Physical Attributes, Physiological Characteristics, On-Court Performances and Nutritional Strategies of Female and Male Basketball Players Gal Ziv 1 and Ronnie Lidor 1,2 1 The Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel 2 Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Contents Abstract ................................................................................. 548 1. Physical Attributes ..................................................................... 549 1.1 Female Players .................................................................... 549 1.2 Male Players ...................................................................... 549 2. Physiological Characteristics ............................................................ 551 2.1 Aerobic Profile..................................................................... 551 2.1.1 Female Players ............................................................... 551 2.1.2 Male Players ................................................................. 552 2.2 Strength .......................................................................... 553 2.2.1 Female Players ............................................................... 553 2.2.2 Male Players ................................................................. 554 2.2.3 Female versus Male Players .................................................... 554 2.3 Anaerobic Power .................................................................. 555 2.3.1 Female Players ............................................................... 555 2.3.2 Male Players ................................................................. 555 2.4 Agility and Speed .................................................................. 557 2.4.1 Female Players ............................................................... 557 2.4.2 Male Players ................................................................. 557 3. On-Court Performances ................................................................ 558 3.1 Female Players .................................................................... 558 3.2 Male Players ...................................................................... 559 3.2.1 Time-Motion Analysis .......................................................... 559 3.2.2 Heart Rate .................................................................. 560 3.2.3 Blood Lactate ............................................................... 561 4. Nutritional Strategies and Oxidative Stress ................................................. 561 4.1 Hydration ......................................................................... 561 4.2 Oxidative Stress .................................................................... 562 5. Conditioning for Basketball .............................................................. 562 5.1 Hormonal Status and the Overtraining Syndrome ....................................... 563 6. Five Limitations Observed from the Physical and Physiological Measurements .................. 564 7. Practical Advice for Basketball and Strength and Conditioning Coaches ...................... 565 8. Conclusions ........................................................................... 566 REVIEW ARTICLE Sports Med 2009; 39 (7): 547-568 0112-1642/09/0007-0547/$49.95/0 ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Transcript
Physical Attributes, PhysiologicalCharacteristics, On-Court Performancesand Nutritional Strategies of Femaleand Male Basketball PlayersGal Ziv1 and Ronnie Lidor1,2
1 The Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel
2 Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Abstract This article reviews a series of studies (n = 51) examining physical attri-butes, physiological characteristics, on-court performances and nutritionalstrategies of female and male elite basketball players. These studies includedrelevant information on physical and physiological variables, such as height,weight, somatotype, relative size, aerobic profile, strength, anaerobic power,agility and speed. Six main findings emerged from our review: (i) differencesin physical attributes exist among playing positions and skill levels (e.g.guards tend to be lighter, shorter and more mesomorphic than centres);(ii) maximum aerobic capacity (
.VO2max) values of female and male players
are 44.0–54.0 and 50–60mLO2/kg/min, respectively; (iii) male and femaleplayers of higher skill levels tend to have higher vertical jump values; (iv) themore skilled female and male players are faster and more agile than the lessskilled players; (v) guards tend to perform more high-intensity movementsduring game play compared with forwards and centres; and (vi) a waterdeficit of 2% of bodyweight can lead to reduced physical and mental perfor-mance during an actual game. Five limitations associated with the testingprotocols used in the studies are outlined, among them the lack of a long-itudinal approach, lack of tests performed under physical exertion condi-tions, and lack of studies using a time-motion analysis. In addition, threepractical recommendations for the basketball coach and the strength andconditioning coach are presented. It is concluded that the data emerging fromthese studies, combined with the knowledge already obtained from the studieson physical and physiological characteristics of elite basketball players,should be applied by basketball and strength and conditioning coaches whenplanning training programmes for elite basketball players.
The game of basketball has established itself asone of the most popular sports in many countriesaround the globe. Competitive basketball isplayed not only in North America, where thegame was invented and developed, but also onother continents. During the season, elite basket-ball players – both female and male – practiceon a daily basis, often twice a day, play one ortwo games per week, and take part in interna-tional tournaments such as continental and worldchampionships and the Olympic Games.[1] Thisheavy schedule of practices and games requirescareful short- and long-term planning of theplayers’ training programmes.
A training programme for elite athletes (e.g.basketball players) should be composed of threecritical phases: preparation, competition andtransition.[2,3] In each critical phase, emphasis isplaced on four fundamental preparations: physi-cal, technical, tactical and psychological. Amongthese preparations, the physical preparation is
considered to be the major component in mosttraining theories.[4] One of the primary objectivesof the physical preparation is to develop the un-ique fitness components required to attainachievement in a specific sport (e.g. agility, en-durance and strength).
Relevant information on the physical andphysiological characteristics of elite basketballplayers should be obtained by those professionals– basketball coaches, strength and conditioningcoaches, athletic trainers, physiotherapists andsport physicians – who work regularly with theathletes throughout the different phases ofthe training programme. This information can beappropriately utilized when planning a dailypractice, a weekly agenda, or a more long-termprogramme. It is assumed that such informationwill help coaches increase their control over thephysical and physiological workloads in whichthe players are engaged, and in turn improve thequality of training.
548 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
The purpose of this article is threefold: (i) toreview a series of studies (n = 51) examining phy-sical attributes, physiological characteristics, on-court performances and nutritional strategies offemale and male basketball players; (ii) to high-light a number of limitations associated with thetesting protocols used in the reviewed studies;and (iii) to provide the basketball coach and thestrength and conditioning coach with severalpractical recommendations.
1. Physical Attributes
A number of the studies examined the physicalattributes of female[5-11] and male[12-19] basketballplayers. All the studies described the players’absolute size such as height and weight, while afew also looked at somatotype[5,9,10,16] and re-lative size.[7] Table I presents a summary of theanthropometric data for both female and maleplayers across the reviewed studies.
1.1 Female Players
Two studies found that the top teams’ playerswere taller[5,7] and had a longer arm span[7] com-pared with the bottom teams’ players who tookpart in the 1994 Women’s World BasketballChampionship. These findings suggest that it ispossible that absolute size is related to skill levelin female players. Studies on female players alsoshowed that percentage body fat (%BF) washigher in centres compared with guards.[6,8]
However, centres had a higher fat-free mass(FFM) compared with both guards and for-wards. This finding can be explained by the largedifferences in absolute weight compared with thesmaller differences in %BF. A comparison of%BF among female basketball players and fe-male players in other team sports (e.g. team-handball and volleyball) indicated that basketballplayers had more %BF than volleyball players,but less %BF than team-handball players.[10]
Three studies examined somatotypes – generalcategories of body type that are independent ofabsolute body size – in female basketball play-ers.[5,9,10] One study found that guards were moremesomorphic than centres,[5] while another re-
ported that guards were more mesomorphic thanboth centres and forwards.[9] However, Carteret al.[5] suggested that in elite female players,somatotype differences were not great. These find-ing were in line with the higher %BF found incentres compared with guards in other studies.[6,8]
When comparing somatotypes of basketballplayers with those of volleyball and team-hand-ball players, it was found that basketball playerswere more mesomorphic than volleyball players,but less than team-handball players.[10]
Having a mesomorphic body type along withlower absolute weight can prove useful to guards,who often need to defend against the quickestplayers of the opposing team and to rapidlytransfer the ball from defence to offence whileattacking the quickest defenders of the oppositeteam. The lighter, shorter mesomorphic physiqueof guards is suitable to the speed and agility re-quired of them. Although female guards werefound to be more mesomorphic than centres,centres still showed a higher FFM.When lookingat the players’ physique, it is suggested that phy-sical characteristics be considered as a whole,since looking at only one aspect of the players’physique can be misleading.
1.2 Male Players
One study found that male players of moder-ate skill level weighed less and were shorter instature than top-level players.[16] However, an-other study of male elite players of different skilllevels found no differences in height and weightbetween these players.[17] As suggested byViviani,[16] it seems that certain physical attributescan negatively or positively affect performance inthe game of basketball.
One physical variable that was rather con-sistently different among male players playingdifferent positions was %BF. Out of five studiesthat reported%BF for male players,[12-15,17] threefound that centres had higher %BF thanguards,[13,14,17] one found no significant differ-ences among the players playing different posi-tions,[12] and one suggested that centres had lower%BF compared with guards.[15] However, thelatter study only sampled one player in the posi-
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 549
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
Table I. Anthropometric measurements of male and female basketball players. Data shown as mean (SD)
Study Position Height (cm) Mass (kg) %BF FFM (kg)
Females
Ackland et al.[7] (1997) Guards (n = 64) 171.9 (6.1) 66.1 (6.2) NA
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
tion of centre, and therefore its findings cannot begeneralized. Because of the higher absolute weightof centres, it should be noted that although cen-tres tended to have higher %BF, they also pos-sessed higher FFM. As for the somatotypes ofmale players, one study found that guards wereless mesomorphic than other players.[16]
A comparison of anthropometric measure-ments among players from different team sportscan help shed light on the specific attributes ofbasketball players. For example, Withers et al.[21]
described various characteristics of male playersin basketball, hockey and soccer. They found thatbasketball players were both taller and heavierthan hockey and soccer players. However, thisstudy reported descriptive statistics only.
Based on the studies that examined physicalcharacteristics in female and male basketballplayers, it is observed that differences in heightand weight among players playing different po-sitions (e.g. guards, forwards and centres) werethe most apparent and consistent. For a specificexample, centres were heavier and taller thanguards. The tall and heavy build of centres isuseful in their physical low-post battles and thenecessity to shoot the ball into a rim positioned3.05m (10 ft) above ground.
