basketball research paper

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Publications
Account settings
Advanced Search
Journal List

Effect of core training on athletic and skill performance of basketball players: A systematic review

Shengyao luo, kim geok soh.

Yanmei Zhao

Kim Lam Soh

Nasnoor juzaily mohd nasiruddin, xiuwen zhai.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: [email protected]

Received 2022 Oct 31; Accepted 2023 Jun 5; Collection date 2023.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

A limited number of studies focus on the effect of core training on basketball players’ athletic performance and skills. This systematic reviewaimed to comprehensively and critically review the available studies in the literature that investigate the impact of core training on basketball players’ physical and skill performance, and then offer valuable recommendations for both coaches and researchers. Thedata collection, selection, and analysis adhered to the PRISMA protocol. English databases, including Ebscohost, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar,were searched until September 2022. A total of eight articles were included, with four studies comparing the effects of core training versus traditional strength training or usual basketball training. All studies investigated the impact of core training on athletic performance. The findings revealed that core training can help players improve their overall athletic and skill performance, particularly in the areas of strength, sprinting,jumping, balance, agility, shooting, dribbling, passing, rebounding, and stepping. In addition, core training, particularly on unstable surfaces,as well as combining static and dynamic core training,improvebasketball players’ athletic and skill performance. Despite the relativelylittle evidence demonstrating the effect of core training on endurance, flexibility, and defensive skills, this review demonstrates that it should be incorporated into basketball training sessions.

Introduction

Basketball is a popular sport that necessitates technical, tactical, psychological, and physiological abilities [ 1 ]. Physical fitness, including speed, strength, endurance, agility, and flexibility, as well as jumping, running, balance, and direction shifting, all affect basketball performance [ 2 , 3 ]. The physical demands of basketball can be evaluated in terms of physiological reactions such as elevated blood lactate concentration and sustained high heart rate [ 4 ], and physical activity indices such as total distance covered, distance covered at more than 18 km/h −1 (high-speed running), and the amount of high-intensity accelerations and decelerations [ 5 ]. However, due to age, it is hard for young basketball players to attain a speed greater than 18 km·h −1 and a high-speed running distance.Due to improved decision-making and game interpretation, experienced players had lower physical demand values [ 6 ].

Traditional strength training has long been used to improve athletes’fitness. European and American experts began to widely implement strength training principles in a variety of sports in the late 1990s [ 7 ]. In this type of strength training, the training load gradually increasesduring training sessions [ 8 ]. This training separates the body’s movement chain and disregards the strength training of the core muscles [ 7 ]. Therefore, this strategy has yielded the least obvious results, as players do not demonstrate functional carryover as a result of this type of training [ 9 ]. Subsequent analysis revealed that an unstable body state during movement prevented strength in the stable state. Therefore, it is challenging for strength to affect movement during gameplay [ 10 ]. This may explain why some athletes have outstanding strength during equipment-specific strength training but perform poorly on the field [ 10 ].

In contrast, the idea of core strength was derived from the study of core stability and appliedto human rehabilitation [ 11 ]. Core strength is a crucial requirement inmany sports. It not only ensures proper posture and facilitates daily tasks such as walking and climbing stairs but also serves as a brace and source of stability [ 12 , 13 ]. To complete technical motion, core training employsthe sports chain (power chain) principle, in which activities are linked in a "chain".So, each body part involved in the activity is linked. The completion of a technical activity depends on the transmission of momentum between each link, and the core force plays a "central" role in the momentum transfer process in the power chain [ 14 ]. Core training is therefore a novel approach to increasing strength transfer and coordinating muscle use and management during functional activities such as sport-specific skills. Sincethis sport involves the entire body, multiple muscle groups simultaneously participate in multiple dimensions [ 10 ]. The question then becomes "how does core training enhance athlete performance?”

Core training programsfocuson core stability and strength exercises [ 15 ]. Core strength refers to the ability of the muscles to generate force through contractile forces and intra-abdominal pressure. Core stability refers to the ability to support the spine due to muscle activation [ 16 ]. Core stability training employs static or slow motions and is primarily used in rehabilitation [ 15 ]. Core strength training, on the other hand,employs resistive and dynamic movements and is a realistic and safe way to improve health (i.e., flexibility and strength) and ability (i.e., coordination, balance, and speed) [ 13 , 15 ].

Athletes require more intensive core exercises due to the increased physical demands of competitive sports. Core stability training for low-load and motor control, which is an important component of core stability and core strength training, is often omitted from many training regimens [ 17 ]. By disregarding core stability training, athletes are unable to manage and utilize the entire body’s muscle strength, increasingthe injury risk [ 16 ]. It is believed that high-load core strength training increases muscle strength, but low-load core stability training improves the central nervous system’s ability to regulate muscle coordination and, hence, movement efficiency [ 17 ]. Therefore, athletes’ core training programs should include both low-load core stability training and high-load core strength training [ 15 ].

In addition, new exercises using unstable surfaces, such as Swiss balls, have been developed to increase the proprioceptive demands of exercises [ 18 ]. A previous study found that practicing core exercises on unstable surfaces alters muscle activity and the way the muscles work together to stabilize the spine and the entirebody [ 19 ]. Therefore, exercise on unstable surfaces necessitates a motion control system to stabilize the muscles surrounding the spine, increase core muscle activity, and improve muscle recruitment mode [ 20 , 21 ]. Furthermore, it promotes neuronal adaptation, neuromuscular recruitment, effective motor unit synchronization, and effective proprioceptive feedback while lowering neuroinhibitory reflexes [ 22 , 23 ]. As a result, deeper muscle groups may be encouraged to engage in movement [ 24 ]. Ultimately, this adaptation enhances the body’s stability during movement and supports technical movements both at rest and in motion [ 25 ]. All of the aforementioned processes are crucial to therapeutic or athletic training because they contribute to proper movement execution [ 15 ].

There is a debate about the relationship between motor abilities; one viewpoint holds that motor abilities are highly related to one another (the general motor abilities hypothesis), while the opposing view holds that they are relatively independent of one another (the specific motor abilities theories) [ 26 ]. However, understanding the various points of view will aid in applying the concept of motor abilities to motor skill performance achievement [ 27 ]. The general motor abilities hypothesis has been around since the early twentieth century [ 28 , 29 ]. It is assumed that if a person is highly skilled in one motor skill, he or she will be or will become highly skilled in all motor skills. This prediction is based on the fact that there is only one general motor ability [ 26 , 27 ]. The specificity of the motor abilities hypothesis is an alternative viewpoint that has received widespread support. Franklin Henry is widely credited with developing the specificity hypothesis in order to explain research findings that the general motor ability hypothesis could not explain [ 30 ]. According to this specificity viewpoint, individuals have numerous motor abilities that are relatively independent. This means that, for example, if a person demonstrated a high level of balancing ability, we couldn’t predict how well that person would perform on a reaction time test [ 26 ]. In sum, the specificity hypothesis is likely helpful in understanding in what ways core strength training may contribute to improved sport-specific performance.

