER III: GAP ANALYSIS

Athletic testing is somewhat controversial in sport, as the ultimate indicator of performance will

always be the athletes sport-specific skill level. For example, reigning NBA Most Valuable Player and

reigning, 4-time NBA Scoring Champion Kevin Durant failed to do a single bench press repetition at

185lbs during the 2007 NBA Entry Draft, yet he is currently one of the games most dominant figures. It

is clear that despite his lack of physiological strength, his exceptional skill level allows him to compete

and dominate at the games highest level.

In spite of this, testing remains crucial in terms of strength and conditioning. Testing highlights

the relative strengths and weaknesses of an athlete, and it provides baseline information about an

athletes abilities that can serve a multitude of purposes throughout the season and the athletes long-

term development. Testing is a strength coachs first step in a gap analysis, that is, a comparison

between an athletes current ability and the level at which is ultimately desired and considered

competitive as determined by competition standards and the desires of the coaches and athletes

themselves. Testing, therefore, provides overall direction for the training program by highlighting areas

in need of improvement and the prioritization of training elements.

The data gathered from testing can also provide motivation for the athlete and allows them to

set achievable goals throughout their development. Goal setting in collegiate athletics has been shown

to combat low levels of self-motivation and confidence, which may positively affect an athletes ability

to learn new skills and cope with adversity (Gibson, Heller and Stults-Kolehmainen, 2013). Testing may

also assist in the injury management process; if an athlete suffers an injury that requires extensive


12/28


12

rehabilitation, coaches can use the pre-injury testing data as a benchmark for return-to-play. If an

athlete can regain the same strength levels that they had prior to sustaining injury, it may be an

indication that they are ready for the return to competition, at least from a physiological standpoint.

The data gathered from athlete testing can also be utilized objectively by coaches for personnel matters

such as team selection, the distribution of playing time, or the appointment of particular positions or

tactical roles.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, regular testing allows for monitoring of the effectiveness

of the strength and conditioning program, and allows for adaptation and adjustments to the program.

As a result, it is advisable for strength coaches to facilitate athlete testing at various points throughout

the season. Testing at the onset of the off-season establishes a performance baseline, and allows

athletes and coaches to set goals for strength development, and it facilitates accurate, guided

programming; testing at the conclusion of the off-season and at the onset of the pre-season will help

determine the effectiveness of the program to date and allow for adjustments and the refinement of the

program prior to the regular season; testing periodically through the competitive season will assist in

monitoring recovery and physiological readiness; finally, testing immediately post-season will illuminate

detraining that has occurred during the season, and highlight considerations for training elements that

must be adequately maintained while in-season.

Testing Battery

In order to ensure the validity of testing, it is suggested the following tests occur in the order in

which they are presented to prevent the accumulation of unnecessary fatigue from rendering an

inaccurate measure of physical ability. While the following testing procedure may be considered

comprehensive, it may not be necessary, efficient, or feasible to perform the entire range of tests for


13/28


13

every team, based on the availability of resources. As a result, strength coaches should use the

aforementioned needs analysis and the current status of the athletes in order to determine the

combination of field tests that would prove most effective. It is also imperative that athletes are

warmed up adequately (but not excessively) prior to testing in order to obtain accurate values of their

maximum abilities and also to mitigate the risk of injury during testing.

Anthropometric Measures

The first aspect that should be measured and confirmed during testing phases are

anthropometric measures including height, weight, standing reach, wingspan, and body fat percentage,

as well as making note of the athletes positions. This will give context to the physical scores obtained

later in the testing battery, and shed light on aspects such as power-to-weight ratios, and may help

determine the degrees of emphasis on strength training, conditioning and nutrition, respectively. In

subsequent testing periods, it may be unnecessary to repeat anthropometric measures other than

percentage body fat, unless an athlete is still experiencing vertical growth and development. Active and

passive range of motion tests may also be appropriate during this time, which may identify areas that

may be prone to injury, and help direct the implementation of flexibility training.