2. Physiological Characteristics
2.1 Aerobic Profile
Although basketball is not an endurance sportper se, having high values of cardiopulmonaryfunctions is important for the player to maintaina high level of activity during the entire game,in both defence and offence. A number of thestudies examined cardiopulmonary function in
female[8,11,20,22-24] and male[12,14,15,17,18,20,21,25-30]
players.
2.1.1 Female Players
The most interesting finding in female playersis the difference in maximum aerobic capacity(.VO2max) as reported in studies conducted priorto the enactment in 1972 of Title IX, which is partof an education amendment in the US that pro-hibited sex discrimination in educational settings,and in those conducted after its enactment. Forexample, the study by McArdle et al.[22] (pub-lished in 1971, before the enactment of Title IX)found female
.VO2max values that were only
slightly higher than non-athlete college-age fe-male students (35.5 vs 33.6mLO2/kg/min, re-spectively).
.VO2max was measured at a walking
speed of 5.45 km/h and grade was increased untilvolitional fatigue. Later studies (published from1979 onwards, after the enactment of Title IX)found much higher
.VO2max values, ranging from
44.0 to 54.0mLO2/kg/min in female basketballplayers.[8,11,20,23,24] As for the differences betweenskill levels, Rodriguez-Alonso et al.[11] reportedhigher
.VO2max values for women participating at
an international level compared with those at anational level. Although the exact protocol usedto estimate
.VO2max was unclear, it was appar-
ently estimated from a progressive run test. Thedifference in
.VO2max before and after the enact-
ment of Title IX can be explained, at least in part,by the subsequent increased interest in women’ssports, which resulted in the elevation of scientificinterest in regard to female athletes. This wasfollowed by better and more serious training andconditioning programmes for female athletes.
Table I. Contd
Study Position Height (cm) Mass (kg) %BF FFM (kg)
Viviani[16] (2005) All playersd 194.2 (6.5) 94.7 (8.7) NA
Withers et al.[21] (1977) All playersd 188.8 (7.2) 82.7 (7.3) 16.6 (2.6) 69.0 (NA)c
a Combined average for power forwards and shooting forwards.
b Data in brackets are standard errors.
c Not included in original data (calculated from %BF and mass by authors).
d Not elite players.
%BF= percentage body fat; FFM = fat-free mass; NA = data not available.
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 551
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
Different testing protocols for.VO2max can
produce different results. The.VO2max testing
protocol in the study of Smith and Thomas[8] in-cluded running at each player’s selected comfor-table speed, with grade increased until volitionalfatigue. In contrast, Riezebos et al.[23] used a dis-continuous treadmill protocol to assess
.VO2max.
These different testing protocols make it difficultto compare values among studies. In addition,most studies involved increasing grade, whereasbasketball players run on level ground. We be-lieve that a better protocol to measure aerobiccapacity in basketball players should involve in-creasing speed and maintaining level grade.
Unlike.VO2max, and quite expectedly, max-
imum heart rate (HRmax) of female players wasnot different across studies. However, it wasfound that during an actual game, guards hadhigher heart rates compared with forwards andcentres.[11] This finding can be explained by thehigh level of work intensity demonstrated byguards during the game compared with that offorwards and centres. However, HR may be in-fluenced by other factors, such as environmentalconditions, nutritional status and fitness levels ofplayers, and therefore the interpretation of theseresults should be performed cautiously.
2.1.2 Male Players
While.VO2max values in females were found to
increase in the late 1970s, male players’ values didnot change greatly over the last 40 years. How-ever, great variability was found in
.VO2max values
among the male players, ranging from45.3 – 5.9mLO2/kg/min in one study[26] to65.2mLO2/kg/min in another.[28] In the formerstudy,
.VO2max was measured in a graded test on
an electrically braked cycle ergometer, and inthe latter study the Bruce protocol was used(for details of this protocol see Whaley et al.,[31]
pp. 99-100). The large variability in.VO2max can
be explained at least in part by the different pro-tocols used. Nevertheless, in most studies,
.VO2max
values were in the range 50–60mLO2/kg/min.Court drills are often used in basketball prac-
tices to induce skill adaptation in players. Theeffects of these drills on HR and
.VO2 were ex-
amined in a study by Castagna et al.[30] of
14 basketball players..VO2 was measured with a
portable metabolic system. Drills included full-court games of 2 versus 2, 3 versus 3, and 5 versus5, with lengths of 3, 4 and 5 minutes. It was foundthat the intensity of practice was highest in the2 versus 2 drills (%HRmax 92.1 – 5.6, %
.VO2peak
79.0 – 10.7), and was higher in the 3 versus 3 drills(%HRmax 88.2 – 8.4; %
.VO2peak 73.5 – 11.6) than
the 5 versus 5 drills (%HRmax, 84.0– 9.2%;.VO2peak
69.0 – 10.7). Individual HR-.VO2 coefficients of
determination (r2) were 0.83–0.97. It was sug-gested that basketball court drills elicit physiolo-gical responses that may enhance aerobic fitness.In addition, HR can be used by coaches as a validestimator of
.VO2 and work intensity during bas-
ketball drills.A comparison among players playing different
positions indicated that guards had the highest.VO2max,
[12,14,15,29] reflecting the actual functionalrequirements of guards during the game. Onlyone study, Sallet et al.[17] failed to find differencesin
.VO2max among players playing different posi-
tions. Two studies compared aerobic capacityamong basketball players and players in otherteam sports (e.g. soccer and volleyball). Onestudy[21] described low
.VO2max values in basket-
ball players compared with both hockey andsoccer players, while another study[27] indicatedsimilar
.VO2max values among basketball and
volleyball players. These studies reported de-scriptive statistics only.
The ability of basketball players to maintainhigh aerobic capacity during the entire season isof critical importance to both their basketballcoach and their strength and conditioning coach.In one study, Tavino et al.[28] found no differ-ences in
.VO2max as measured in different phases
of the season; however, they did not differentiatebetween starters and bench players. In anotherstudy, Caterisano et al.[25] examined physiologi-cal variables of starters and reserves during pre-and post-season phases, and found that starterswere able to maintain a relatively high
.VO2max,
while reserves failed to do so. These findings canbe explained by the fact that starters are typicallyprovided with better aerobic stimulation duringgame play, whereas reserves need to rely mostlyon practice sessions, which are usually lower in
552 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
intensity. However, in practices after game daysit is mostly the reserves who practice, and thosepractice sessions may be intense enough toprovide a positive training stimulus for themas well.
In the year 2000, several rules of the game werechanged by the Federation Internationale deBasketball Amateur (FIBA). Three major chan-ges were: (i) a reduction in the time allowed toscore a basket from 30 to 24 seconds; (ii) a re-duction in the time allowed to cross the medianline from 10 to 8 seconds; and (iii) the division ofthe game into four quarters (4 · 10min) insteadof two halves (2 · 20 min). Cormery et al.[12]
compared a number of physiological variablesas measured during the two different periods –before the changes made by FIBA and afterthe realization of these changes. They reportedthat these changes were associated with an in-creased
.VO2max in guards, but no significant
changes in.VO2max in forwards and centres. Al-
though it was suggested that the rule modifi-cations were associated with physiologicalchanges in the players (especially in guards),causation could not be established from thisstudy, since other factors could have influencedthe increased
.VO2max in guards, among them
better training and conditioning programmes,and increased level of competitiveness in thetop-level leagues.
The ventilatory threshold (VT), which isthought to be related to the anaerobic threshold,is an important measure of aerobic endurance.High VT allows athletes to maintain higher workintensities for longer durations before fatigueappears. Three studies looking at VT foundvarying values,[12,18,26] ranging from 50.4% of.VO2max
[26] to 77.6% of.VO2max.
[18] In addition,VT values were similar among players playingdifferent positions, and did not differ after theFIBA rule changes.[12] The variations in VT canbe explained by several factors, among them thefitness level of the players, their playing style, andthe time of the season in which the tests wereadministered. Due to the scarcity of data and thevaried results that emerged from these studies,more research is needed in order to profile the VTof elite basketball players.
2.2 Strength
Eleven studies assessed measures of strength infemale[8,9,24,32] and male[13,15,25,32-35] basketballplayers. Various types of tests were used to mea-sure strength, and therefore it was difficult tocompare values across studies. Among the testsused were isokinetic tests,[8,23,35] maximal concen-tric tests[9,13,15,25,33,34] (e.g. bench press one re-petition maximum [RM]), muscle endurance[15,24]
and isometric tests.[24,32] Variations in strengthamong players were large, and some of the find-ings should be treated cautiously.
2.2.1 Female Players
Two studies that examined strength in femaleplayers[9,24] represent the difficulty that exists inmaking comparisons among studies. Both ofthese studies assessed left and right hand grip, butone assessed isometric strength[24] and the otherdynamic strength.[9] No differences were foundamong players playing different positions in leftand right dynamic hand grip strength. As Vaccaroet al.[24] suggested, female players’ strength wasclearly superior to that of non-athlete females.
Maintaining balance in strength and forceproduction in the limbs and in the antagonistmuscles of the same limb are of interest tostrength and conditioning coaches, athletic trai-ners and physiotherapists, since it is possible thatimbalances can lead to injury.[36,37] Smith andThomas[8] examined female basketball players onan isokinetic dynamometer. They found no dif-ferences in peak torque of knee flexion and ex-tension between the dominant and the non-dominant leg. However, the ipsilateral torqueratio between flexion and extension was outsidethe generally accepted values. There were largeindividual variations in this ratio, suggesting thateach player should be assessed individually, andthat specific exercise programmes should be de-veloped for each player based on their uniquecharacteristics.