In recent years, core training has been shown to improve core stability but not performance with low specificity or functional carryover. For instance, core trainingimproved men rowers’ core endurance but did not improve their functional performance in the vertical jump, shuttle run, or 40-meter sprint [ 31 ]. Another study discovered that core trainingimproved core stability but had no effect on physical performance, such as the myoelectric activity of the abdominal and back muscles, running performance (treadmill VO2max), running economy, or running posture [ 32 ]. Although numerous media outlets have described the efficacy of "core training,"leading athletes to believe it will improve their competitive performance, the scientific community remains uncertain about the relationship between core training and athletic performance [ 33 ]. This systematic review aims to elucidate the impact of core training as a function of the above-noted specificity hypothesis on basketball players’ physical and skill performance.

Search strategy

The data collection, selection, and analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and this review was registered on the INPLASY website ( https://inplasy.com/ ), with registration number INPLASY2021100013 and DOI number 10.37766/inplasy2021.10.0013 [ 34 ]. In this study, English databases such as Ebscohost, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched untilSeptember 2022. Each search was conducted by title/abstract, with the following terms serving as the primary retrieval criteria: ("Core Strength Training" OR "Core-Strength Exercise" OR "Core-training" OR "Core-stability Exercise" OR "Core-stability Training") AND ("Athletic Performance" OR "Physical Performance" OR "Basketball Skills" OR "Offensive Skill" OR "Defensive Skill").

Eligibility criteria

In this review, PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome)wereused as inclusion criteria to conduct a literature search [ 35 ].The inclusion criteria were as follows:

Experimental studies on core training and basketball players’ athletic and skill performance.

A population of healthy basketball players of all ages and sexes.

At least four weeks of core training on either stable or unstable surfaces.

Anoutcomeaddressing the impact of at least one core strength intervention onbasketball players’ athletic or skill performance.

The exclusion criteria wereas follows:

Articles with no full text.

Articles published in languages other than English or Chinese.

Review articles, conference papers, book chapters, or unpublished articles.

Studies with no intervention or in which core training was not the primary intervention.

Studies on players from other sports rather than basketball.

Study selection

The articles had to meet the inclusion criteria and were chosen and included independently by two authors. After removing duplicates, one author reviewed the titles and abstracts to decide which papers should be included in this study. In the event of a disagreement between the two authors during the selection of a single article, a third author was consulted to review the entire paper and make a decision on its inclusion.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the included studies: (1) population characteristics (type, number, sex, and age); (2) intervention (type, main exercise, training arrangement, duration, and frequency); and (3) main outcome.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale ( www.pedro.org.au ). It has excellent validity and reliability for assessing experiment method quality. Each manuscript was evaluated using 11 criteria,each of which wasassigned a score of 0 or 1. Therefore, the total PEDro score of each study ranged from 0 to 10, with higher values indicating a higher degree of methodological rigor.

Search results

Fig 1 depicts the literature review process. The initial search yielded232 articles,146 of which remained after duplicates were removedusing Endnote software.Furthermore, 60 articles were excluded (17 articles with no fulltext, 10 not written in English or Chinese, 32 not research articles, and one unpublished). The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and78 were excluded (73articles with unrelated topics, fourwith no intervention, onethat did not involve core training, and one that did not involve basketball players). Finally, eight articles were included in the quantitative synthesis.

Fig 1. The PRISMA flow chart for the search, screening, and selection strategy for the eligible studies.

Participant characteristics and study design

Theparticipant characteristics of the eight included studiesare summarized in Table 1 . Only three studies included university students as participants [ 36 , 37 ], while the other studies did not report the characteristics of the participants. Except for two studies that did not report sex [ 38 , 39 ], the majority of participants were males( n = 129),with only 35 females. Furthermore, all studies provided detailed information on the effects of core training on participants. However, only four studies compared the effects of core training on basketball skills versus traditional strength training or usual basketball training [ 36 , 38 – 40 ]. All studies investigated the impact of core training on athletic performance [ 36 , 41 ].

Table 1. Populations, interventions, andmain outcomes of the included studies.

M, male; F, female; N/A: No report; CG, control group; EG, experimental group; ↑, significant within-group change from pretest to post-test; ↔, non-significant within-group change from pretest to post-test.

Quality assessment using the PEDro scale

A comprehensive evaluation of each study using the PEDro scale is presented in Table 2 . All studies were rated 3 to 6 on the PEDro scale.

Table 2. Summary of methodological quality assessment scores of all included studies using the PEDro scale.

Training programs.

Table 1 summarizes the training characteristics of basketball players whoemployed core training as an intervention [ 36 , 41 ]. The intervention included core strength training [ 36 , 37 , 40 ], core training [ 42 , 43 ], isometric core strength training [ 39 ], and core stability training [ 41 ]. Meanwhile, only two studies employed core training onunstable surfaces [ 41 , 42 ]. The findings revealed that core training on unstable surfaces was associated with improved jump [ 41 , 42 ]and 10-meter sprint abilities [ 42 ].

In terms of duration and frequency, the traininglasted four weeks [ 39 , 41 , 42 ], eight weeks [ 40 , 43 ], 10 weeks [ 38 ], or12 weeks [ 36 , 37 ]. The four-week training enhanced agility [ 39 ], jump ability [ 41 , 42 ], and 10-meter sprint ability [ 42 ]. However, training for more than four weeks improved skills [ 36 ], core muscle strength [ 40 ], and balance control ability [ 37 , 40 ]. In addition, training wasperformed twice a week [ 39 , 41 , 42 ] orthree times a week [ 37 , 40 ]. However, two studies did not report its training frequency [ 36 , 38 ]. Training twice a week improved agility [ 39 ], jump ability [ 41 , 42 ], and 10-meter sprint ability [ 42 ], whereas training three times a week improved core muscle strength [ 40 ]and balance control ability [ 37 , 40 ].

In addition, most studies’ training sessions were about 30–60 minutes and resulted in better jumping abilities [ 40 , 41 ]. However, the shortest training session was 12 minutes and improved agility [ 39 ], while the longest training session was 1.5 hours and improved balance control ability [ 37 ]. However, two studies did not report the training length [ 36 , 38 ].

In terms of the main exercise, the plank exercises were involved in nearly all studies, except one [ 38 ]. Supine buttocks, leg lift [ 38 ], Swiss ball exercises [ 36 ], medicine ball exercises [ 40 ], sit-ups [ 36 , 37 ], cat and camel [ 43 ], toe touch [ 43 ], and Russian twist [ 37 , 40 ] werealso involved in the core training program. Five studies provided a more thorough description of their core training programs [ 39 – 43 ]. A study showed that all exercises, including plank (prone, supine, right and left side), were performedfor 30 seconds with two repetitions in each training session [ 39 ]. Another study usedplank (prone, right and left side, Superman), squat, Russian twist, and medicine ball exercises for 20 seconds with three sets. In particular, the number of training sets was increased by one every two weeks [ 40 ]. Plank, side plank, and Superman are the most prevalent exercises in theresearch, with 2–3 sets of 8–10 repetitions of plank and side plank exercises commonly advised [ 41 , 42 ]. Moreover, mountain climbers wereinvolved in 3–4 sets [ 41 , 42 ]. A study demonstrated that core training exercises can be performed with the same number of sets, repetitions, volume, and recovery period. Superman, cat and camel, toe touch, and front plank may be performed after three sets of 45 seconds with 45 seconds of rest [ 43 ].