Vertical Jump

The vertical jump is an excellent measure of explosiveness, as Bevan, Bunce, Owen, Bennett,

Cook, Cunningham, Newton, and Kildupp (2010) found that a simple bodyweight jump expresses the

highest amount of peak power. Testing the vertical jump can be done in a number of ways. Regardless

of the method, athletes should make three separate attempts at the vertical jump with adequate rest

between attempts with the best score being used as the final test score.


14/28


14

The optimal way to test the vertical jump is via a Vertec apparatus. The Vertec provides an

external target for athletes to reach for, which is important insofar as research has shown that

performance is increased when the athletes focal point is external (Porter, Ostrowski, Nolan, and Wu,

2010). The Vertec also allows for a variety of different jump variations, such as single-foot or two-

footed jumps, either with or without an approach. This is useful because there are a number of

different jumping requirements in basketball. For example, attacking moves to the basket may result in

either one or two-foot takeoffs with a high-speed approach, and the height of either variation will

depend largely on an athletes personal preferences and genetic predispositions. In contrast, plays such

as jumping for a rebound typically occur off of two-feet from a static position after holding position and

blocking out an opponent. Having this versatility is advantageous in order to obtain an accurate

measurement of athletic ability based on specific game scenarios and individual athlete differences.

An alternative to the Vertec is an electronic vertical jump mat. Electronic mats provide an

estimation of vertical jump in centimeters or inches based on the time an athlete spends in the air

between jumping and landing. The downfall of the vertical jump mat is that it restricts the athletes to

jumping and landing from a static position with two feet and prevents the use of an approach or single-

leg jump, which may be more game specific or appropriate for the athlete as aforementioned. Also,

athletes may skew test scores by tucking their legs prior to landing, thereby increasing the air-time and

artificially increasing their score.

If strength coaches do not have access to such equipment, vertical jump height can be measured

using rudimentary means with equipment using a wall, a measuring tape, and adhesive tape, or chalk.

Athletes must first determine their reach height by standing sideways against the vertically fastened

measuring tape with one hand reaching up as high as possible while the scapulae remains depressed.

After the reach height is noted and marked, the athlete makes a vertical jump attempt, and marks the


15/28


15

highest point reached with either chalk (only visible on a dark wall or surface), or a piece of adhesive

tape. The difference between the reach height and maximum jump height represents the vertical jump

score. The limitation of this test variation is that it must be conducted against a wall, which may

negatively impact maximum vertical jump scores; athletes may be conscious about impacting the wall,

preoccupied with concentrating on marking the maximum height, or may create friction on the ascent,

all negatively impacting scoring. Therefore, this rudimentary method is suggested only if proper testing

equipment is unavailable.

As previously mentioned, it is also advisable for coaches to test the vertical jump throughout the

competitive season as well. These tests are non-invasive, non-fatiguing and very quick to administer,

and can provide a rough estimate of an athletes physiological readiness. Notwithstanding an injury, an

abnormally decreased vertical jump height may be indicative of state of physiological fatigue, non-

functional overreaching, or overtraining (Kimball, 2011). If a decline is observed, coaches should adjust

the training plan and decrease the intensity of training until the athlete has returned to normal function.

Sprint Ability

The 20m sprint is an excellent indicator of speed, acceleration, and lower body explosive power.

This test can be measured out and marked with cones, though the dimensions of a basketball court lend

itself well and also provide additional context to the test. Athletes start in a static position on one

baseline, and upon their own initiation, sprint as fast as possible to the foul line. This can be timed via

hand or electronic timing gates. Due to space constraints and differences in electronic equipment, the

protocols for its use will not be covered. However, if timed by hand, test administrators should stand at

the opposing foul line, starting the timer when the athlete first initiates movement, and stopping the

timer once the athletes chest crosses the plane of the finish line. As with the vertical jump, two or


16/28


16

three attempts may be given, with adequate rest in between attempts, and the fastest recorded time

can be considered as the final score for the 20-m sprint.

Of note, it may be imperative to measure the sprint distance prior to conducting testing, as not

all basketball courts are constructed with exact dimensions. Furthermore, depending on the

infrastructure surrounding the courts, the deceleration zone following the finish line may not be

adequate in order to slow down quickly or safely. Therefore, it may be advisable to setup crash pads on

the opposing gymnasium wall to mitigate the risk of a collision injury.