The scarcity of data regarding the strength offemale basketball players is unfortunate, espe-cially since interest in female basketball has beenincreasing, and training programmes havereached levels similar to those in male basketball.
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 553
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
More research is needed so that strength andconditioning coaches can optimize trainingsessions when working with elite basketballplayers.
2.2.2 Male Players
When comparing concentric strength mea-surements among players playing different posi-tions and at different skill levels, for example inthe bench press, relatively similar values werereported. In one study of college players,[13]
a mean of 102.3 kg was found, and in anotherstudy[34] a mean of 97.2 kg was indicated over4 years of testing. The highest value was reportedin a study comparing starters versus reserves:a mean of 112.7 kg and 111.3 kg, respectively.[25]
However, these values were obtained during thepre-season phase. Testing conducted during thepost-season phase produced values of 104.2 kgand 98.0 kg for starters and reserves, respectively.The authors suggested that the decrease in benchpress 1 RM was due to the limited time theplayers devoted to strength training during theseason. The only measurements of strength inNBA players were performed by Parr et al.[15] Inthis study, strength was measured on an iso-kinetic device at an angular velocity of 60 deg/sec.Guards’ bench press strength mean value was86.8 kg. As expected, this value is lower than the1 RM values of guards in other studies. Interest-ingly, the forwards who took part in this studydemonstrated relatively high values of strength(101.3 kg), similar to the 1 RM values of collegeplayers. This could suggest that the 1 RM valuesof NBA players may be higher than those ofcollege players.
In a study by Latin et al.,[13] forwards showedhigher power clean values compared with guardsand higher squat values compared with centres,while there were no differences in absolute max-imal strength in bench press among playersplaying different positions. When these valueswere divided by bodyweight, guards were shownas having the greatest strength. It is possible thatupper-body strength is more important for cer-tain playing positions, such as power forward andcentre.[34] Training for maintaining or increasingstrength throughout the season in players in these
positions may be recommended. When compar-ing bench press and squat performances betweenbasketball and football players, one study foundsignificantly lower values in basketball comparedwith football players.[33] This was true for bothabsolute strength and strength relative to body-weight.
One study of isokinetic knee flexion and ex-tension torque in male players failed to revealsignificant differences between the dominant andthe non-dominant legs.[35] However, unlike in thefemale players, the study did find a relatively highflexors-extensors ratio in both the dominant andnon-dominant legs at an angular velocity of180 deg/sec in males (84.6% and 83.1%, respec-tively). It is suggested that those male playerspossessed relatively strong hamstring muscles.
2.2.3 Female versus Male Players
One study compared force production betweenmale and female players.[32] Quite expectedly, maleplayers showed higher values in isometric leg ex-tension and trunk flexion and extension. In ad-dition, male players took less time to producemaximal force compared with female players.However, when the absolute strength results wereadjusted to bodyweight, differences in leg exten-sion force production disappeared. While forceproduction relative to bodyweight was greater inmale players for trunk flexion and extension, thedifferences were smaller than those observed forabsolute force production. Moreover, when theabsolute values were divided by FFM rather thanbodyweight, the differences were even smaller.The discrepancies that remained could be relatedto sexual distinctions; however, it is possible thatdifferences in volume and intensity of strengthtraining between the female and male playerscould be contributing factors as well.[32]
Since individual variability was the commonthread in all studies of strength, the reported va-lues should be carefully considered. Providingindividual training essentials should be taken intoaccount by basketball coaches and strength andconditioning coaches, regardless of the mean orexpected strength of players in a specific playingposition.
554 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
2.3 Anaerobic Power
It is generally accepted that possessing anae-robic power is essential in most sports, particu-larly in sport activities requiring the productionof work over short periods of time, such as bas-ketball. Various batteries of tests were used in thereviewed studies to assess anaerobic power, andtherefore it was difficult to compare results acrossthe studies. Among the tests included were ver-tical jump, Margaria stair run, Wingate Anaero-bic Test (WanT), and an anaerobic powerstep test. Six studies examining the anaerobicpower profile in female[6,8,9,23,32,38] and 12 inmale[13-15,17,18,21,28,32-34,38-40] players are reviewed here.
2.3.1 Female Players
Vertical jump is the most prevalent test used toassess anaerobic power in female and male play-ers, since vertical jumps are among the mostprevalent acts performed by basketball players inboth defence (e.g. blocking and rebounding) andoffence (e.g. shooting and rebounding). Varioustests assessing vertical jump were used in the re-viewed studies, and therefore a wide range ofvertical jumping capabilities can be seen. Verticaljump values as reported in these studies are pre-sented in table II.
The studies on vertical jump used variousprotocols. Mean values ranged from 24.8 cm inone study[32] to 48.2 cm in another.[6] However,most studies found values that were above 40 cm.The low value of 24.8 cm was recorded whileusing a method in which hands were kept on thewaist throughout the test. This value was similarto a value measured in physical education stu-dents.[32]
A number of studies looked at vertical jump inplayers playing different positions. Only onestudy found a significant difference betweenguards and power forwards (48.9 – 4.9 cm vs40.5 – 3.8 cm, respectively).[8] When convertingthe vertical jump values to anaerobic power,centres showed significantly higher anaerobicpower compared with guards (108.5 – 12.7 vs88.9 – 12.9 kg/m/sec, respectively).[9] In compar-ison, anaerobic power values were 120.7 – 4.0kg/m/sec as obtained from the Margaria stair
run,[23] and 67.67 kg/m/sec from theWanT.[6] Thetype of test selected by the researchers to assessanaerobic power greatly influenced the results inthe different studies.
Differences in skill levels were found to be re-lated to vertical jump capability. A study thatcompared the best eight players in each playingposition with the rest of the players in this posi-tion found that the best point guards had highervertical jump values compared with the rest of thepoint guards (52.6 vs 44.8 cm, respectively). Similarresults were found when comparing the bestpower forwards and the rest of the power for-wards (50.5 vs 40.2 cm, respectively).[38] Theseresults suggest that good jumping ability is asso-ciated with achieving success in basketball. Thisinformation can also be used for talent detectionand early development processes in basketball, aswell as for the establishment of conditioningprogrammes attempting to increase jumpingheight. For example, plyometric training hasshown promising results in increasing jumpingheight.[41]
2.3.2 Male Players
One study found no differences in verticaljump and jumping power among players playingdifferent positions,[14] and another found highervalues of vertical jump height in guards and for-wards compared with centres.[13] The latter studyalso found higher power in forwards and centrescompared with guards. Differences in verticaljump among players at different skill levels re-vealed that the best players tend to jump highercompared with other players. However, in thisstudy, only the difference between the best eightshooting guards and the rest of the shootingguards was found to be significant (68.6 vs 60.6 cm,respectively).[38] In a study of NBA players, nodifferences in power were found between guardsand forwards.[15]
The vertical jump values of basketball playerswere similar to those of football players, butvertical jump power values were higher in foot-ball players.[33] A comparison among basketballplayers, hockey players and soccer players revealedsimilar power values (120.4 – 10.7, 115.5 – 11.2and 125.8 – 13.5 kg/m/sec, respectively).[21]
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 555
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
When examining power output relative tobodyweight, similar results to those of the verticaljump were observed. Three studies used a30-second all-out test to measure power output,
two studies used theWanT,[18,39] and the third useda comparable test using an electromagneticallybraked cycle ergometer.[17] Peak power outputsranged from 10.7 – 1.3 to 14.1 – 1.4W/kg. No
Table II. Vertical jump values of male and female basketball players. Data shown as mean (SD)
Study Type of test Position Vertical jump (cm)
Females
Bale[9] (1991) CMJ Guards (n= 7) 47.6 (4.9)
Forwards (n= 6) 47.2 (6.5)
Centres (n= 5) 47.6 (5.3)
Hakkinen[32] (1991) Hands on waist; no arm swing allowed All players (n =9) 24.8 (2.5)
Hoare[38] (2000) Step back with one foot, crouched positions,
hands stretched back – bringing feet together,
swing arms forward and leap
Guards (n= 62) 45.73 (NA)a
Forwards (n= 44) 42.76 (NA)b
Centres (n= 19) 46.6 (4.8)
LaMonte et al.[6] (1999) CMJ Guards (n= 18) 49.38 (6.20)
Forwards (n= 19) 49.43 (11.10)
Centres (n= 9) 43.51 (4.45)
Riezebos et al.[23] (1983) NA All players (n =20) 37.0 (1.1)d
Smith and Thomas[8] (1991) CMJ Guards (n= 11) 48.9 (4.9)
Shooting forwards (n= 6) 44.5 (4.4)
Power forwards (n= 6) 40.5 (3.8)
Centres (n= 6) 42.0 (3.0)
Males
Apostolidis et al.[18] (2004) Hands on waist; no arm swing allowed All players (n =13) 40.1 (4.0)
Hakkinen[32] (1991) Hands on waist; no arm swing allowed. All players (n =11) 43.9 (4.0)
Hoare[38] (2000) Step back with one foot, crouched positions,
hands stretched back – bringing feet together,
swing arms forward and leap
Guards (n= 53) 63.3 (NA)a
Forwards (n= 56) 58.78 (NA)b
Centres (n= 16) 57.9 (8.5)
Hoffman et al.[34] (1996) CMJ All players (n =15) 68.5 (NA)c
Hoffman et al.[39] (2000) Hands on waist; no arm swing allowed All players (n =9) 51.6 (6.9)
Latin et al.[13] (1994) NA, data collected from surveys Guards (n= 152) 73.4 (9.6)
Forwards (n= 124) 71.4 (10.4)
Centres (n= 73) 66.8 (10.7)
Ostojic et al.[14] (2006) Hands on waist; no arm swing allowed Guards (n= 20) 59.7 (9.6)
Forwards (n= 20) 57.8 (6.5)
Centres (n= 20) 54.6 (6.9)
a Data combined for point guards and shooting guards by authors.
b Data combined for small forwards and power forwards by authors.
d Standard error of measurement on brackets.
c Mean of four consecutive seasons (calculated by authors).
