Abstract
The present study analyzed the multi-location external workload profile in basketball players using a previously validated test battery and compared the demands among anatomical locations. A basketball team comprising 13 semi-professional male players was evaluated in five tests (abilities/skills/tests): (a) aerobic, linear movement, 30-15 IFT; (b) lactic anaerobic, acceleration and deceleration, 16.25 m RSA (c) alactic anaerobic, curvilinear movement, 6.75 m arc (d) elastic, jump, Abalakov test (e) physical-conditioning, small-sided game, 10’ 3 vs.3 10 × 15 m. PlayerLoadRT was evaluated at six anatomical locations simultaneously (interscapular line, lumbar region, knees and ankles) by six WIMU PROTM inertial devices attached to the player using an ad hoc integral suit. Statistical analysis was composed of an ANOVA of repeated measures and partial eta squared effect sizes. Significant differences among anatomical locations were found in all tests with higher values in the location nearer to ground contact (p < 0.01). However, differences between lower limb locations were only found in curvilinear movements, with a higher workload in the outside leg (p < 0.01). Additionally, high between-subject variability was found in team players, especially at lower limb locations. In conclusion, multi-location evaluation in sports movements will make it possible to establish an individual external workload profile and design specific strategies for training and injury prevention programs.
Highlights
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
Most of the investigations into monitoring the external load using accelerometry in team sports for load quantification are performed in a single anatomical location, preferably the scapulae, due to the better reception of the tracking position in indoor or outdoor conditions [6]
The problem is that they only considered the total load recorded in one anatomical location, but not how the load is supported by the musculoskeletal structures, as well as the possible asymmetries in the lower limbs individually [22]
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. There has been exponential development in technology for workload monitoring in indoor and outdoor conditions in basketball during the last few years [1]. The most extended methods to quantify workload were heart rate telemetry Impulse or Summated Heart Rate Zones) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) from a physiological approach [2,3]. The monitoring of internal workload only provides information about the biological reaction of the human body produced by an unknown external workload [4]. Time–motion analysis (TMA) was developed to monitor external workload during training and competition through video analysis or indoor radiofrequency technologies (e.g., local positioning system, ultra-wideband, etc.) [1].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