Agility

Agility is the measure of an athletes ability to accelerate/decelerate/reaccelerate and change

directions. There are several standard tests that can be used to measure agility, including the pro-agility

test, and the lane-agility test. As with the vertical jump and 20-m sprint, two or three attempts may be

given, with adequate rest in between attempts, and the fastest recorded time is considered the final

score.

The lane agility test is the standard used in the NBA combine, and involves agility in all planes of

movement in a rectangular pattern around the key area. Athletes begin at the foul line elbow, facing

the basket. Upon the start of the test, athletes sprint forwards to the baseline (19-feet), then shuffle

laterally to the right across the key (16-feet), backpedal to the opposite other elbow (19-feet), and

shuffle laterally left to the start position. At this point, the athlete must touch his hand down at the

starting marker and then reverse directions around the key. The test concludes when the athlete

reaches the start position a second time after completing the course in both directions.


17/28


17

As in the sprint test, it is important to measure the distance around the key, as not all courts will

be constructed with absolute accuracy, and also the dimensions of a basketball key differ depending on

which the governing body (e.g. NBA, NCAA, or FIBA). It may also be important to instruct athletes to

perform the lateral aspects of the lane agility test with correct defensive sliding technique (i.e. arms up

in a low athletic stance with the lead foot externally rotated, and pushing off the inside of the trailing

foot in order to facilitate lateral propulsion) rather than in a general, tall lateral shuffle. This will give an

accurate representation of the athletes ability to play defensively on the perimeter in a stance, rather

than merely covering distance quickly.

Another valid test for agility is the pro-agility test. In this test, three cones are placed on lines

evenly spaced lines measuring 5-yards apart. The athlete starts straddling the centre line, and initiates

the test volitionally in their preferred direction. The athlete must first sprint 5 yards in the initial

direction and touch the corresponding line with their hand, then quickly change directions and run 10

yards in the opposite direction. After hand-touching the opposite far line, the athlete changes directions

once more and runs 5 yards across the middle start/finish line. This test is hand-timed, with the

stopwatch starting when the athlete initiates first movement and stopping once the athlete crosses the

centre line after the requisite changes of direction and hand touches. In the event that the athlete fails

to touch a line, the test is immediately stopped. After a brief rest period, the athlete may reattempt the

test.

Power and Strength

Weight room testing is important to measure an athletes maximum power and strength levels,

and data gathered from testing can provide guidance for the prescription of volumes and intensities

throughout the periodization program. For strength testing, the NBA combine employs a maximum-


18/28


18

repetition bench press at 185 lbs in order to gauge muscular strength and endurance. However,

repeated upper body muscular endurance against a moderate load is not a common requirement for

basketball players. Furthermore, as this is the only weight room test present in the NBA combine, it

neglects to consider the lower body strength requirements of the sport. Therefore, it is advisable for

strength coaches to employ a small range of 1RM tests to obtain a comprehensive depiction of the

athletes maximum strength capabilities throughout the entire body.

In sequential order, this guide suggests that coaches test the 1RM power clean (lower body

explosive power), 1RM bench press (upper body strength), and 1RM back squat (lower body strength).

During these tests, athletes load the barbell progressively to determine the maximum amount of load

(lbs or kg) they can lift in one repetition. Athletes may continue to load the bar so long as they continue

to lift weights successfully. If athletes fail at a given weight, they may be given another attempt at the

same weight. However, to mitigate excessive time being spent on weight room testing and to prevent

injury and non-functional overreaching, coaches may want to cease testing in each lift after two failed

attempts of a given load. It should be noted, however, that limiting attempts for the power clean in this

manner may not elicit a true maximum test, as often times failure in the power clean is due to flaws in

technique rather than limitations in strength and power.