3.5.1 Effect of core training on strength

Strength helpsathletes perform better [ 16 , 44 ]. Two studies examined strength [ 38 , 40 ]. Onestudyon 30 basketball players [ 40 ] revealed a significant difference in post-test core muscle strengthbetween the experiment and control groups (122.44 ± 20.18 vs. 91.10 ± 38.11, respectively, p <0.05). However, another study involving 30 college students found a significant difference in lower limb strength after intervention between the experiment and control groups (182.3±23.7 vs. 175.7±25.8, respectively, p <0.05) [ 38 ].

3.5.2 Effect of core training on sprint

Two studies examined core training’s effect on sprinting. A study on 42 participants (8.22 ± 0.04 years, 16 females and 26 males) comparingcore and routine training revealed a change in training (core strength) group test scores between pre-and post-interventionin the 10-meter sprint (4.65 ± 1.09 sec vs. 3.89 ± 1.11 sec, respectively, p < 0.005) and in the 10 × 5-meter test (33.66 ± 3.15 sec vs. 31.51 ± 3.86 sec, respectively, p <0.001). The 10 × 5-meter test results showed a significant difference between the control (regular training) and training groups (34.69 ± 2.98 sec vs. 31.51 ± 3.81 sec, p <0.05) [ 42 ]. In contrast, another study on 16 basketball playersshowed no significant difference in sprint test results between the experiment and control groups after intervention ( p >0.05) [ 39 ].

3.5.3 Effect of core training on jump

The effect of core training on jumping ability was examined in five studies [ 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 ]. To assess jump performance, a study involved three tests, including approach height, vertical jump, and the number of consecutive jumps in 15 seconds,revealed a significant difference between the experiment and control groups in the post-test approach height (3.19±0.08 vs. 3.24±0.05, respectively, p <0.05) and vertical jump performance (3.13±0.31 vs. 3.09±0.39, respectively, p <0.05) [ 38 ]. Another study revealed a significant difference between the core training and control groups in the left limb side hop (39.93 ± 4.69 cm vs. 40.98 ± 5.71 cm, respectively, p <0.05), right limb side hop (39.20 ± 5.90 cm vs. 41.92 ± 6.90 cm, respectively, p <0.05), left limb 6-meter timed hop (5.58 ± 0.45 sec vs. 4.28 ± 0.96 sec, respectively, p <0.01),and right limb 6-meter timed hop (5.58 ± 0.45 sec vs. 4.28 ± 0.96 sec, respectively, p <0.01) [ 42 ], indicating that the hopping and leaping skills of both legs improved following core training regimens.

On the other hand, a study found that the experimental group demonstrated a significant difference between pre-and post-core training testsin terms of left limb side hop (36.55 ± 6.32 cm vs. 38.98 ± 5.71 cm, respectively, p <0.05), right limb side hop (37.21 ± 6.51 cm vs. 39.27 ± 5.74 cm, respectively, p = 0.001), left limb 6-meter timed hop (5.82 ± 0.87 sec vs. 4.44 ± 0.94 sec, respectively, p <0.001), and right limb 6-meter timed hop(5.78 ± 0.77 cmvs. 4.42 ± 0.88 sec, respectively, p <0.001) [ 41 ]. Another study found a statistically significant difference between the experimental group’s pre-test and post-test vertical jump scores (46.64 ± 6.61 vs. 52.00 ± 6.34, respectively, p <0.05) andwhen comparing the experimental group’s vertical jump performance on post-tests to that of the control group (52.00 ± 6.34 vs. 46.82 ± 5.19, respectively, p <0.05) [ 43 ]. In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in post-test run-up scores ( p = 0.917) [ 36 ].

3.5.4 Effect of core training on balance

The effect of core training on balance was investigated in two studies. The first one employed four different standing postures [ 37 ]. The center of gravity of the movement area and the center of gravity velocity of the left and right foot were recorded with the eyes open and closed, and there was a significant difference between the pre-and post-training time periods of participants (312.50 ± 62.54 vs. 198.43 ± 57.91; 2.30 ± 0.44 vs. 2.06 ± 0.44; 202.00 ± 70.31 vs. 125.86 ± 39.48; 2.06 ± 0.37 vs. 1.73 ± 0.33; respectively, p <0.001) with eye openand (2439.36 ± 713.72 vs. 1848.07 ± 579.57, 6.70 ± 1.18 vs. 4.71 ± 1.02, 2027.00 ± 750.36 vs. 1468.57 ± 503.71, 6.32 ± 1.14 vs. 3.94 ± 1.08, respectively, p <0.01) with eye closed [ 37 ]. The second study examined the effect of core training on balance using the Stabilometer Balance test and the Y-Balance and found a significant difference in post-test results between the experimental and control groups ( p <0.01) [ 40 ].

3.5.5 Effect of core training on agility

The effect of core training on agility performance was examined in two studies [ 38 , 39 ]. TheT-test was used in one study [ 38 ], and it revealed a significant difference between the experiment and control groups after intervention (8.29±0.96 vs. 9.05±1.23, respectively, p <0.05) [ 38 ]. In addition, another study used the modified agility T-test andfound a significant difference between the control and experiment groups in the post-test after intervention (14.29±0.75 vs. 12.81±1.75, respectively, p <0.05) [ 39 ].

3.5.6 Effect of core training on skills

The effect of core training on basketball skills was examined in four studies [ 36 , 38 , 40 , 43 ].A study compared the speed of the dribble layup and shooting test after intervention between the control and experimental groups and foundsignificant differences(36.8 ± 1.78 sec vs. 34.80 ± 1.89 sec, p <0.05; 8.3 ± 1.42 vs. 8.90 ± 1.78, p <0.001; respectively) [ 36 ]. In addition, another studyrevealed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups after intervention in jump shot percentage (79.8±3.6 vs. 59.2±3.4, respectively, p <0.05) and hit rate against jump shots (51.3±3.1 vs. 38.2±4.8, respectively, p <0.05) [ 38 ].

On the other hand, a study examined the effect of core training on 20 different basketball skill tests, including dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding, and step tests. Except for the passing,dribbling, and right layup tests, all tests showed a significant difference between the control and experiment groups in the post-test ( p <0.05) [ 40 ].Furthermore, another study involving free-throw tests revealed that the experimental group showed a significant difference between the pre-and post-tests (5.81±0.968 vs. 6.81±0.750, respectively, p <0.05), with no significant difference between the experimental and control groups in the post-test (6.81±0.75 vs. 6.93±0.83, respectively, p <0.05) [ 43 ].