CMJ = counter movement jump (squatting with hands stretched backwards and leaping with hands swinging forward);NA = data not available.
556 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
differences in peak power were indicated amongplayers playing different positions, or among skilllevels, although percentage fatigue was higher inthe high-skilled than the low-skilled players(63.3%– 13.8 vs 54.1%– 11.1, respectively).[17]
It can be assumed that the high-skilled playerswere more motivated to perform the test to thebest of their ability.
When examining changes in anaerobic capa-city across the entire season, one study foundlower anaerobic power values (as measured withan anaerobic step test) before pre-season begancompared with 5 weeks after the beginning ofpre-season.[28] No differences in power werefound between 5 weeks after pre-season to theend of the season. Lastly, the comparison ofbasketball players with players in volleyball,handball, rugby and soccer resulted in similarrelative peak power outputs (11.0 – 0.81,11.2 – 0.64, 11.2 – 0.8, 10.9 – 0.59 and 10.6 – 0.68,respectively).[40]
The large number of anaerobic power testsavailable for the strength and conditioning coachcan be overwhelming. We suggest that the coachbe aware of the concept of specificity in trainingand testing. For example, choosing anaerobicpower tests that mimic actual game situations ismost beneficial. In this respect, vertical jump testsare probably more useful for basketball playersthan theWanT. Choosing a specific vertical jumptest is also important. Since arm swing is usedduring a basketball game, a counter movementjump with arm swing allowed would be prefer-able to a vertical jump test, in which arms are heldbehind the back or at the waist.
2.4 Agility and Speed
Agility and speed are integral aspects of al-most every defensive and offensive manoeuvreperformed by basketball players in practicesand games. Only a few studies looked at theseabilities: three in female[8,23,38] and five inmale[13,18,33,34,38] players.
2.4.1 Female Players
Two studies looked at speed among playersplaying different positions.[8,38] When three con-
secutive ‘suicide’ sprints (each consisting of atotal of 143.3 m of running with seven reversals ofdirection) were performed, no differences werefound among players in the first two sprints.[8]
However, in the third sprint, guards were fasterthan centres. It was explained that fatigue prob-ably affected the centres more than the guards. Inanother study,[38] point guards were quicker in anagility test compared with power forwards andcentres. In addition, guards had better results insuicide sprints compared with power forwards.When achievements of players at different skilllevels were compared, the best eight point guardshad better results in 5m, 10m and 20m suicideruns than the rest of the point guards participat-ing in the study. On suicide sprints, the best eightsmall forwards were faster than the rest of thesmall forwards.[38] An analysis of the relationshipbetween agility/speed and performance suggeststhat agility and speed are important character-istics for basketball players, and therefore includ-ing agility and speed drills in the conditioningprogramme is essential. Indeed, when the rela-tionship between achievements in an agility runtest and on-court performances – as evaluated byfive experienced basketball coaches during gamesituations – was looked at, a moderate correla-tion was found (r = 0.4; p < 0.05).[23]
2.4.2 Male Players
A comparison of agility and speed amongplayers playing different positions indicatedconflicting results. In one study,[13] guards werefaster than centres in both the 30-yard (27.4 m)dash and the 40-yard (36.6 m) dash. However, nodifferences were indicated among the players inan agility test. In another study,[38] point guardswere faster than forwards and centres in an agilitytest; however, no differences were found amongthese players in 5m, 10m and 20m runs. Sincebasketball is an intermittent sport and playershave time to rest between bouts of intense activ-ity, it is useful to examine the effects of the re-covery mode – passive or active – between boutson performance. One recent study[42] found thatduring a repeated-sprint test, passive recoverywas associated with lower fatigue index and lowertotal sprint time. It was suggested that coaches
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 557
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
should advise players to avoid unnecessary ac-tivity during the game, and should substituteplayers frequently when game intensity is highand little game interruption occurs (e.g. whenthere are few free throws or ball out of play).Comparison between the best eight players andthe rest of the players indicated better suicidesprint times in the best eight shooting guardscompared with the rest of the shooting guards. Acomparison between basketball and footballplayers revealed no differences in the 40-yard(36.6m) dash.[33] The conflicting results obtainedin the agility and speed tests are difficult to ex-plain. It is assumed that the players wouldachieve similarly in both agility and speed tests.Future research is definitely needed on agility andspeed in basketball players.
Finally, correlational studies found that var-ious field tests – such as control dribble, speeddribble, shuttle run and dribble shuttle run –werenegatively correlated with %BF. However, thesetests were positively correlated with peak poweras measured by the WanT.[18] The obtained cor-relations were moderate, in the range 0.5–0.7. Inaddition, Hoffman et al.[34] found moderate cor-relations between achievements in speed andagility tests and on-court playing time.
Agility and speed tests, like other fitness orphysiological tests, should be in line with theconcept of specificity. As Hoffman and Mareshsuggested,[43] 30-yard (27.4m) sprint tests aremore specific to basketball players than 40-yard(36.6m) sprints, as the court length is approxi-mately 30 yards (27.4m). It is up to the strengthand conditioning coach to find the best agilityand speed tests for the individual players in his orher team.
3. On-Court Performances
Physiological variables such as heart rate andblood lactate can be measured not only understerile laboratory conditions but also under fieldand more authentic conditions, namely actualgames. Information on patterns of movementsand actions performed by basketball playersduring the game can be also collected and ana-lysed. In a number of studies, a time-motion
analysis was used in order to quantify the numberand types of movements performed by the playersduring a game. This analysis enabled the re-searchers to assess certain levels of the players’workload during different phases of the game.
3.1 Female Players
Four studies examining on-court physiologicaldemands of female players[11,20,22,44] were identi-fied. Rodriguez-Alonso et al.[11] found higherblood lactate levels in guards compared withforwards and centres; however, no differenceswere indicated between national and interna-tional players. In addition, lower blood lactatelevels were found when measured during practicegames. The values of heart rates followed a si-milar pattern among players playing differentpositions, with guards showing higher heart ratesduring a game compared with forwards andcentres. Unlike blood lactate, heart rates duringinternational level play were higher than duringnational level play.
McArdle et al.[22] showed mean heart rates of81–95% of HRmax during an actual game. Thesevalues represent moderate to heavy workloadsduring a game. The authors also estimated oxy-gen consumption and average caloric cost ofplaying from heart rates, and suggested thatplayers utilize 7.1–11.8 kcal/min.
Only one study on time-motion analysis infemale basketball players was found.[20] In thisstudy, six female Division II basketball playersparticipated in six practice games of approxi-mately 20 minutes each (four quarters of 5 min-utes with a 1-minute rest in between). In eachgame, one player’s physiological variables weremeasured using a portable metabolic system. Forthe purpose of this study, four movements weredefined: standing, walking, running and jumping.On average, the players spent 1.6 – 0.9 minutesstanding, 10.6 – 0.3 minutes walking, 6.2 – 0.7minutes running and 0.3 – 0.1 minutes jumping.In addition, players spent approximately 34% ofthe time in running and jumping and other activemovements.
This study was also the first to measure oxygenconsumption during a basketball game. The
558 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
players had an average oxygen consumption of33.4 – 4.0mLO2/kg/min, which was 66.7 – 7.5%of their
.VO2max.
[20] Oxygen consumption re-mained relatively the same throughout the game.These
.VO2 values are higher than those estimated
in a recent compendium of physical activities (i.e.28mLO2/kg/min for a game of basketball),[45]
suggesting greater utilization of aerobic metabo-lism than previously expected.[20] Blood lactatelevels were 3.2 – 0.9mmol/L measured every5 minutes and were not changed throughout thegame. It is difficult to establish whether thesevalues represent a greater contribution fromaerobic or anaerobic metabolism.
Beam and Merill[44] recorded heart rates offemale collegiate players in real game conditions.Results showed that players spent 61.8% ofplaying time with heart rates >90% of HRmax and30.4% of the time with heart rates >95% ofHRmax. This suggests that the intensity of femalecollegiate basketball is high enough to require largecontributions from anaerobic metabolic pathways.
3.2 Male Players
3.2.1 Time-Motion Analysis
Only four time-motion analysis studies onmale basketball players[19,20,46,47] were found.This is a low number for this kind of study,compared, for example, with another popularball game – soccer.[48-55]
A time-motion analysis was conducted by BenAbdelkrim et al.[19] of elite under-19-year-oldmale basketball players. In this study, the authorsdefined nine specific movements, and the averagetotal number of movements performed by theplayers during the game was 1050 – 51. McInneset al.[46] defined eight specific movements (e.g.stand/walk, jog, run and stride/sprint), and ex-amined their frequency and duration during abasketball game. Themean frequency of all move-ments was 997 – 183 and the mean duration of allmovements was <3 seconds. The mean frequencyof movements is smaller than that reported byBen Abdelkrim et al.,[19] since these researchersdefined eight types of movements (e.g. standingstill, walking, jogging, and running) comparedwith nine in the study by Ben Abdelkrim et al.[19]
In the study by McInnes et al.,[46] there was achange from one movement to another every2 seconds, on average. This finding suggests thatbasketball is a game in which changes from onetype of action to another are frequent, and henceagility and speed are important.