As for safety considerations, as mentioned above, the power clean is a highly technical lift that

requires familiarity and practice in order to test accurately. Consequently, it may not be appropriate for

inexperienced lifters. In such cases, the test should be omitted from the individual athletes testing

battery until they can demonstrate proficient technique in the lift. Similarly, untrained individuals may

not have adequate range of motion or technique in even basic exercises such as the bench press and

squat, and poor technique may be exacerbated by the heavy loads in a 1RM test, increasing the risk of

injury exponentially. As a result, it may be more appropriate for relatively untrained athletes to perform


19/28


19

a lower intensity test (e.g. 5RM) in order to mitigate risk, yet still establish baseline strength

measurement. Using this data, coaches can then perform a 1RM calculation or use a standard

repetition-maximum/%1RM table to estimate the athletes maximum strength capability. Lastly,

strength coaches should ensure that athletes perform progressive warm-up sets prior to the maximal

testing and have spotters present at all times for the bench press and back squat in order to avoid injury

in the event of a failed repetition.

Aerobic/Anaerobic Endurance

As outlined in the needs analysis, aerobic and anaerobic endurance are vital in basketball. Often

times, teams may use a standard timed distance run over 1.5-2 miles in order to gauge cardiovascular

fitness. However, such tests are unadvisable due to the intermittent nature of basketball and the

repeated sprint ability required. Furthermore, athletes may not be familiar with appropriate pacing

strategies for the run, and may be unaccustomed to the running environment, particularly if the test is

conducted outdoors. As a result, it is suggested that strength coaches administer indoor field tests to

create testing conditions that will simulate the sporting requirements.

There are multiple field tests that correspond well with VO2 max including the 300-m shuttle,

beep test, and the yo-yo intermittent test. The yo-yo intermittent test may be the most appropriate

test, given the distance covered, as well as the recovery time provided between each stage, which

replicates the intermittent nature of basketball. Inherent in the yo-yo intermittent test is an

acceleration component to the test, perhaps making it a more valid test for perimeter players. In

contrast, the 300-m shuttle run is continuous over a set distance, and may be more appropriate for post

players as acceleration and repeated sprint ability are deemphasized in favor of continuous movement.


20/28


20

Alternatively, the beep-test (i.e. multi-stage fitness test) can provide a good overall marker of

aerobic ability, though it may lack specificity insofar as the lower stages may be at a pace that is too

slow to provide relevance. Moreover, in the beep test the rest periods become shorter as the duration

of the test increases, thereby deemphasizing repeated sprint ability and anaerobic power in favor of

aerobic endurance. However, research by Abdelkrim et al (2007) found that the physiological intensity

of a basketball game actually tapers and diminishes greatly near the end of the game, and plasma

lactate determinations show a large contribution from the anaerobic energy systems towards the end of

the halves (pg. 74). This evidence suggests that either of the aforementioned anaerobic endurance

tests (i.e. 300-m shuttle and yo-yo intermittent test) may be a more appropriate choice.

CHAPTER IV: PROGRAMMING AND PERIODIZATION

Strength and conditioning involves the development of physical and physiological characteristics

that contribute to increased sport performance. These qualities include, but are not limited to, aerobic

and anaerobic power, speed, strength, power, agility, change of direction (COD) ability, and core

strength. While these characteristics are relatively straightforward to develop on their own in uni-

planar sports that predominantly require only one of the bodys energy systems (e.g. weightlifting,

power lifting, or endurance running, cycling and swimming), it is more difficult to develop these qualities

concurrently in multi-dimensional sports such as basketball. This illustrates the importance of the

careful organization of training elements in order to optimize physiological adaptations, peak at the

correct times during the competitive season, and prevent maladaptation such as plateau, detraining, or

overtraining. This organization of the overall training plan is referred to as periodizaiton. There is a

plethora of factors to consider when creating a periodized program, which will be outlined below.


21/28


21

Macrocycle

Periodization is typically viewed in three distinct contexts, namely macrocycles, mesocycles, and

microcycles. In sequential order, the macrocycle provides a very broad and general context for the

entire training and development plan, while the level of detail and planning increases as one progresses

further through the mesocycle, microcycle, and intra-session levels. The macrocycle typically refers to

the entire calendar year, encompassing all aspects of the competition year. Overall considerations in

the macrocycle that will guide programming include important dates such as testing periods, major

competitions, and travel schedule which will in turn dictate aspects such as the distribution and

emphasis of training elements, tapering, peaking, and transition periods of deliberate rest and recovery.

