Figure 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Graphical representation of the testing procedures. 1RM-one repetition maximum; FTfree-throw; 2PT-two-point; 3PT-three-point.
Source publication
Strength is one of the key physiological performance attributes related to optimal on-court basketball performance. However, there is a lack of scientific literature studying how strength relates to shooting proficiency, as a key basketball skill capable of discriminating winning from losing game outcomes. Thus, the purpose of the present study was...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... goal height (3.05 m) and size corresponded to men's (0.75 m, 0.62 kg; Wilson Evolution Indoor, Chicago, IL, USA) and women's (0.72 m, 0.57 kg; Wilson Evolution Indoor, Chicago, IL, USA) basketball international regulations standards. The graphical representation of the testing procedures is shown in Figure 1. ...
Similar publications
Shooting efficiency is one of the key performance parameters related to securing the desired game outcome at various levels of basketball competition, and it is largely influenced by the biomechanical adjustments incorporated during the preparatory and release phase of the shooting motion. Thus, the purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to...
Citations
... The results showed that FT had a significant improvement in upper limb power (throwing the medicine ball) (Hany, 2017) and anaerobic power (running-based anaerobic sprint test) (Hovsepian et al., 2021). Upper limb power is pivotal in basketball for actions like passing, dribbling, and defence (Cabarkapa et al., 2022). Anaerobic power refers to the ability of an athlete to exert maximum effort in short bursts of highintensity activity, which is crucial in basketball due to its fastpaced and explosive nature (Stauffer et al., 2010). ...
... First, FT exercises that target the core, such as planks and medicine ball throws that are used in included studies (Zuo, 2018;Usgu et al., 2020), can enhance the stability and power transfer from the lower body to the upper body during the shooting motion (Aksovic et al., 2020). On the other hand, the upper and lower body power improved by FT are important to basketball skill-related performance (Aksovic et al., 2020;Cabarkapa et al., 2022). Functional exercises like push-ups, pull-ups, and dumbbell presses can help build the necessary upper body strength to shoot the ball with force and accuracy over longer distances. ...
Background: Evidence suggests that functional training (FT) positively impacts physical fitness and sports performance. However, a systematic review addressing the effects of FT on basketball players remains absent. This systematic review aims to explore the influence of FT on physical fitness and skill-related performance in basketball players.
Methods: We searched six databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. The search utilized a combination of keywords related to FT, physical fitness, and basketball. The Eligibility Criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines were followed in this systematic review.
Results: 11 studies were ultimately included in this review, collectively recruiting 333 basketball players. These studies demonstrated that FT significantly improved muscle strength, linear speed, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, balance, and muscular endurance. However, the effects of FT on power, change-of-direction speed, and basketball-related performance were inconsistent. Most studies showed FT significantly improves these three variables, but a small number of studies did not find positive effects of FT using specific tests including standing long jump, Sargent jump, touch high, lane agility, lateral shuffle, dribbling line drill, and free-throw tests.
Conclusion: FT is an effective training method for enhancing physical fitness including muscle strength, linear speed, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, balance, and muscular endurance. However, the effects of FT on power, change-of-direction speed, and basketball-related performance were divergent. Some tests were not improved after FT potentially due to the short program lengths and training session durations, varied athletic levels of players examined, and different foci of the FT exercises administered. The collective evidence suggests FT programs, especially the specific exercises prescribed, should be tailored to the desired training objectives. More studies investigating the effects of FT on physical fitness and basketball-related performance with established tests are encouraged in the future to expand the current evidence base.
Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/, Identifier INPLASY202360072.
... Similar findings were observed by the same authors when examining games played on the NCAA Division-II competitive level (13). However, despite its importance, only a few research reports focused on examining the relationship between some of the fundamental physical performance attributes and basketball shooting efficiency (17)(18)(19). When studying a group of professional male basketball players, Pojksic et al. (18) observed that upper-body explosive power (i.e., medicine ball toss) was a good predictor of long-distance shooting performance during gameplay. ...
... In addition, superior upper-body and lower-body explosive power capacities were positively associated with three-point shooting efficiency (19). Contrary to the previously mentioned findings, Cabarkapa et al. (17) observed no significant relationship between maximal upper-body and lower-body strength in resistance-trained male and female basketball players. Neither bench press nor back squat 1RM was a good predictor of free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting performance (17). ...