Unlike the two previous studies, a third studyon time-motion analysis was conducted duringpractice games of 20 minutes each of six maleDivision II college players.[20] The researchers de-fined only four movements for the analysis, andthus data cannot be compared with the previoustwo studies. It was found in this study that theplayers spent 1.7– 0.6 minutes standing, 10.4 – 0.8minutes walking, 5.8 – 0.8 minutes running and0.3 – 0.1 minutes jumping. In addition, playersspent approximately 34% of the time in activemovements such as running and jumping. Whenexamining the number of movements performedby players playing different positions, it wasfound that guards engaged in more movementscompared with forwards and centres (1103 – 32 vs1022 – 45 and 1026 – 27, respectively).[19]
A number of studies investigated how fre-quently players engage in high-intensity move-ments during an actual game. Ben Abdelkrimet al.[19] found that guards and forwards spenta higher percentage of time performing high-intensity movements compared with centres(17.1%, 16.6% vs 14.7%, respectively). Miller andBartlett[47] found that centres spent more timestationary compared with guards and centres(32.8% vs 27.8% and 26.9%, respectively). It wasalso indicated by these authors that forwardsspent the greatest amount of time running (18.6%of on-court time). In another study it was foundthat high-intensity movements were performedevery 21 seconds (on average) during the actualtime of play when the clock was running.[46]
However, only 5% of stride/sprints performedby the players lasted more than 4 seconds, andtherefore it seemed that the highest intensitysprints consisted of quick acceleration anddeceleration without developing a full speed. Asthe authors suggested, a great deal of energyexpenditure was associated with the need toovercome body inertia.[46] Altogether, only 15%of live timewas spent on high-intensitymovements.
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 559
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
Nevertheless, 65% of live time was spent perform-ing movements of greater intensity than walking.
The changes in high-intensity movements asthe game progressed were also examined in stu-dies using a time-motion analysis. WhileMcInneset al.[46] found no differences in movement char-acteristics across quarters of play, Ben Abdelkrimet al.[19] reported that the percentage of high-intensity movements was reduced from the firstquarter to the second, and from the third to thefourth. This inconsistency might be related to anumber of factors, among them: (i) the differentfitness levels of the players who took part in thesestudies; (ii) the different training programmesthey engaged in; (iii) the changes in the rules in-troduced by FIBA in 2000; and (iv) the differentplaying styles used throughout the quarters. Itwas also found that
.VO2max values in the under-
19-year-old players were lower than those ob-tained from the adult players (approximately 53and 60mLO2/kg/min, respectively).
When comparing performances of high-in-tensity movements in players playing differentpositions, it was found that guards engaged inmore moderate-intensity specific movements thanforwards and centres, while there were no differ-ences among positions in low- and high-intensitymovements.[19] Guards performed more sprints(mean – SD 67 – 5) than forwards (56 – 5) andcentres (43 – 4), and forwards performed moresprints than centres. This information should beused by strength and conditioning coaches whenplanning training programmes for guards.
Total distance covered by players throughoutan actual game was not measured in either of theabove studies. It was argued that since variousmovements in basketball are executed in a rela-tively small space (e.g. blocking, guarding andrebounding), the measurement of total distancecould underestimate the physiological demandsof the game.[46] However, knowing the totalwalking/jogging/running distance players coverduring the game would probably help basketballcoaches and strength and conditioning coachesimprove the endurance regime of their trainingprogrammes.
Only one study examined oxygen consump-tion during a practice game.[20] In this study, the
players had an average oxygen consumption of36.9 – 2.6mLO2/kg/min, which was 64.7 – 7.0%of their
.VO2max. These
.VO2 values are higher
than those estimated in a recent compendium ofphysical activities, i.e. 28mLO2/kg/min for agame of basketball,[45] postulating a greater uti-lization of aerobic metabolism than previouslyexpected.[20]
3.2.2 Heart Rate
Although heart rate can vary greatly amongindividuals, it has been considered a goodpredictor of exercise intensity. In one study,mean –SD HR was 169.3 – 4.5 beats/min duringteam scrimmage.[20] Expressed as a percentage ofHRmax (using values of peakHR that were reachedduring a
.VO2max test for those players) reveals
an exercise intensity of approximately 88% ofHRmax. In a study of 20 young basketball players(mean– SD age 16.8 – 2 years) during a 20-minutepractice game, values of 86.2– 5.3% and86.7– 4.3% of HRmax were recorded in the firstand second halves, respectively.[56]
Similarly, in a study by McInnes et al.[46] ofmale basketball players, it was observed thatplayers had a HR >85% of HRmax in 75% of theirplaying time. Such high heart rates are usuallyassociated with high intensity. However, it wasindicated in the same study that high-intensitymovements were performed during only 15% ofthe players’ playing time. The authors explainedthis discrepancy by suggesting that a variety ofhigh-intensity movements – such as maintaininga position against physical resistance, passing,rebounding and shooting – were not measured inthis study.
A similar observation was made by BenAbdelkrim et al.,[19] who compared heart ratesamong male players playing different positions.They found that guards had heart rates that werehigher by 2–3 beats/min than forwards and cen-tres. This difference suggested a slightly higherplay intensity in guards, which is in line withthe finding that guards were engaged in moremoderate- and high-intensitymovements.However,heart rate is also influenced by other variables,such as nutritional status,[11] environmental con-ditions,[11] psychological arousal,[19] anxiety[19]
560 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
and stoppage in game play.[19] Therefore, thesedata should be carefully interpreted.
3.2.3 Blood Lactate
Obtaining information on the metabolic path-ways that are utilized during a basketball game –both aerobic and anaerobic – should also be ofinterest to the basketball coach and the strengthand conditioning coach. Ben Abdelkrim et al.[19]
reported that guards had higher blood lactatelevels than centres (6.0 – 1.2 vs 4.9 – 1.1mmol/L,respectively). Narazaki et al.[20] reported a meanvalue of 4.2 – 1.3mmol/L in 20-minute practicegames, while Castagna et al.[56] reported a meanof 3.72 – 1.39 in 20-min games of young basket-ball players (mean age 16.8 – 2 years). McInneset al.[46] reported elevated lactate levels throughouta basketball game, with high variability amongmale players (mean maximum 8.5 – 3.1mmol/L).The elevated lactate values suggested that glyco-lytic pathways made an important contributionto energy production during an actual game.[46]
However, caution is warranted when interpret-ing blood lactate values. Blood lactate concentra-tion is a snapshot of lactate turnover. Lactate isbeing produced by muscles working at high in-tensity, and at the same time it is being removedfrom those muscles to be used by other skeletalmuscles, the cardiac muscle, or for gluconeogenesisin the liver. Therefore, the simple fact that bloodlactate is elevated above resting levels does not tellus directly what percentage of energy comes fromaerobic or anaerobic pathways.
4. Nutritional Strategies andOxidative Stress
It is widely accepted that maintaining propernutrition is beneficial to athletic performance.[57]
A number of studies examining the contributionof nutritional strategies to facilitating improvedperformance in basketball are reviewed. It isbeyond the objectives and scope of our article toprovide a more extensive review on nutritionalstrategies and oxidative stress in elite basketballplayers than that given here.
Basketball players (female and male), as withother athletes, should maintain a positive energy
balance and avoid low-energy intakes. Energyintake should be balanced between carbo-hydrates (55–58% of energy), proteins (12–15%)and fats (25–30%).[57] Special care should be ta-ken in the vegetarian athlete, whomight be at riskfor low protein intake, as well as low micro-nutrients intake (specifically vitamin B12, zinc,iron and calcium). While most macronutrientsand micronutrients can be supplied from foods ina balanced diet, additional supplements may beuseful during an intense basketball season. Main-taining a positive and balanced energy intake canprove difficult between the practice sessions andgames, and during long travels in a competitivebasketball season. Schroder et al.[58] found that32 (58%) of a sample of 55 basketball players inthe First Spanish Basketball League reportedusing dietary supplements. Of those players, 81%used supplements on a daily basis, with multi-vitamins and vitamins being taken most fre-quently (50%). The authors suggested that theconsumption of multivitamins might help inpreventing temporary vitamin imbalances thatmay be caused by the frequency and timing oftraining sessions, travel and poor food selection.
4.1 Hydration
One nutrient that is often overlooked is water.Maintaining euhydration is important to aerobicperformance, and it is suggested that a waterdeficit of 2% of bodyweight can lead to decreasedperformance.[59,60] A number of studies on hy-dration in basketball players suggest that dehy-dration is detrimental to performance.[61-63] Inone study of eleven 17- to 28-year-old malebasketball players, dehydration led to impairedvigilance-related attentional performance.[61] Inanother study of 17 male basketball players aged17–28 years old, a progressive decline in basket-ball skills was associated with dehydrationlevels of 1–4% of bodyweight.[62] The threshold ofwater deficit at which overall performance dete-rioration became statistically significant was 2%of bodyweight.[62] Consumption of carbohydratesolutions (sports drinks) during intermittent ex-ercise appears to improve sports performance.[64]
In a study of 15 male adolescent players aged
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 561
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
12–15 years,[63] it was found that 2% dehydrationwas associated with deterioration in basketball skillperformance, and that euhydration with a 6%carbohydrate solution improved both shootingskills and on-court sprinting compared witheuhydration with a placebo.