Mesocycle

Mesocycles represent subdivisions of the macrocycle into distinct training blocks, and are

typically measured in months. These blocks consider the subcomponent phases that make up a

competition year (i.e. off-season, pre-season, regular season, and post-season). Considerations in the

mesocycle include focused blocks of particular physical qualities (e.g. hypertrophy, technical proficiency,

general preparation and accumulation, maximum strength, power, maintenance, and recovery). For a

particular performance quality, it is imperative to ensure that there is a linear progression of intensity

with a simultaneous regression in volume in order to ensure progressive overload, consistent positive

adaptation and the avoidance of plateau. Moreover, while some training elements may be de-

emphasized in certain mesocycles and competition periods, it is important that all training elements

remain present in the program to some degree in order to prevent detraining of those qualities.


22/28


22

Microcycle

Lastly, microcycles are subcomponents of the mesocycle, typically measured in weeks, which

cover training elements in a more specific manner. Considerations for the microcycle include daily

undulations in intensity and volume, variations in exercise selection, and active recovery interventions in

order to prevent excess fatigue, avoid mental stagnation, and adequate recovery and tapering for

competition days.

Intra-session

In a periodized training plan, the intra-session content is the most important determinant of an

effective program that elicits optimal positive adaptations. Exercise selections within a training session

can be broken up into two categories: primary exercises and secondary exercises. Primary exercises are

high in intensity and are the key developers of muscular strength and power. Due to the movement

complexity and high central nervous system demands when producing maximum force, velocity, and

power, primary exercises should be placed early in the training session while athletes are fresh and least

fatigued.

In contrast, secondary exercises are more supplementary and supportive in nature, and assist in

eliciting adaptations such as muscular hypertrophy, muscular endurance, and cardiovascular fitness

through increased volume. Also, secondary exercises assist in the improvement of posture and can

address muscular imbalances and strength ratios within the body. Because secondary exercises occur

later in the session after the primary exercises, they should be inherently lower in intensity. Attempting

to excessively load the intensity of secondary exercises is redundant and potentially dangerous, as

athletes will be accumulating fatigue, which may increase the chance of acute injury, non-functional

overreaching, or overtraining.


23/28


23

Regarding the actual battery of exercises, there is a multitude of options as dictated by research.

Olympic weightlifting exercises should be a primary component of any strength and conditioning

program, as they have been demonstrated to produce greater performance enhancements than vertical

jump training (Tricoli, Lamas, Carnevale, and Ugrinowitsch, 2005). Therefore, exercise variations such as

power cleans, hang snatches, push jerks, and high pulls can be used to great advantage. In stark

contrast, Bevan et al (2010) discovered that peak power output occurred in a squat jump at 0% 1RM (i.e.

bodyweight), which warrants the inclusion of bodyweight exercises such as countermovement box

jumps, depth jumps, broad jumps, explosive step-ups, bounding, and sprinting. Contrary to this even,

other research has demonstrated that loaded plyometric exercises elicit greater improvement of vertical

and horizontal jump performances than unloaded plyometrics (Khilifa, Aouadi, Hermassi, Chelly, Jlid,

Hbacha, and Castagna, 2010). This suggests exercises such as barbell squat jumps, jump shrugs and

jumping split squats would be appropriate additions to a program as well.

With regards to speed, 1RM squat performance has been shown to be the best predictor of

sprint performance across 5-10 meter distances (Chaouachi, Mrughelli, Chamari, Levin, Abdelkrim,

Laurencelle, and Castagna, 2009). Also, the inclusion of supra-maximal partial repetitions in conjunction

with full range of motion repetitions has been shown to shift the curvilinear relationship between force

and velocity upwards, thereby increasing force production at a given velocity (Bazyler, Sato, Wassinger,

Lamont and Stone, 2014). Moreover, all contraction phases of general lower body strength, and the

eccentric phase in particular, correlate significantly with change of direction ability (Spiteri, Nimphius,

Hart, Specos, Sheppard, and Newton, 2014). This would suggest exercises such as heavily loaded squat

and dead lifts variations through full and partial ROMS would aid in the development of strength, power,

and in turn, agility.