... Contrary to the previously mentioned findings, Cabarkapa et al. (17) observed no significant relationship between maximal upper-body and lower-body strength in resistance-trained male and female basketball players. Neither bench press nor back squat 1RM was a good predictor of free-throw, two-point, and three-point shooting performance (17). ...
The purpose of the present study was to examine the acute impact of resistance exercise on basketball shooting mechanics and accuracy. Ten resistance-trained recreationally active men with previous basketball playing experience (x̄ ± SD; height = 182.6 ± 9.7 cm; body mass = 79.2 ± 13.9 kg; age = 25.6 ± 5.5 years) performed control, upper-body, and lower-body training sessions in randomized order followed by 5 sets of stationary free-throw (4.57 m), two-point (5.18 m) and three-point (6.75 m) basketball shooting drills in 30 min time increments. Each testing session was separated 3–7 days apart. Kinematic variables during both the preparatory and release phases of the shooting motion were derived from a high-definition camera recording at 120 fps positioned 10 m away perpendicular to the participant's shooting plane of motion. Restricted maximum likelihood linear mixed-effects model analysis revealed that a combination of all fixed effects could account for <1% of the total variance in each dependent variable pertaining to basketball shooting mechanics. A 9.9–11.8% decrease in two-point and three-point shooting accuracy was observed immediately following an upper-body training session. However, the observed performance suppression disappeared 30 min post-exercise completion. Overall, the findings suggest that performing upper-body or lower-body resistance training prior to on-court practice sessions has no impact on free-throw, two-point, and three-point biomechanical parameters examined in the present study and a minor acute impact on mid-range and long-range shooting accuracy in male basketball players.
... Upon arrival at the basketball gym, participants performed a standardized warm-up protocol led by a certified strength and conditioning professional. The warm-up procedure consisted of a set of dynamic stretching exercises (e.g., high knees, butt-kicks, lunge-and-twist, A-skips, karaoke, pogo jumps) and 15 min of partner free-throw, two-point, and threepoint shooting drills (e.g., one player rebounds the ball while the other one shoots, alternating roles every 10 shooting attempts) [11,12]. After the completion of the warm-up protocol, each participant stepped on a portable uni-axial dual force plate system (ForceDecks Max, VALD Performance, Brisbane, Australia) that based on previously published research reports demonstrated solid levels of measurement sensitivity and accuracy [13][14][15][16] and performed three CMJ without arm swing followed by three CMJ with an arm swing. ...
With technological developments over the last decade, a wide range of countermovement vertical jump (CMJ) force-time metrics can be derived from commercially available portable force plate systems. However, it should be noted that how the test is performed can have a substantial impact on the outcome of the assessment. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to determine differences in biomechanical variables between CMJ with and without an arm swing in a cohort of elite athletes. Ten professional male basketball players volunteered to participate in the present study. Following a standardized warm-up procedure, athletes stepped on a uni-axial force plate sampling at 1000 Hz and performed three CMJ without arm swing (i.e., hands on the hips) followed by three CMJ with an arm swing (i.e., arms positioned slightly in the front of the body with elbows flexed at a 90-degree angle). To minimize the possible influence of fatigue, each jump was separated by a 15-30 s rest interval. The findings of the present study indicate phase- specific differences in multiple force-time metrics between the two CMJ testing modalities. While having greater eccentric duration, CMJ with an arm swing had lower eccentric braking and deceleration rate of force development and lower eccentric peak force when compared to CMJ without an arm swing. During the concentric phase of the jump, concentric duration, impulse, peak velocity, and peak power were significantly greater in favor of CMJ with an arm swing. Also, despite longer contraction time, incorporating an arm swing resulted in greater vertical jump heights. Overall, these data describe the CMJ performance of professional male basketball players and provide helpful information for practitioners when designing assessment protocols to monitor athletes’ neuromuscular performance.
... Studies show that the effectiveness of free throws is dependent on the correctness of the throwing technique and the minimization of execution errors [23][24][25]. Specialists consider that the execution of free throws, specific to the game of basketball, is the only type of shot in which all the mathematical parameters of the shot are and remain constant throughout the execution (height from which the ball is thrown, speed at which the ball is thrown, maximum height of the ball in the air, angle at which the ball enters the basket, etc.), but also that these aspects are particular to the kinematics of each athlete, determined by the personal style (personal imprint) of each subject to execute it [26][27][28]. ...