There is a lack of consensus on whether an athlete should use strength training within a sport-specific training program, what type of strength training the athlete should use, when to use, and how to apply it [ 7 , 45 , 46 ]. General strength training can provide overall protective strengthon the major muscle groups and can be beneficial during the off-season and even during the early base phase of training [ 47 ]. It increases overall protective strength and will help protect specific joints from stresses that can occur in everyday life as well as during specific training sessions. Adding additional muscle can also help with energy transfer, as a mix of fast and slow twitch fibers can provide more energy uptake, which can help athletes with endurance [ 47 ]. To build any type of muscle, however, the muscle must be overloaded, which causes fatigue and necessitates recovery. Furthermore, most coaches, trainers, and sport scientists understand that most athletes do not possess unlimited hours each day to train nor do they have limitless capacity to recover from training and competition, so they must be highly strategic in what they include in training plans [ 48 , 49 ].

As a result, highly specific strength training appears to be most beneficial to athletes, as it can improve the execution of sports activities, particularly as external resistance may be added to make the training task more difficult. Specific strength training can stimulate focused muscle growth, increasing further power, endurance, and speed of movement without requiring the excessive time commitments or undue fatigue that generalized strength training programs may be likely to generate [ 50 ]. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of a specific strength training, i.e., core training, on basketball players’ athletic and skill performance, as well as to offer recommendations for basketball coaches and potential directions for future research.

Effect of core training on strength

For optimal basketball performance, all strength parameters must be boosted [ 51 ]. Core training is a dynamic proprioceptive training of core stabilizing musclesthat can improve core control [ 14 ]. Some studies claim that core training can increase core muscle activation and strengthen trunk and hip muscles [ 52 , 53 ]. Unstable surface training, in particular, had a greater effect [ 52 , 53 ]. Meanwhile, several studies have confirmed that the core is the main anatomical and functional center from whichall movements originate and are transmitted to the extremities [ 54 , 55 ]. Therefore, a stronger core could enhance limb strength performance.

Effect of core training on sprint

Sprinting is important in basketball. Unfortunately, only two studies examined the sprint speed of young basketball players [ 39 , 42 ]. In one study, core training improved 10-meter sprinting ability [ 42 ]. Core strength training improvedthe stability of the core parts of the body, such as the spine and pelvis, as well as the stability and fluctuation of the center of gravity during fast running. Increasedhip stability and flexibility improvedathletes’ range of motion, stride length, and stride frequency during the moving process [ 56 ]. Furthermore, strong core muscles play a crucial role in stabilizing and transferring lower limb energy [ 57 ]. During squatting and running, the core muscles absorb more energy. This condition improves muscle control, upper and lower limb coordination efficiency, energy consumption, and sprint performance [ 58 ].

Effect of core training on jumping

Jumping is an important basketball skill that influencesshooting and rebounding [ 59 ]. Five articles examined the jumping ability of basketball players of different ages [ 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 ]. However, four studies found that core training could improve jump ability [ 38 , 41 , 42 ]. This is due to the fact that core region muscles play an important role in transferring power to the extremities [ 60 ]. Meanwhile, increasing core strength improves pelvic, spine, and hip joint stability and provides a stable fulcrum for limb movement,resulting in more coordinated movements and better control of body stability during rapid movement changes [ 61 ]. Therefore, the participants demonstrated hip, knee, and ankle flexion, resulting in an overall stable body. Meanwhile, power transmission between the upper limbs, trunk, and lower limbs will be more coordinated [ 2 ].

Effect of core training on balance

According to two studies, core training improves basketball players’ balancing ability [ 37 ]. Balance is regulated by the vestibular apparatus within the central nervous system as well as receptors in muscles, tendons, and joints and then coordinated within the somatosensory cortex with the aid of visual stimulus [ 15 ]. Core training controls spine and pelvic stabilityina timely manner, coordinates shifting centers of gravity and posture adjustment during movement, and increases core stability, which improvesoverall balance ability [ 37 ]. In addition, core training stresses the fixation of stable and small muscles, allowing for the complete exercise of tiny muscle groups and nerve modulation. All of these effects promote proprioception and balancing abilities [ 62 ].

Effect of core training on agility

Agility is defined as the ability to rapidly change one’s body direction and position [ 63 ]. Core training was found to improve agility in two studies [ 38 , 39 ]. The core could be considered the center of the kinetic chain in sports activities. Strong core muscles improve motor recruitment, neural recruitment, and neural adaptation [ 64 ]. Therefore, increasing core strength and stability could be expectedto improve athletes’ motor skills such as coordination, agility, speed, and movement balance [ 64 ].

Effect of core training on basketball skills

Four studies revealed that core training improves basketball skill performance [ 36 , 38 , 40 , 43 ]. Several hypotheses couldexplain why core training differs from standard high-intensity strength training. This training method is based on the sports chain idea and does not split the sports chain. The abdominal, trunk, and hip muscles are the "heart" of the movement chain. They are crucial in the execution of upper and lower limb movements as well as the power transfer process [ 10 ]. Improved endurance of the core muscles of the waist and belly results inmore efficient transmission of lower limb strength.

Furthermore, for basketball skills, greater core stability enables athletes to efficiently convert strength to power, hence requiring less energy to accomplish skills [ 12 ]. When the core area’s stability improves, players can better maintain their balance and posture [ 65 ]. Mayda et al. offered evidence that improving an athlete’s body strength in a balanced manner facilitates the learning and practice of technical movements [ 66 ]. Thus, it is believed that a stable core could facilitate movement transfer during movement, thereby impactingbasketball players’ skills [ 67 ]. In addition, basketball athletes must constantly change their body positions, maintain control and balance when using offensive skills, and strong core muscles provide a stable platform for athletes during fast, varying movements, improve the stability and control of athletes’ dynamic and static postures, and increase the success rate of performing skills [ 68 ]. Consequently, core training most likely improves athletes’ ability to control coordinated limb movements during a confrontation, more efficiently transfer upper and lower limb strength, and reduce energy consumption for better skill display [ 69 ]. Nevertheless, additional experimental studies are required to confirm the findingsof this analysis.

Limitations

This review has several limitations in addition to those stated in the screened articles. First, there is a dearth of researchon professional male basketball players. Second, research on other athletic and skill performances, such as endurance, flexibility, and basketball defensive skills, is lacking. Finally, the current review did not consider the uniqueness of basketball players’ positions, as the experimental results may be affected when basketball players are tested on the same activity in different positions.

Core training has the potential to improve athletic performance in terms of strength, sprinting, jumping, balancing, and agility, as well as skill performance in terms of shooting, passing, dribbling, rebounding, and stepping. However, current research on other athletic and skill performance,such as endurance, flexibility, and defensive skills, is lacking. Therefore, researchers can continue to explore these gaps in the field in order to help basketball players achieve better athletic and skill performance in the future.