Clearly, teaching basketball players to main-tain hydration is important. This can be effec-tively accomplished by weighing each playerbefore and after practices. In this manner, playerscan learn their individual sweat loss ratios andknow how much fluid intake is required of themto maintain euhydration.
4.2 Oxidative Stress
Free radicals occur naturally in the body andcan have negative effects on lipids, proteins andDNA oxidation. The antioxidant system alle-viates these negative effects. When there is animbalance between the production of free radi-cals and the antioxidant defence, oxidative stressoccurs. Oxidative stress may be involved in theaging process, cell damage, some pathology,muscular fatigue and overtraining.[65] Exercisetraining increases the production of free radicalsand the utilization of antioxidants. Therefore,proper nutrition is important in maintaining theantioxidants.[65]
Since basketball players perform intense phy-sical activity, their free radical production islikely to increase. Hence, it is important to supplythe needed micronutrients that serve as anti-oxidants to alleviate the possible negative effectsof the free radicals. When a balanced diet is notmaintained, antioxidant supplements may bewarranted.
In one study,[66] researchers examined the ef-fects of antioxidant supplements – a-tocopherol(vitamin E), b-carotene and ascorbic acid (vita-min C) – on exercise stress markers in 13 profes-sional male basketball players (seven players in asupplement group, six players in a placebogroup). After 32 days of treatment, elevatedplasma levels of a-tocopherol and b-carotenewere found in the supplement group but not inthe placebo group. However, plasma levels ofascorbic acid were not elevated in the supplement
group, while there was a significant decrease inthe placebo group. The authors cautiously sug-gested the ascorbic acid levels remaining similardespite the supplementation might be explainedby its use to scavenge free radicals and regeneratevitamin E. Importantly, lipid peroxide (lipidperoxidation is the degradation of lipids and cancause cell membrane damage) plasma con-centration decreased in the supplement group by27%, although the difference was not statisticallysignificant (p < 0.09). The authors suggested thatthis may be related to a reduction in muscle celldamage during training.[66] Similar results wereobserved in another study,[67] which found animprovement in oxidative stress in elite malebasketball players during a competitive seasonwhen antioxidant supplements were taken. Athird study[68] found that a-tocopherol supple-mentation may reduce the DNA oxidation in-duced by training. In this study, total antioxidantstatus was higher after 1month of supplementation.
These studies suggest that basketball playersmay benefit from supplementing their diet withantioxidants. Interestingly, vegetarian athleteshave higher antioxidant status for vitamin C,vitamin E and b-carotene compared withomnivores.[69] While the negative effects of freeradicals do not usually affect performance,it is possible that they can lead to overtraining.This may be because muscular cell damage,which can be caused by free radicals, can reducethe metabolic capacities of muscle cells.[65] Thisspeculation should be considered cautiously asthere is no direct evidence to support it.[65]
5. Conditioning for Basketball
A number of articles looked at conditioningfor basketball.[43,70-74] Although an extensive re-view of the basketball conditioning literature isbeyond the scope of our article, a few conceptsare noteworthy. (For a detailed review of con-ditioning practices in basketball see Hoffman andMaresh.[43])
Conditioning practices for basketball playerscan be complex, as the players require goodaerobic capacity, anaerobic power, speed, agilityand strength. The limited time for conditioning
562 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
during the season means that the coaching staffworking with the players need to decide whataspect of conditioning the strength and con-ditioning coach needs to concentrate on.
Tavino et al.[28] suggested that during the off-season, players should use a combination of aero-bic and anaerobic training to maintain fitnesslevels. During pre-season, athletes should con-centrate more on developing anaerobic capacity,and during the season, high-intensity trainingshould be done twice a week tomaintain anaerobiccapacity. In addition, weight training should beemployed throughout the year, while during theseason weight training should be carried outmoderately twice a week to maintain strength.[28]
Relevant information on conditioning pro-grammes was obtained from NBA strength andconditioning coaches (NBA-SC) in a large surveyof 20 NBA-SC where it was found that all workedwith their players on flexibility, speed develop-ment, plyometrics and strength/power develop-ment. Much variation was seen in the types ofdrills, frequency, duration and intensity of train-ing.[73] It was also found that most coaches(90%) divided their programmes into periodsby taking into account the specific needs oftheir players in different phases of the season.NBA-SC also assessed the fitness level of theirplayers. More coaches reported testing for aero-bic capacity (n = 12) than anaerobic capacity(n = 10). It is unclear why less than half the co-aches tested for anaerobic capacity, as it is clearlyof great importance to the game.
A time-motion analysis can be used bystrength and conditioning coaches when planningconditioning programmes for their elite players.Taylor,[74] for example, suggested that four video-tapes of game performance should be chosenfor analysis for each player: (a) the best game ofyear; (b) the worst game of year; (c) the game withfewest fouls; and (d) a post-season game. Afterthe analysis performed by the coach, he or shecan plan workouts that simulate intensity andrest periods in order to mimic what players do inactual games. Including such workouts in theyear-round conditioning programme can im-prove the physical preparation of the players forpractices and games.
Time-motion analysis can also be used in or-der to establish specific testing protocols forbasketball players. This was the objective ofCastagna et al.,[42] who decided on a repeated-sprint test protocol based on a time-motionanalysis. They found that 93% of sprint stridesequences included no more than ten consecutivebouts and that sprint lengths were 5–32m. Basedon these data, they decided on a basketball-specific repeated-sprint test of ten shuttle runsprints of 15m.
As Hoffman et al.[75] indicated, once an aero-bic base has been established, further increases inaerobic capacity may not increase performance inbasketball players. Therefore, a maintenanceprogramme consisting of running three times perweek for a duration of 30–40 minutes may besufficient. However, there is reason to believethat an aerobic training programme targeted atincreasing the anaerobic threshold is beneficial aswell. According to a recent study, the mean oxy-gen consumption during game play is 66.7% of.VO2max in female and 64.7% of
.VO2max in male
basketball players.[20] These values are probablyin the vicinity of the anaerobic threshold of theseplayers and perhaps a bit higher, although thiswas not measured in the study. That is to say thatthe players worked at an intensity that was at orslightly above their anaerobic threshold. In-creasing the anaerobic threshold to a realistic70% of
.VO2max will allow players to use more
aerobic metabolic pathways, which can lead todecreased fatigue during games. However, thisrecommendation should be considered with cau-tion as it is inferred from only one study of sixfemale and six male players.
5.1 Hormonal Status and theOvertraining Syndrome
One aspect of conditioning that should not beoverlooked is overtraining. Peak performancecan be achieved by the right combination ofvolume and intensity of training, as well as byproviding the player with adequate resting peri-ods in between.[76] If volume and intensity aretoo high, and if not enough recovery time isgiven to the player, overtraining can occur. The
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 563
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
overtraining syndrome is characterized by di-minished performance, increased fatigue andstress.[77] It has been suggested that disturbancesof several hormones (e.g. growth hormone, cor-tisol,[77] hypothalamopituitary dysregulation[78])can be reliable markers of overtraining. In addi-tion, biochemical markers such as creatine kinaseand urea can be indicative of muscle damage.[66]
However, one study suggested that their validityin indicating overtraining may be overesti-mated.[78] It should be noted that there are nodefinite diagnostic criteria for the overtrainingsyndrome.[79] It should also be noted that the ra-tio between testosterone and cortisol representsthe balance between anabolic and catabolic pro-cesses, and is also likely to represent the physio-logical strain of training.[77]
One study was found that examined hormonaland biochemical changes in ten male basketballplayers participating in a 4-week trainingcamp.[76] No difference in testosterone and lutei-nizing hormone levels in over 4 weeks of trainingwas indicated. The training camp was scheduled1 month after the end of the 9-month regularseason. Plasma cortisol increased significantly inweek 4 of the training programme, but remainedwithin the normal range. The ratio between tes-tosterone and cortisol was decreased by 22% inweek 4, although this finding was not statisti-cally significant. Between week 1 and week 2 ofthe training programme, creatine kinase levels in-creased by 60%; however, this was not statisticallysignificant. This finding probably representedlocal muscle trauma only. It was concludedthat a 4-week training camp for elite basketballplayers did not appear to cause any disturbanceto the hormonal or biochemical profile of theplayers.
Since it can be difficult to notice decrements inperformance in basketball players, unlike sportslike swimming or track and field in which mea-sures of performance are quite clear,[76] morestudies of hormonal and biochemical markers ofovertraining that are evaluated over an entirebasketball season are warranted. Such objectivemarkers of overtraining can help coaches to starttapering early enough to prevent overtrainingfrom developing.
6. Five Limitations Observed fromthe Physical and PhysiologicalMeasurements
The studies reviewed in this article provideuseful information to both researchers and prac-titioners on various physical and physiologicalcharacteristics of female and male basketballplayers. Among these characteristics are height,mass, aerobic and anaerobic capacities, strengthand agility. However, five limitations associatedwith the testing protocols used in the reviewedstudies are presented here.