The aim of the study was to implement a specific training program to improve basketball free throws by using an innovative system called “system and technical device designed for motor learning process in the field of sports science and physical education with direct applicability in basketball specific training-free throw improvement”, as well as to evaluate the level of free throw effectiveness. We also aimed to highlight the differences in progress between the experimental and control groups for three age categories U14, U16, and U18 male juniors. The system and the device for detecting the ideal trajectory of the ball were provided by a high-speed video camera which captured the images and projected them in real-time onto a projection surface that was placed in front of, or to the side of the athlete, depending on the subject’s preference, provided that this projection surface is in the performer’s field of vision. The research took place from April 5th to July 10th 2021 and phased as follows: initial testing, implementation of the experimental 12-week free-throw training program (one individualized training session per week lasting 120 min), and final testing. The study included 360 subjects aged 13–14 years, who were grouped according to gender and team sport played. The evaluation was done by three tests: the FRB test (standardized test), the Shoot-Run test, and the 10 experimental throws test. The results of the study in all three motor tests showed that by implementing the innovative system that was designed for motor learning, the effectiveness of free throw shooting improved significantly in the players of the experimental groups in all age groups (U14, U16, U18), thus evidencing a positive, upward dynamic in relation to the increasing age category. In all three motor tests, the progress of the experimental groups was superior to the control groups as a result of the implementation of the experimental exercise program using the innovative system and device that was designed to improve free throws. The results of the study highlighted the effectiveness and opportunity of the implementation of innovative technologies in the process of training and evaluation of basketball specific free throws.
... Previous research has been primarily directed toward examining the physical and performance characteristics of 5×5 basketball players [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Considering the nature of the game of basketball, it is understandable why some of the most commonly researched topics pertain to player's anthropometric attributes [7], vertical jump capabilities [5], maximal upper-and lower-body strength [6,13], and agility and sprint performance [4]. This information can allow coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners to obtain a better insight into the profile of successful basketball players and adequately adjust off-and on-court training regimens [7,10,13]. ...
... Considering the nature of the game of basketball, it is understandable why some of the most commonly researched topics pertain to player's anthropometric attributes [7], vertical jump capabilities [5], maximal upper-and lower-body strength [6,13], and agility and sprint performance [4]. This information can allow coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners to obtain a better insight into the profile of successful basketball players and adequately adjust off-and on-court training regimens [7,10,13]. ...
... After each successfully completed lift, the weight was successively increased by 5-10%, until the maximum amount of weight that the athlete is capable of lifting was reached. Each set was separated by a two-minute rest interval to minimize the possible influence of fatigue [13]. ...
Despite exponential growth in popularity over the last decade and recently becoming an Olympic sport, the amount of scientific literature focused on depicting a profile of successful 3×3 basketball players is sparse. Thus, the purpose of this study was to present the physical and performance characteristics of professional 3×3 male basketball players and how they differ between elite and non-elite athletes. The anthropometrics, vertical jump, agility, and sprint performance parameters collected from ten players during regular training sessions were (x¯ ± SD): height (193.7 ± 4.5 cm), weight (89.2 ± 4.1 cm), wingspan (196.5 ± 5.2 cm), squat jump (43.5 ± 4.6 cm), countermovement jump with (53.3 ± 4.4 cm) and without an arm swing (46.3 ± 4.0 cm), reactive strength index (2.4 ± 0.3 m/s), t-test (10.3 ± 0.3 s), 505 drill (2.4 ± 0.2 s), 10 m sprint (1.5 ± 0.1 s), 30 m sprint (4.0 ± 0.3 s), shuttle run (27.7 ± 1.7 s), and bench press (98.2 ± 10.0 kg) and back squat (139.5 ± 17.6 kg) one repetition maximum. Additionally, the average and maximal heart rate (HR) responses during simulated games were 160.6 ± 8.0 and 188.5 ± 6.3 bpm, with players spending 6.3 ± 4.2, 11.4 ± 5.2, 13.9 ± 3.5, 26.4 ± 10.4, and 42.1 ± 10.0% of the total time in HR Zones 1–5, respectively. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences in the aforementioned physical and performance parameters were noted between elite and non-elite players. Overall, the findings of the present study provide coaches, sports scientists, and strength and conditioning practitioners with information that can aid in the athlete selection process, detection of areas for further improvement, and development of training regimens that resemble 3×3 basketball on-court competitive demands.
... Basketball is a physically demanding sport where success dependents on a variety of fundamental physical skills such as acceleration, quickness, strength, and power [1,2]. During a basketball game, bilateral and unilateral jumps are performed at the frontal and sagittal plane of motion. ...