Practical application

Good core strength can act as a stable hub in the movement chain, helping athletes generate and transmit limb strength in a fierce confrontation. This strength helps the trunk quickly regain balance, improving basketball skills.This systematic review suggests combining static and dynamic core training. At the same time, coaches shouldnot ignore core training on unstable surfaces because this can achieve better results. Core training should include the plank, Superman support, and side bridge, as well as the Swiss ball as an instrument with an unstable surface. These exercises improvethe athletic and skill performances of basketball players. Therefore, it is suggested that basketball coaches should integrate core training into daily trainingsessions for at least four weeks, twice a week, to improve athletes’ athletic and skill performance.

Supporting information

Data availability.

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

1. Roman IR, Molinuevo JS, Quintana MS. The relationship between exercise intensity and performance in drills aimed at improving the proficiency, technical and tactical skills of basketball players. RICYDE Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2009;(14):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
2. Kostopoulos N, Bekris E, Apostolidis N, Kavroulakis E, Kostopoulos P. The effect of a balance and proprioception training program on amateur basketball players’ passing skills. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2012;12(3):316–23. [ Google Scholar ]
3. Reed CA, Ford KR, Myer GD, Hewett TE. The effects of isolated and integrated ‘core stability’training on athletic performance measures. Sports medicine. 2012;42(8):697–706. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
4. Montgomery PG, Pyne DB, Minahan CL. The physical and physiological demands of basketball training and competition. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2010;5(1):75–86. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.5.1.75 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
5. García F, Castellano J, Reche X, Vázquez-Guerrero J. Average Game Physical Demands and the Most Demanding Scenarios of Basketball Competition in Various Age Groups. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2021;79(1):165–74. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2021-0070 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
6. Petway AJ, Freitas TT, Calleja-González J, Medina Leal D, Alcaraz PE. Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review. PloS one. 2020;15(3):e0229212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229212 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
7. Li Y, Yu H, Zi W, Cao C, Chen X. Discuss on core strength and training in competitive sports -Origin,Problem,Development. China Sports Science. 2008;28(4):19–29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-677X.2008.04.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
8. Feito Y, Heinrich KM, Butcher SJ, Poston WSC. High-intensity functional training (HIFT): Definition and research implications for improved fitness. Sports. 2018;6(3):76. doi: 10.3390/sports6030076 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
9. Li W. An empirical study on the influence of core strength training on the technical application of basketball players. Journal of Chifeng University(Natural Science Edition). 2016;32(8):187–9. doi: 10.13398/j.cnki.issn1673-260x.2016.15.075 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
10. Yu H, Wang H, Peng C, Jia J. The theory analysis about the relation between core strength training and traditional strength training: the core stability training. Journal of Tianjin Institute of Physical Education. 2008;23(6):509–11. [ Google Scholar ]
11. Xu T. The role of core strength training on basketball players. International Journal of Technology Management. 2013:51–3. [ Google Scholar ]
12. McGill S. Core training: Evidence translating to better performance and injury prevention. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2010;32(3):33–46. [ Google Scholar ]
13. Granacher U, Schellbach J, Klein K, Prieske O, Baeyens J-P, Muehlbauer T. Effects of core strength training using stable versus unstable surfaces on physical fitness in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. BMC sports science, medicine and rehabilitation. 2014;6(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/2052-1847-6-40 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
14. Guan Y, Ma Z. On the Definition and Mechanism of Core Strength. Journal of Beijing Sport University. 2010;33(1):106–8. doi: 10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2010.01.029 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
15. Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D, Wrigley A, Spears I. Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength. Sports medicine. 2008;38(12):995–1008. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838120-00004 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
16. Faries MD, Greenwood M. Core training: stabilizing the confusion. Strength and conditioning journal. 2007;29(2):10. [ Google Scholar ]
17. Comerford MJ, Mottram SL. Movement and stability dysfunction–contemporary developments. Manual therapy. 2001;6(1):15–26. doi: 10.1054/math.2000.0388 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
18. Saeterbakken AH, Andersen V, Jansson J, Kvellestad AC, Fimland MS. Effects of BOSU ball (s) during sit-ups with body weight and added resistance on core muscle activation. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2014;28(12):3515–22. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
19. Srivastav P, Nayak N, Nair S, Sherpa LB, Dsouza D. Swiss ball versus mat exercises for core activation of transverse abdominis in recreational athletes. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2016;10(12):YC01. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/23102.8972 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
20. Nuhmani S. Efficacy of dynamic Swiss ball training in improving the core stability of collegiate athletes. Phys Act Rev. 2021;9(1):9–15. [ Google Scholar ]
21. Aksen-Cengizhan P, Onay D, Sever O, Doğan AA. A comparison between core exercises with Theraband and Swiss Ball in terms of core stabilization and balance performance. Isokinetics and exercise science. 2018;26(3):183–91. [ Google Scholar ]
22. Nepocatych S, Ketcham CJ, Vallabhajosula S, Balilionis G. The effects of unstable surface balance training on postural sway, stability, functional ability and flexibility in women. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2016;58(1–2):27–34. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06797-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
23. Radjevic N, Ponorac N. Effects of the eight-week resistance training program using stable and unstable surfaces to arms and shoulders’ muscular strength parameters with untrained individuals. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2018;18(3):1756–60. [ Google Scholar ]
24. Behm D, Colado JC. The effectiveness of resistance training using unstable surfaces and devices for rehabilitation. International journal of sports physical therapy. 2012;7(2):226–41. Epub 2012/04/25. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3325639. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
25. Wang W, Li H. Competitive Athletes’ Core Strength Training. Journal of Beijing Sport University. 2007;30(8):1119–21, 31. doi: 10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2007.08.043 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
26. Magill R, Anderson D. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. 11th Edition ed: McGraw Hill; July 8, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
27. Hands B, McIntyre F, Parker H. The General Motor Ability Hypothesis: An Old Idea Revisited. Perceptual and motor skills. 2018;125(2):213–33. Epub 2018/01/13. doi: 10.1177/0031512517751750 . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
28. Brace DK. Measuring Motor Ability. 1c. New York: A S Barnes & Co. 1927:138. 1c. [ Google Scholar ]
29. McCloy CH. The measurement of general motor capacity and general motor ability. Research Quarterly 5(Supp1). 1934:46–61. [ Google Scholar ]
30. Henry FM. Reaction Time—Movement Time Correlations. 1961;12(1):63–6. doi: 10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.63 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
31. Tse MA, McManus AM, Masters RS. Development and validation of a core endurance intervention program: implications for performance in college-age rowers. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2005;19(3):547–52. doi: 10.1519/15424.1 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