24/28


24

Though athletic performance in basketball is clearly influenced by lower body power, upper

body strength is also required to an extent. For example, basketball players require upper body strength

for several skills such as shooting and passing, and may also be required to apply brute upper body

strength against an opponent when battling for position (Abdelkrim et al, 2010). As a result, upper body

development should still carry emphasis, which will ensure well rounded athletic development and also

prevent fatigue, overtraining and overuse injuries in the lower body. A study by Hermassi, Chelly,

Fathloun, and Shephard (2010) found that during in-season training, heavy bench press and pulling

exercises performed at heavy loads (i.e. 80-95% 1RM) were superior to moderate loads (55-75% 1RM)

when developing peak power, dynamic strength and throwing velocity. This is because heavier loads

increase motor unit recruitment and synchronization, and create conditions and endocrine responses

that stimulate superior muscle growth (Hermassi, et al, 2010).

Based on the varied findings of this research, it would be prudent for strength coaches to

include aspects of weightlifting, loaded and unloaded jumping, as well as heavily loaded general

strength exercises such as squats, deadlifts, bench presses, and pulls when attempting to develop

explosive power and velocity. However, the simultaneous inclusion and equal prioritization of all

elements is not advisable, as excess intensity, volume and interference may elicit a neurological down-

regulation of the overall intensity and expression of power, which would in turn stifle the adaptation

and supercompensation. Therefore, careful examination at the macro-, meso-, and micro-cycle levels

will dictate appropriate exercise selection and optimal interplay between volume, intensity and the

resultant emphasis on velocity, force, and power development.


25/28


25

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

In conclusion, effective periodization and program design is a multi-stage process. Firstly, a

needs analysis of the sport must be conducted in order to determine which physiological characteristics

are required for success. In the case of basketball, it is evident at emphasis should be placed on

explosive alactic anaerobic qualities after an adequate foundation of aerobic fitness has been

established. Secondly, a gap analysis must be performed via athlete testing in order to highlight relative

strengths and weaknesses, which will provide the overall blueprint for programming and the

improvement of particular athletic qualities. Lastly, a periodized program that considers the distinct

needs at the macro-, meso-, and micro-cycle levels should be devised with particular importance being

placed on intra-session considerations such as exercise selection, load ordering, and the interplay

between intensity and volume in order to achieve maximal and timely super-compensation.

Further Readings

This information resource covers the fundamentals of program design with respect to

performance enhancement and the optimal development of athletic qualities such as speed, strength,

power, and cardiovascular fitness through proper needs analysis, gap analysis, periodization, and

exercise selection. Additional readings are encouraged for other aspects of performance including long-

term athlete development, warm-up, flexibility, laboratory testing, monitoring, recovery, nutrition,

supplementation, rehabilitation, injury management, and sports psychology.

Further, it is important to note that periodization and planning cannot take place without

knowledge regarding the context that is particular to the strength coachs environment and

circumstances. Individual athlete variables that contribute to context include the playersposition, role,

experience level, biological age, training age, physical literacy, training history, injury/medical history,


26/28


26

and psychology. Furthermore, team-centric variables will affect programming including the roster,

practice/competition schedule, and tactical style. Finally, the collegiate environment adds a number of

unique factors that will have a direct impact on team performance, such as an athletes academic

workload, finances, and social life, while sociological and socioeconomic variables such as the desires of

the sport coaching staff, medical staff and athletic administration, and the availability of equipment

and/or funding will also play a large role.

Consequently, programming for the collegiate athlete is multi-factorial and has a myriad of

variables that must be considered throughout the design and implication stages. It is imperative to

create a training environment that is complementary to the context, as opposed to one that will

inundate the athlete with additional stressors that may ultimately hinder performance.


27/28


27

REFERENCES

Abdelkrim, N., El Fazaa, S., and El Ati, J. (2007). Time-motion analysis and physiological data of elite-

under 19-year-old basketball players during competition. British Journal of Sports Medicine.