Jumping ability in basketball is usually assessed using standardized vertical jump tests. However, they lack specificity and do not consider the player’s basketball skills. Several studies have suggested performing specific jump tests, which are tailored to the movement patterns and requirements of a basketball game. The pivot step jump test (PSJT) is a novel test designed to evaluate the specific jumping abilities of basketball players by combining a pivot step on one leg with a maximum bilateral vertical jump. This study had two aims: to determine the reliability and validity of the PSJT using typical jump tests as the criterion measure and to demonstrate the PSJT as a practical test to evaluate specific jumping ability in young male and female basketball players. Twenty female (EGA; 14.0 ± 0.7 years, 59.3 ± 7.9 kg, 162.1 ± 5.5 cm) and fifteen male (EGB; 14.0 ± 0.7 years, 58.1 ± 7.7 kg, 170.3 ± 6.4 cm) basketball players participated in the study. The test–retest reliability of the PSJT within sessions (intrasession reliability) and across sessions (intersession reliability) was assessed within EGA. For the evaluation of validity, EGB performed the PSJT and a series of criterion jumping tests. For EGA, no changes (p > 0.05) were found in PSJT performance between test sessions and excellent intra- and intersession reliability was observed (ICCs > 0.75). Correlation coefficients indicated high factorial validity between the jumping tests and PSJT (r = 0.71–0.91, p < 0.001). The PSJT appears to offer a valid assessment of jumping ability in basketball and is a practical test for assessing sport-specific jumping skills in young basketball players.
... This could explain the differences in the results when compared to the CMJ performance [28]. As such, since the squat is one of the most commonly implemented exercises with athletes [29,30], it would be advisable for strength and conditioning specialists to prescribe the NV-PS exercise at a high volume and allow for four minutes of rest following the PAPE protocol prior to performing the planned sport-specific task (e.g., jumping activities). ...
Basketball is a multidirectional sport that holds unique and multifaceted physiologic demands. Strength and conditioning professionals should consider addressing sports performance and injury mitigation in basketball using a thorough needs analysis. However, one must acknowledge that not all basketball athletes are the same. Specifically, school-aged female basketball players sustain injuries at a significantly higher rate than their male counterparts, particularly at the knee and ankle. Adolescent females also have unique maturational characteristics and concerns. Consequently, it is reasonable to surmise that female adolescent basketball players have unique strength and conditioning needs to be considered when designing training programs to improve performance and mitigate injury. Currently, there is limited peer-reviewed literature to aid strength and conditioning practitioners working with this population. The purpose of this paper is to review the unique attributes and needs of adolescent female basketball players while offering practical guidance in testing and assessment, strength training, conditioning, and injury mitigation for their sport.
SCJ Video Abstract 1—http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A402.
Cabarkapa, D, Eserhaut, DA, Cabarkapa, DV, Philipp, NM, and Fry, AC. Salivary testosterone and cortisol changes during a game in professional male basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1687-1691, 2023-The purpose of this study was to examine acute changes in salivary testosterone (T), cortisol (C), and testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (T/C) during a simulated 5-on-5 basketball game. Seven professional male basketball players volunteered to participate in this study. Repeated-measures analysis design was used to examine changes in hormonal concentrations across 8 testing time points: immediately upon arrival to the gymnasium-baseline (BS); post-warm-up (PW); post-first (P1Q), second (P2Q), third (P3Q), and fourth quarter (P4Q); and 30 (P30) and 60 minutes (P60) postgame. The findings of this study indicate that a simulated 5-on-5 basketball game provoked significant changes in salivary T, C, and T/C. When compared to the BS levels (x̄ ± SD [nmol·L-1]; 6.72 ± 2.53), salivary C concentration experienced a notable increase P3Q (16.20 ± 7.70) and remained elevated throughout the rest of the sampling periods, with values failing to return to BS levels P60 (11.88 ± 5.58). Conversely, a significant increase in salivary T occurred P1Q (0.76 ± 0.21) when compared to the BS levels (0.58 ± 0.12) and remained elevated up to P30 (0.75 ± 0.20), with values returning to BS levels P60 (0.63 ± 0.14). In addition, despite no significant intragame alterations, T/C exhibited a notable decrease P30 (0.06 ± 0.02) and P60 (0.07 ± 0.04), when compared to BS values (0.10 ± 0.04). Overall, these findings provide additional insight into the physiological stress that basketball players are exposed to during 5-on-5 competitive play and can be used to appropriately adjust and monitor training loads to optimize recovery and on-court basketball performance.