32. Stanton R, Reaburn PR, Humphries B. The effect of short-term Swiss ball training on core stability and running economy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2004;18(3):522–8. doi: [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
33. Sharrock C, Cropper J, Mostad J, Johnson M, Malone T. A pilot study of core stability and athletic performance: is there a relationship? International journal of sports physical therapy. 2011;6(2):63. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
35. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. Acp j club. 1995;123(3):A12–A3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
36. Li H. CORE STRENGTH TRAINING INFLUENCES BASKETBALL PLAYERS’BODY. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. 2022;28:654–7. [ Google Scholar ]
37. Hu Z, Li Z. Influence of core strength training on balance control ability and some blood biochemical indexes of Basketball Majors. Chinese Journal of Applied Physiology. 2019;35(6):510–3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
38. Ning C. SCIENTIFIC TRAINING OF ATHLETES’CORE STRENGTH IN COMPETITIVE SPORTS. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. 2022;28:238–41. [ Google Scholar ]
39. Yılmaz N. Investigation of the effect of isometric core strength training in addition to basic basketball trainings on explosive power in children aged 9–17. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports. 2022;26(2):75–82. [ Google Scholar ]
40. Dogan O, Savaş S. Effect of an 8-Weeks Core Training Program Applied to 12–14 Years Old Basketball Players on Strength, Balance and Basketball Skill. Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2021;15(2):823–9. [ Google Scholar ]
41. Sannicandro I, Spedicato M, Palaia G, Cofano G, Bisciotti G, Eirale C. Strength ability, endurance and anthropometric parameters in youth football: descriptive analysis and functional relationships. 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
42. Sannicandro I, Cofano G, Piccinno A. Can the Core Stability Training Influences Sprint and Jump Performances in Young Basketball Players? Advances in Physical Education. 2020;10(03):196. [ Google Scholar ]
43. Şahiner V, Koca F. Investigation of the effect of 8 weeks core training program on free shooting and vertical jump performance in basketball players aged 16–18. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science. 2021;7(2). [ Google Scholar ]
44. Zhao K, Gao J, Zhao H, Ji X, Li S. Impact of core strength on exercise performance of Shandong young female basketball players. Shangdong Sports Science & Technology. 2014;36(5):68–71. [ Google Scholar ]
45. Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? British journal of sports medicine. 2016;50(5):273–80. Epub 2016/01/14. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4789704. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
46. Granacher U, Lesinski M, Büsch D, Muehlbauer T, Prieske O, Puta C, et al. Effects of Resistance Training in Youth Athletes on Muscular Fitness and Athletic Performance: A Conceptual Model for Long-Term Athlete Development. Frontiers in physiology. 2016;7:164. Epub 2016/06/01. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00164 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4861005. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
47. Hughes DC, Ellefsen S, Baar K. Adaptations to Endurance and Strength Training. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine. 2018;8(6). Epub 2017/05/12. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a029769 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5983157. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
48. Wan JJ, Qin Z, Wang PY, Sun Y, Liu X. Muscle fatigue: general understanding and treatment. Experimental & molecular medicine. 2017;49(10):e384. Epub 2017/10/07. doi: 10.1038/emm.2017.194 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5668469. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
49. Kreher JB, Schwartz JB. Overtraining Syndrome:A Practical Guide. 2012;4(2):128–38. doi: 10.1177/1941738111434406 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
50. Townsend ZM. Impact of Resistance Training on Sports Performance and Muscular Adaptations. Int J Sports Exerc Med. 2022;8. doi: doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510218 [ Google Scholar ]
51. Filippo GP, Gaetano R. Effects of the strenght capacity in basketball and consequences on the specific technical elements. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health. 2013;13. [ Google Scholar ]
52. Arjmand N, Shirazi-Adl A. Biomechanics of changes in lumbar posture in static lifting. Spine. 2005;30(23):2637–48. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000187907.02910.4f [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
53. Vera-Garcia FJ, Elvira JL, Brown SH, McGill SM. Effects of abdominal stabilization maneuvers on the control of spine motion and stability against sudden trunk perturbations. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology. 2007;17(5):556–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.07.004 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
54. Bliss LS, Teeple P. Core stability: the centerpiece of any training program. Current sports medicine reports. 2005;4(3):179–83. doi: 10.1007/s11932-005-0064-y [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
55. Akuthota V, Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2004;85:86–92. doi: 10.1053/j.apmr.2003.12.005 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
56. Meng X, Du M, Ma X. Effect of core strength training on improving athletic ability of women sprinters. Journal of Shandong Institute of Physical Education and Sports. Journal of Shandong Institute of Physical Education and Sports. 2009;25(4):66–81. [ Google Scholar ]
57. Willson JD, Dougherty CP, Ireland ML, Davis IM. Core stability and its relationship to lower extremity function and injury. JAAOS-Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2005;13(5):316–25. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200509000-00005 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
58. Zhao J, Zhou Y, Zhang C. Core Strength Training on Sprinters. Journal of Beijing Sport University. 2015;38(6):133–8. doi: 10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2015.06.023 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
59. Han Q. Research on the bounce training of basketball players. Journal of Beijing Sport University. 2005;28:1138–43. [ Google Scholar ]
60. Shinkle J, Nesser TW, Demchak TJ, McMannus DM. Effect of core strength on the measure of power in the extremities. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2012;26(2):373–80. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31822600e5 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
61. Chang JT, Ganz DA. Quality indicators for falls and mobility problems in vulnerable elders. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007;55:S327–S34. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01339.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
62. Niu Y, Qiao Y. A Meta- analysis on the Effects of Core Strength Training. Journal of Capital University of Physical Education and Sports. 2018;30(4):352–61. doi: 10.14036/j.cnki.cn11-4513.2018.04.014. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
63. The Draper J. 505 test: A test for agility in horizontal plane. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1985;17(1):15–8. [ Google Scholar ]
64. Sever O, Zorba E. Comparison of effect of static and dynamic core exercises on speed and agility performance in soccer players. Isokinetics and Exercise Science. 2018;26(1):29–36. [ Google Scholar ]
65. Willardson JM. Core stability training: applications to sports conditioning programs. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2007;21(3):979–85. doi: 10.1519/R-20255.1 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
66. Mayda MH, Karakoc O, Ozdal M. The Investigation of Some Physical, Physiological and Anthropometric Parameters of Visually Impaired and Non-Impaired a National Male Judoka. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2016;4(6):192–8. [ Google Scholar ]
67. Lee BC, McGill SM. Effect of long-term isometric training on core/torso stiffness. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015;29(6):1515–26. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000740 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
68. Allen S, Dudley GA, Iosia M, Stanforth D, Steuerwald B. Core strength training. Sports Science Exchange Roundtable. 2002;13(1):27–9. [ Google Scholar ]
69. Zhang Y. The influence of core strength training on the physical quality of basketball player. Science and technology information. 2012;4(16):281. [ Google Scholar ]