(a) Lack of a longitudinal approach. In themajority of the reviewed studies the physicaland physiological tests were given to the playersonly once. No replicated measurements acrossdifferent periods of time were performed. Inorder to systematically examine characteristics ofelite performers (e.g. basketball players), a long-itudinal approach should be used as well. In thisapproach, one group of performers is observedover a long period of time,[80] enabling theresearchers to collect data on a variety ofdependent variables, as well as to study develop-mental perspectives of the observed group. Froman expert theory perspective, it has been estab-lished[81] that a period of at least 10 years isrequired to achieve expertise in sport, as well as inother domains such as art, music and science.Therefore, it would be useful for researchers andpractitioners alike to obtain information on thephysical and physiological characteristics of eliteplayers during different periods of time across theseason/s, and among different groups of skill leveland age. This information would result inimproving the ability of coaches to compareachievements among players as well as to planmore effectively training programmes for elitebasketball players.(b) Lack of tests performed under physical exer-tion conditions. The physical and physiologicaltests used in the reviewed studies were performedin a rested state, i.e. the players performed whenthey felt ready, according to the protocols of thetests. Fatigue primarily affects the central pro-cesses that take place between information receiptand the initiation of a movement.[82] In this
564 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
respect, it was shown that fatigue can influencecertain mechanisms as they operate from theinput of information to the output. Moderatelyhigh fatigue will impair performances requiringstrength, endurance and rapid movements.Therefore, it is of particular interest to the coachto assess his or her players’ ability not only underrested conditions, but also under physical exer-tion conditions that reflect what is required ofthem in actual games.(c) Lack of studies using a time-motion analysis.The majority of the studies described in ourreview were conducted under laboratory condi-tions and sterile settings, where the players wereinstructed to perform the tests individually. Inonly a few studies were data collected on physicaland physiological performances of players duringactual games. In order to plan effective strengthand conditioning programmes for basketballplayers, more information should be gatheredon what actions players actually perform duringthe game. A systematic analysis of the mainactions demonstrated by the players during thegame should be carefully made, and then, basedon this analysis, field observations using a time-motion analysis should be conducted on playersof different skill levels as well as on playersplaying different positions. In addition, studyingthe work/rest ratio during competitive games byrecording live physiological measurements (via aportable metabolic system) can allow coaches togather additional relevant information on theplayers, and plan better conditioning pro-grammes accordingly.(d) Reported HR values can be difficult tointerpret. These values should be interpreted asa percentage of HRmax; however, these interpre-tations will be accurate only if the actual HRmax
is known for the players, since the estimation ofHRmax from age is inaccurate. In addition, HRvalues should be reported for the total game time,including stoppages. Recording HR only in livetime ignores important recovery information dur-ing rest periods such as time-outs and half-time.(e) The results of blood lactate concentration canalso be difficult to interpret. As mentioned earlier(section 3.2.3), blood lactate concentration is aresult of lactate rate of appearance and rate of
disappearance. Blood lactate and muscle lactatecan be different during intermittent exercise, andblood lactate is not necessarily a good predictorof muscle lactate.[83] Moreover, while some of theworking muscles produce lactate, other musclesthat work at lower intensities may actually beconsumers of lactate as a substrate.
It is suggested that measuring or estimatingthe anaerobic threshold of each player, followedby the measurements of muscle and blood lactateover several games, as Ben Abdelkrim et al.[19]
suggested, can enhance our understanding of theworkload and metabolic pathways being usedduring a game. Several test protocols are avail-able for the measurement of the anaerobicthreshold. Performing those tests and interpret-ing their results require a knowledgeable and ex-perienced staff. (For a review of the concept ofthe anaerobic threshold and the methods ofmeasurement, see Svedahl and MacIntosh.[84])
7. Practical Advice for Basketballand Strength and ConditioningCoaches
We have three recommendations for the bas-ketball coach and the strength and conditioningcoach.
(a) Training programmes should be planned forthe athlete according to his or her playingposition. Guards, forwards and centres havedifferent physical and physiological characteris-tics. Although relevant information on trainingprogrammes for basketball players can be foundin the literature,[43] it is suggested that moreemphasis be placed on developing specific pro-grammes for forwards, centres and, particularly,for guards. Ultimately, basketball and strengthand conditioning coaches should plan theirtraining programmes according to the uniquecharacteristics of each player.(b) A careful selection of the physical andphysiological tests should be made. As reportedin our review, there are a large number of dif-ferent tests assessing physical and physiologicalabilities in basketball players. Therefore, it isrecommended to carefully select the test most
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 565
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
appropriate for assessing abilities in female andmale basketball players. It is also recommendedthat the same test be used for comparingachievements in a specific ability among thebasketball players. Different tests yield differentvalues, and thus the resulting comparison wouldnot be effective.(c) Coaches should be aware of changes in therules of the game. They should take any changesmade in the rules of the game into account whileplanning their training programmes. Practicallyspeaking, the physical preparation as part ofthe annual training programme should also helpthe player adjust to any new changes made in therules of the game.
8. Conclusions
This paper reviewed several issues related tobasketball players and their performance. De-spite the five limitations observed in the reviewedstudies, three practical recommendations forbasketball coaches were noted. We suggest thatfuture research should concentrate on time-motion analyses, physiological demands duringgame-play, and the effects of fatigue on perfor-mance.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dinah Olswang for hereditorial assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation ofthis review, and the authors have no conflicts of interest thatare directly relevant to the content of this review.
References1. Lidor R, Blumenstein B, Tenenbaum G. Psychological as-
pects of training in European basketball: conceptualiza-tion, periodization, and planning. Sport Psychologist 2007;21: 353-67
2. Bompa T. Periodization: the theory and methodology oftraining. 4th ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1999
3. Matveyev L. Fundamentals of sports training. Moscow:Progress, 1981
4. Harre D, editor. Principles of sports training: introductionto theory and methods of training. Berlin: Sportverlag,1982
5. Carter JE, Ackland TR, Kerr DA, et al. Somatotype and sizeof elite female basketball players. J Sports Sci 2005 Oct; 23(10): 1057-63
6. LaMonte MJ, McKinney JT, Quinn SM, et al. Comparisonof physical and physiological variables for femalecollege basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13(3): 264-70
8. Smith HK, Thomas SG. Physiological characteristics of elitefemale basketball players. Can J Sport Sci 1991 Dec; 16 (4):289-95
9. Bale P. Anthropometric body composition and performancevariables of young elite female basketball players. J SportsMed Phys Fitness 1991 Jun; 31 (2): 173-7
10. Bayios IA, Bergeles NK, Apostolidis NG, et al. Anthropo-metric, body composition and somatotype differences ofGreek elite female basketball, volleyball and handballplayers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2006 Jun; 46 (2): 271-80
11. Rodriguez-AlonsoM, Fernandez-Garcia B, Perez-Landaluce J,et al. Blood lactate and heart rate during national and inter-national women’s basketball. J Sports Med Phys Fitness2003 Dec; 43 (4): 432-6
12. Cormery B, Marcil M, Bouvard M. Rule change incidenceon physiological characteristics of elite basketball players:a 10-year-period investigation. Br J Sports Med 2008 Jan;42 (1): 25-30
13. Latin RW, Berg K, Baechle T. Physical and performancecharacteristics of NCAA division I male basketball players.J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8 (4): 214-8
14. Ostojic SM, Mazic S, Dikic N. Profiling in basketball: phy-sical and physiological characteristics of elite players.J Strength Cond Res 2006 Nov; 20 (4): 740-4
16. Viviani F. The somatotype of medium class Italian basket-ball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1994 Mar; 34 (1):70-5
17. Sallet P, Perrier D, Ferret JM, et al. Physiological differencesin professional basketball players as a function of playingposition and level of play. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2005Sep; 45 (3): 291-4
18. Apostolidis N, Nassis GP, Bolatoglou T, et al. Physiologicaland technical characteristics of elite young basketballplayers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2004 Jun; 44 (2): 157-63
19. Ben Abdelkrim N, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. Time-motion ana-lysis and physiological data of elite under-19-year-oldbasketball players during competition. Br J Sports Med2007 Feb; 41 (2): 69-75
20. Narazaki K, BergK, StergiouN, et al. Physiological demandsof competitive basketball. Scand J Med Sci Sports.Epub 2008 Apr
21. Withers RT, Roberts GD, Davies GJ. The maximum aero-bic power, anaerobic power and body composition ofSouth Australian male representatives in athletics, basket-ball, field hockey and soccer. J Sports Med Phys Fitness1977 Dec; 17 (4): 391-400
566 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
22. McArdle WD, Magel JR, Kyvallos LC. Aerobic capacity,heart rate and estimated energy cost during women’scompetitive basketball. Res Q 1971 May; 42 (2): 178-86
23. Riezebos ML, Paterson DH, Hall CR, et al. Relationship ofselected variables to performance in women’s basketball.Can J Appl Sport Sci 1983 Mar; 8 (1): 34-40