41:69-75

Abdelkrim, N., Chaouachi, A., Chamari, K., Chtara, M and Castagna, C. (2010). Positional role and

competitive-level differences in elite-level mens basketball players. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research. 0(0).

Bazyler, C., Sato, K., Wassinger., C., Lamont, H., and Stone, M. (2014). The efficacy of incorporating

partial squats in maximal strength training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,

28(11), 3024-3032.

Bevan, H., Bunce, P., Owen, N., Bennett, M., Cook, C., Cunningham, D., Newton, R., and Kildupp, L.

(2010). Optimal loading for the development of peak power output in professional rugby players.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,24(1), 43-47.

Castanga, C., Chaouachi, A., Rampinini, E., Chamari, K., and Impellizzeri., F. (2009). Aerobic and

explosive power performance of elite Italian regional-level basketball players.Journal of Strength

and Conditioning Research,23(7), 1982-1987.

Chaouachi, A., Mrughelli, M., Chamari, K., Levin, G., Abdelkrim, N., Laurencelle, L., and Castagna, C.

(2009). Lower limb maximal dynamic strength and agility determinants in elite basketball players.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,23(5), 1570-1577.

Gilson, T., Heller, E., and Stultus-Kolehmanien, M. (2013). The relationship between an effort goal and

self-regulatory efficacy beliefs for division I football players. Journal of Strength and ConditioningResearch,27(10), 2806-2815.

Hermassi, S., Chelly, M., Fathloun, M., and Shephard, R. (2010). The effect of heavy- vs. moderate-load

training on the development of strength, power and throwing ball velocity in male handball

players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,24(9), 2408-2418.

Hoffman, J., Tenenbaum, G., Maresh, C., and Kreamer, W. (1996). Relationship between athletic

performance tests and playing time in elite college basketball players. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 10: 6771.

Hoffman, J., Epsetin, S., Einbinder, M., and Weinstein, Y. (1999). The influence of aerobic capacity onanaerobic performance and recovery indices in basketball players. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research,13(4), 407-411.

Kimball, A. (2011). Applied injury prevention for females [Webinar]. National Strength and Conditioning

Association. Retrieved November 27th, 2014 from http://www.nsca.com/Certification/Continuing-

Education/Webinars/Applied-Injury-Prevention-Techniques-for-Females/


28/28


Khilifa, R., Aouadi, R., Hermassi, S., Chelly, M., Jlid, M., Hbacha, H., and Castagna, C. (2010). Effects of a

plyometric training program with and without added load on jumping ability in basketball players.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(11), 2955-2961.

Latin, R., Berg, K., and Baechele., T. (1994). Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA division I

male basketball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8(4), 214-218.

McInnes, S., Carlson, J., Jones, C., and McKenna M. (1995). The physiological load imposed on basketball

players during competition.Journal of Sports Sciences,13(5), 387-397

Miller, S. and Barlett, R. (1994). Notational analysis of the physical demands of basketball. Journal of

Sport Science. 12, 181

Ostojic, S., Mazic, S., and Dikic, N. (2006). Profiling in basketball: physical and physiological

characteristics of elite players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(4), 740-744.

Porter, J., Ostrowski, E., Nolan, R., and Wu, W. (2010). Standing long-jump performance is increased

when using an external focus of attention. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,24(7),

1746-1750.

Spiteri, T., Nimphius, S., Hart, N., Specos, C., Sheppard, J., and Newton, R. (2014). Contribution of

strength characteristics to change of direction and agility performance in female basketball

athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,28(9), 2415-2423.

Strumbelj, B., Vuckovic, G., Jakovljevic, S., Milanovic, Z., James, N.,& Erculk, F. (2014). Graded shuttle

run performance by playing positions in elite female basketball players. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, Advanced online publication,DOI: 10.1519/JSC.000000000000067

Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R., and Ugrinowitsch, C., (2005). Short-term effects on lower-body

functional power development: weightlifting vs. vertical jump training programs. Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(2), 433-437

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aaron-chew
View:	227 times
Download:	1 times

KIN 585 - Coaching Manual - Programming and Periodization for Collegiate Basketball

Documents