Decision Letter 0

Donald l hoover.

20 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-29930Effect of Core Training on Athletic and Skill Performance of Basketball Players: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at [email protected] . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Donald L. Hoover

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

We believe this manuscript has promise, but issues raised by the peer reviewers must be addressed before it may meet the standards for publication. Thus, we encourage the authors to see reviewer reports, address the points raised, and resubmit in a timely fashion.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article, which bridges addresses the topic of core stability training and it’s potential impact upon sport-specific performance measures within the sport of basketball. This is a topic that has received relatively lesser attention in the scientific literature. Thus, it stands to reason that greater reasoned analysis of this topic may be helpful for sport-specific coaches, conditioning coaches, and sport scientists as to the potential value of this type of training as well as potential insights into how this type of specific training might reasonably be integrated into annual training calendars.

I see this manuscript as generally well-written and clearly laid out. The authors have done a nice job of laying out the need for such a study with the Introduction, clearly describing the Methods and Results, and tying the present findings to related studies within the Discussion.

In terms of content, my most substantive suggestion is that the authors could further address the potential ramifications of these findings in light of the “general motor abilities hypothesis” versus “specificity of motor ability hypothesis” that has existed for over half a century (the authors are encouraged to review Magill’s Motor Learning and Control, if they are not familiar with these theories, ad this author does a nice job of comparing and contrasting these specific theories: https://www.amazon.com/Motor-Learning-Control-Concepts-Applications/dp/1259823997 ). So, specifically, in reading and re-reading this manuscript three times in my review, I was intrigued by the basic premise of the present systematic review and how it may relate to these important theories in motor behavior. In this context, the authors broach the topic of “general strength training” versus “specific strength training” (e.g. core strength training) and the evidence that general strength training does not necessarily translate to improved performance on the basketball court, whereas the specific strength training does seem to carryover, in terms of sport-specific movements that help the athlete perform at a higher lever. The authors do a solid job of addressing current consensus on why the specifics of core training may help to facilitate the strength of the kinetic chain, but as I read lines 62-63, 88-89, 91-95, and 96-104 I am left wanting more information on how these concepts may relate to the “general motor abilities hypothesis” versus “specificity of motor ability hypothesis”. In sum, on this point most coaches, trainers, and sport scientists typically understand that all athletes cannot perform all forms of training, as there are not enough hours in the day nor the capacity to recover from some training in most athletes. So, finally, in terms of helping to shed light on the author’s primary purpose, weaving in this historical debate on the “general motor abilities hypothesis” versus “specificity of motor ability hypothesis”, they may be able to help readers better understand the “why” behind the favorability of the core strength training. This would further strengthen it’s potential contribution to the scientific literature. I would recommend that the authors address this theoretical content at the end of the paragraph which ends on line 108 (basically create a new paragraph addressing this content). They will then also need to revisit this conceptually within the Discussion, but again I think this would help to further strengthen this manuscript.

Otherwise, my suggestions for improving this manuscript are largely related to “cleaning up” some English-usage issues. The authors are likely writing in English as a second language, which likely has contributed to instances of odd language usage at times throughout the manuscript. Specific suggestions are listed below, but the authors are encouraged to further review their work for greater consistency in stylistic issues, as this will help to improve the overall quality.

In summary, the aim of this project has merit. I recommend the authors address the issues noted below prior to this manuscript appearing in this peer-reviewed journal. Thanks once again for the opportunity to review this paper.

Specific comments:

Line 31: Insert a comma after Google Scholar (e.g. “Google Scholar, were…”)

Line 38: Suggest revising from “Despite the lack of” to “Despite the relatively little evidence”

Line 50: remove “the”, and “basketball” should be expressed using lower case (not capitalized)

Line 62: Suggest revising to “as players do not demonstrate functional carryover as a result of this type of training.”

Line 64: Replace “affect” with “effect”

Lines 68-69: This sentence beginning “European and American….” does not thematically go with the rest of the paragraph, which focuses on core stability training. My suggestion is to revise this paragraph so that this sentence is moved to the previous paragraph, which actually addresses strength training.

Line 77: Suggest revising as follows: “… increasing strength transfer and coordinating muscle use and management during functional activities such as sport-specific skills.”

Line 105: Need a citation for this sentence.

Line 110: Suggest revising to “…but not performance with low specificity or functional carryover.”

Line 113: Need to be more specific here, describing no effect on what type of physical performance.

Line 127: Replace “by” with “until”

Lines 134-149: The first sentence in this passage is expressed in English past tense, as should be the case for this type of scientific writing. However, the second sentence then shifts to present tense, detracting from the authors’ clarity of expression. In short, this entire section should be revised so that it is expressed in past verb tense.

Line 139: Replace “genders” with “sexes”. This is the first instance of many in which the authors seem to use this terminology imprecisely. See the following sources for elaboration on these related, and often confused, terms:

https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

In sum, this study does not address socially-constructed gender roles but biological attributes associated with physical training, so it seems that “sex” should be used throughout this manuscript.

Line 158: Replace “gender” with “sex”

Line 164: Replace “ranges” with “ranged”

Line 170: Suggest revising to “….146 of which remained after duplicates were removed…”

Line 181: Suggest revising to “…the other studies did not report the characteristics of the participants.”

Line 181: Replace “gender” with “sex”

Line 199: Replace “includes” with “included”

Line 220: Replace “are” with “were”

Line 221: “plank” should not be capitalized (lower case)

Line 223: Capitalize “Superman”

Line 318: Suggest revising “waist and abdomen” to “trunk and hip”

Line 326: Replace “improves” with “improved”

Line 328: Replace “improves” with “improved”

Line 331: Replace “collect” with “absorb”

Line 335: Replace “guarantees” with “influences”

Line 339: Replace “extremists” with “extremities”

Lines 347-348: Suggest revising as follows: “Balance is regulated by the vestibular apparatus within the central nervous system as well as receptors in muscles, tendons, and joints and then coordinated within the somatosensory cortex with the aid of visual stimulus.”

Line 365: Suggest revising to “the abdominal, trunk, and hip muscles are the “heart” of the movement chain.”

Line 402: This is the first instance that you have capitalized “superman”. Technically, the superhero is known as “Superman”, so this likely needs to be capitalized throughout the manuscript simply for sake of consistency.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at [email protected] . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Collection date 2023.

14 Apr 2023

March 25, 2023

=============

Dear Prof. Donald L. Hoover

We would like to resubmit our revised manuscript for consideration of publication in PLOS ONE. The manuscript is entitled “Effect of Core Training on Athletic and Skill Performance of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review.” PONE-D-22-29930

The authors deeply appreciate the very detailed review of the manuscript and all the thoughtful comments that will undoubtedly help to improve it substantially. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are made as track-change in the manuscript. The following is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments. We hope that our manuscript can now be considered for publication in “PLOS ONE”.

Comments from the editors and reviewers:

Dear editors /referees many thanks for your constructive and valuable criticisms. Our responses are presented below and we are looking forward and ready to respond to any future comment (s)

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We checked and modified the manuscript to ensure that it adhered to the journal’s guidelines.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments and for recommending our manuscript. We are pleased to address all the reviewer’s comments as presented below. We hope our response meets your acceptance criteria.