25. Caterisano A, Patrick BT, EdenfieldWL, et al. The effects ofa basketball season on aerobic and strength parametersamong college men: starters versus reserves. J StrengthCond Res 1997; 11 (1): 21-4
26. Gocentas A, Landor A, Andziulis A. Dependence ofintensity of specific basketball exercise from aerobiccapacity. Pap Anthropol XIII 2004; 9-17
27. Parnat J, Viru A, Savi T, et al. Indices of aerobic work ca-pacity and cardio-vascular response during exercise inathletes specializing in different events. J Sports Med PhysFitness 1975 Jun; 15 (2): 100-5
28. Tavino LP, Bowers CJ, Archer CB. Effects of basketball onaerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, and body composi-tion of male college players. J Strength Cond Res 1995; 9(2): 75-7
29. Vaccaro P, Wrenn JP, Clarke DH. Selected aspects of pul-monary function and maximal oxygen uptake of elite col-lege basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1980Mar; 20 (1): 103-8
sponses during basketball drills [abstract]. In: Dikic N,Zivanic S, Ostojic S, et al., editors. Book of abstracts of the10th Annual Congress of the European College of SportScience 2005. Belgrade: 2005: 160
31. Whaley MH, Brubaker PH, Otto RM, editors. ACSM’sguidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 7th ed.Philadelphia (PA): American College of Sports Medicine,2006
32. Hakkinen K. Force production characteristics of leg ex-tensor, trunk flexor and extensor muscles in male and fe-male basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1991Sep; 31 (3): 325-31
33. Berg K, Latin RW. Comparison of physical and perfor-mance characteristics of NCAA division I basketball andfootball players. J Strength Cond Res 1995; 14 (1): 22-6
34. Hoffman JR, Tenenbaum G, Maresh CM, et al. Relation-ship between athletic performance tests and playing time inelite college basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 1996;10 (2): 67-71
35. Theoharopoulos A, Tsitskaris G, Nikopoulou M, et al.Knee strength of professional basketball players. JStrength Cond Res 2000; 14 (4): 453-63
36. Croisier JL. Factors associated with recurrent hamstringinjuries. Sports Med 2004; 34 (10): 681-95
37. Knapik JJ, Bauman CL, Jones BH, et al. Preseason strengthand flexibility imbalances associated with athletic injuriesin female collegiate athletes. Am J Sports Med 1991 Jan-Feb; 19 (1): 76-81
38. Hoare DG. Predicting success in junior elite basketballplayers: the contribution of anthropometric and physio-
logical attributes. J Sci Med Sport 2000 Dec; 3 (4):91-405
39. Hoffman JR, Epstein S, Einbinder M, et al. A comparisonbetween the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test to bothvertical jump and line drill tests in basketball players.J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14 (3): 261-4
40. Kalinski MI, Norkowski H, Kerner MS, et al. Anaerobicpower characteristics of elite athletes in national level team-sport games. Eur J Sport Sci 2002; 2 (3): 1-14
41. Markovic G. Does plyometric training improve verticaljump height? A meta-analytical review. Br J Sports Med2007 Jun; 41 (6): 349-55
42. Castagna C, Abt G, Manzi V, et al. Effect of recovery modeon repeated sprint ability in young basketball players. JStrength Cond Res 2008 May; 22 (3): 923-9
43. Hoffman JR, Maresh CM. Physiology of basketball. In:Garrett Jr WE, Kirkendall DT, editors. Exercise and sportscience. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams&Wilkins,2000: 733-44
45. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, et al. Compendiumof physical activities: an update of activity codes and METintensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000 Sep; 32 (9 Suppl.):S498-504
46. McInnes SE, Carlson JS, Jones CJ, et al. The physiologicalload imposed on basketball players during competition. JSports Sci 1995 Oct; 13 (5): 387-97
47. Miller SA, Bartlett RM. Notational analysis of the physicaldemands of basketball [abstract]. J Sports Sci 1994; 12 (2):181
48. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance ofhigh-standard soccer players with special reference to de-velopment of fatigue. J Sports Sci 2003 Jul; 21 (7): 519-28
49. Krustrup P,MohrM, Ellingsgaard H, et al. Physical demandsduring an elite female soccer game: importance of trainingstatus. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005 Jul; 37 (7): 1242-8
50. Burgess DJ, Naughton G, Norton KI. Profile of movementdemands of national football players in Australia. J SciMed Sport 2006 Aug; 9 (4): 334-41
51. Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H, et al. Performance char-acteristics according to playing position in elite soccer. Int JSports Med 2007 Mar; 28 (3): 222-7
52. Stroyer J, Hansen L, Klausen K. Physiological profile andactivity pattern of young soccer players during match play.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004 Jan; 36 (1): 168-74
53. Anastasiadis S, Anogeianaki A, Anogianakis G, et al. Realtime estimation of physical activity and physiological per-formance reserves of players during a game of soccer. StudHealth Technol Inform 2004; 98: 13-5
54. Drust B, Atkinson G, Reilly T. Future perspectives in theevaluation of the physiological demands of soccer. SportsMed 2007; 37 (9): 783-805
55. Hill-Haas S, Coutts A, Rowsell G, et al. Variability of acutephysiological responses and performance profiles of youthsoccer players in small-sided games. J Sci Med Sport 2008;11 (5): 487-90
56. Castagna C, Manzi V, Marini M, et al. Effect of playingbasketball in young basketball players [abstract]. In:
Attributes of Female and Male Basketball Players 567
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
Hoppeler H, Reilly T, Tsolakidis E, et al., editors. Bookof abstracts of the 11th Annual Congress of the EuropeanCollege of Sport Science 2006. Lausanne: 2006: 325
57. Joint Position Statement: nutrition and athletic perfor-mance. American College of Sports Medicine, AmericanDietetic Association, and Dietitians of Canada. Med SciSports Exerc 2000 Dec; 32 (12): 2130-45
58. Schroder H, Navarro E, Mora J, et al. The type, amount,frequency and timing of dietary supplement use by eliteplayers in the First Spanish Basketball League. J Sports Sci2002 Apr; 20 (4): 353-8
59. Casa DJ, Clarkson PM, Roberts WO. American College ofSports Medicine roundtable on hydration and physicalactivity: consensus statements. Curr Sports Med Rep 2005Jun; 4 (3): 115-27
60. Cheuvront SN, Carter 3rd R, SawkaMN. Fluid balance andendurance exercise performance. Curr Sports Med Rep2003 Aug; 2 (4): 202-8
61. Baker LB, Conroy DE, Kenney WL. Dehydration impairsvigilance-related attention in male basketball players. MedSci Sports Exerc 2007 Jun; 39 (6): 976-83
62. Baker LB, Dougherty KA, Chow M, et al. Progressivedehydration causes a progressive decline in basketballskill performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007 Jul; 39 (7):1114-23
63. Dougherty KA, Baker LB, Chow M, et al. Two percent de-hydration impairs and six percent carbohydrate drink im-proves boys basketball skills. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006Sep; 38 (9): 1650-8
64. Coombes JS, Hamilton KL. The effectiveness of commer-cially available sports drinks. Sports Med 2000Mar; 29 (3):181-209
65. Finaud J, Lac G, Filaire E. Oxidative stress: relation-ship with exercise and training. Sports Med 2006; 36 (4):327-58
66. Schroder H, Navarro E, Mora J, et al. Effects of alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene and ascorbic acid on oxidative,hormonal and enzymatic exercise stress markers in habi-tual training activity of professional basketball players. EurJ Nutr 2001 Aug; 40 (4): 178-84
67. Schroder H, Navarro E, Tramullas A, et al. Nutritionantioxidant status and oxidative stress in professionalbasketball players: effects of a three compound anti-oxidative supplement. Int J Sports Med 2000 Feb; 21 (2):146-50
68. Tsakiris S, Parthimos T, Tsakiris T, et al. Alpha-tocopherolsupplementation reduces the elevated 8-hydroxy-2-deoxy-guanosine blood levels induced by training in basketballplayers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006; 44 (8): 1004-8
69. Venderley AM, Campbell WW. Vegetarian diets: nutritionalconsiderations for athletes. Sports Med 2006; 36 (4):293-305
70. Chandler J. Basketball: goals and activities for athleticconditioning in basketball. Strength Cond 1986; 8 (5): 52-5
71. Hilyer J, Hunter GR. Bridging the gap-practical application:a year-round strength development and conditioning pro-gram for men’s basketball. Strength Cond 1989; 11 (6): 16-9
73. Simenz CJ, Dugan CA, Ebben WP. Strength and con-ditioning practices of National Basketball Associationstrength and conditioning coaches. J Strength Cond Res2005 Aug; 19 (3): 495-504
74. Taylor J. Basketball: applying time motion data to con-ditioning. Strength Cond 2003; 25 (2): 57-64
75. Hoffman JR, Epstein S, Einbinder M, et al. The influence ofaerobic capacity on anaerobic performance and recoveryindices in basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13(4): 407-11
76. Hoffman JR, Epstein S, Yarom Y, et al. Hormonal and bio-chemical changes in elite basketball players during a 4-weektraining camp. J Strength Cond Res 1999; 13 (3): 280-5
77. Urhausen A, Gabriel H, Kindermann W. Blood hormonesas markers of training stress and overtraining. Sports Med1995 Oct; 20 (4): 251-76
78. Urhausen A, Gabriel HH, Kindermann W. Impaired pitui-tary hormonal response to exhaustive exercise in over-trained endurance athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998Mar; 30 (3): 407-14
79. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Gleeson M, et al. Prevention, diag-nosis and treatment of the overtraining syndrome. Eur JSport Sci 2006; 6 (1): 1-14
80. Thomas JR, Nelson JK. Research methods in physical ac-tivity. 5th ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005
81. Ericsson KA. How the expert performance approach differsfrom traditional approaches to expertise in sports. In:Starkes JL, Ericsson KA, editors. Expert performance insports-advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign(IL): Human Kinetics, 2003: 371-402
82. Pack M. Effects of four fatigue levels on performance andlearning of novel dynamic balance skill. J Mot Behav 1974;6: 191-7
83. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Steensberg A, et al. Muscle and bloodmetabolites during a soccer game: implications for sprintperformance.Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006 Jun; 38 (6): 1165-74
84. Svedahl K, MacIntosh BR. Anaerobic threshold: the con-cept and methods of measurement. Can J Appl Physiol2003 Apr; 28 (2): 299-323
Correspondence: Dr Ronnie Lidor, Associate Professor, TheZinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences,Wingate Institute, Netanya 42902, Israel.E-mail: [email protected]
568 Ziv & Lidor
ª 2009 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. Sports Med 2009; 39 (7)