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

Reviewer #1: N/A

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments and we are pleased to respond. Thank you for recommending our manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and updated the introduction section with the following paragraph to demonstrate the historical debate on the “general motor abilities hypothesis” versus “specificity of motor ability hypothesis” (Lines: 110-124):

“There is a debate about the relationship of motor abilities; one viewpoint holds that motor abilities are highly related to one another (general motor abilities hypothesis), while the opposing view holds that they are relatively independent of one another (specific motor abilities theories). However, understanding the various points of view will aid in applying the concept of motor abilities to motor skill performance achievement [26]. The general motor abilities hypothesis has been around since the early twentieth century [27, 28]. It assumes that if a person is highly skilled in one motor skill, he or she will be or will become highly skilled in all motor skills. This prediction is based on the fact that there is only one general motor ability [26, 29]. The specificity of the motor abilities hypothesis is an alternative viewpoint that has received widespread support. Franklin Henry was widely credited with developing the specificity hypothesis in order to explain research findings that the general motor ability hypothesis could not explain [30]. According to this specificity viewpoint, individuals have numerous motor abilities that are relatively independent. This means that, for example, if a person demonstrated a high level of balancing ability, we couldn't predict how well that person would perform on a reaction time test [29].”

We also endorsed this concept in the discussion section to define the beneficial value of specific strength training over general strength training, as our study did for core strength training, in the following paragraphs (lines: 326-343):

“There is sometimes confusion about whether we should use strength training in our training and what type of strength training we should use- when and how to apply it. General strength training focuses on the major muscle groups and can be beneficial during the off-season and even during the early base phase of training. It is increasing overall protective strength and will help protect specific joints from stresses that can occur in everyday life as well as during specific training sessions. Building muscle can also help with energy transfer- a mix of fast and slow twitch fibers can give you more energy uptake, which can help with endurance [45]. To build any type of muscle, however, we must overwork the muscle, which causes fatigue and necessitates recovery. Furthermore, most coaches, trainers, and sports scientists understand that most athletes do not have enough hours in the day or the capacity to recover from some training [46, 47].

As a result, specific strength training appears to be more beneficial because it can improve the range of motion within a sports activity and then get creative with the resistance of weights to build these muscles. It can stimulate specific muscle growth, increasing power, endurance, and speed without requiring excessive activity, capacity, time, or inducing fatigue [48]. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of a specific strength training, i.e., core training, on basketball players' athletic and skill performance, as well as to offer recommendations for basketball coaches and potential directions for future research.”

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments and we reviewed the manuscript to correct any structural or grammatical errors.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and corrected these errors throughout the manuscript. We appreciate your professional advice which helped us improve our manuscript.

====================================================================

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the editors and the reviewers for their time, efforts and their valuable comments.

Best regards;

[email protected]

Corresponding author

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

29 May 2023

PONE-D-22-29930R1Effect of Core Training on Athletic and Skill Performance of Basketball Players: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at [email protected] . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have done a nice job of addressing reviewer suggestions and revising this manuscript. The re-review created a few more minor suggested edits. The authors are encouraged to make these revisions in a timely manner and then resubmit.

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to re-review this article, which bridges addresses the topic of core stability training and its potential impact upon sport-specific performance measures within the sport of basketball. As I noted in my original review, this topic has received little attention in the scientific literature. Additional information on this topic may be helpful for sport-specific coaches, conditioning coaches, and sport scientists. In sum, I believe the authors have adequately addressed my suggestion for better explaining the “why” behind the mechanisms that may contribute to this functional carryover seen with core training.

As noted in my original review, I see this manuscript as generally well-written and clearly laid out. In the revision, the authors have done a fine job of integrating my original suggestion regarding the inclusion of motor behavior theory and how it may reasonably illustrate the conceptual rationale for how this type of core training may carry over to increased functional performance on sport-specific skills within the sport of basketball. The value of this cannot be overstated, given the goal of all coaches to make links between the training they engage athletes in and the carryover to on-court performance.

Otherwise, my suggestions for improving this manuscript are largely related to “cleaning up” a few additional English-usage issues. In re-reading this manuscript, I have found a few junctures where I believe the word usage can be improved, so I’ve made some specific friendly edits toward the goal of contributing to the overall “readability” of the manuscript.

Lines 59-60: Suggest revising to the following: “European and American experts began to widely implement strength training principles in a variety of sports in the late 1990s.”

Line 116: Need a citation here, at the end of this sentence. The Magill textbook will work fine here (29).

Line 127: Suggest adding the following sentence to the end of this paragraph: “In sum, the specificity hypothesis is likely helpful in understanding in what ways core strength training may contribute to improved sport-specific performance.”

Line 138: Suggest a minor revision as follows: “This systematic review aims to elucidate the impact of core training as a function of the above-noted specificity hypothesis on basketball players’ physical and skill performance.” Restating in this manner will help to better tie in the new content the authors have included regarding the general vs specificity concept, thus helping to better elucidate why they have elected to do this study.

Line 134: Need to correct this typo. I assume it’s referring to VO2 max but not clear as written.

Line 166: Revise to the following: “…addressing the impact of at least one core strength intervention on…”

Line 257: Replace “are” with “were”

Line 341: Suggest revising to: “There is a lack of consensus on whether an athlete should use strength training within a sport-specific training program, what type of strength training should the athlete use, when to use, and how to apply it.” Citations are needed for this sentence; number 7 likely works here but others are needed too.

Line 345: Need a citation here, at the end of the sentence. Also, suggest revising to “General strength training can provide overall protective strength ….”

Line 346: Suggest revising to: “Adding additional muscle can also help with energy transfer, as a mix of fast and slow twitch fibers can provide more energy uptake, which can help athletes with endurance [45]”.

Line 348: Suggest revising to: “To build any type of muscle, however, the muscle must be overloaded, which causes fatigue and necessitates recovery.”

Line 350: Suggest revising to: “Furthermore, most coaches, trainers, and sport scientists understand that most athletes do not possess unlimited hours each day to train nor do they have limitless capacity to recover from training and competition, so they must be highly strategic in what they include in training plans [46,47].”

Line 352: Suggest revising to: “As a result, highly specific strength training appears to be most beneficial to athletes, as it can improve the execution of sports activities, particularly as external resistance may be added to make the training task more difficult. Specific strength training can stimulate focused muscle growth, increasing further power, endurance, and speed of movement without requiring the excessive time commitments or undue fatigue that generalized strength training programs may be likely to generate [48]”

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Author response to Decision Letter 1

June 1, 2023

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We checked the reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)________________________________________

________________________________________3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

________________________________________4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

________________________________________5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

________________________________________6. Review Comments to the Author

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 59-61).

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We included the suggested reference (line 116).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 127-129).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 139-141).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have corrected this typo (line 136).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 163-164).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised this word (line 251).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 334-336). We also included the recommended citation and two other ones.

Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(5):273-280. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788

Granacher U, Lesinski M, Büsch D, et al. Effects of Resistance Training in Youth Athletes on Muscular Fitness and Athletic Performance: A Conceptual Model for Long-Term Athlete Development. Front Physiol. 2016;7:164. Published 2016 May 9. doi:10.3389/fphys.2016.00164

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 338-339). We also included a citation as recommended.

Hughes DC, Ellefsen S, Baar K. Adaptations to Endurance and Strength Training. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2018 Jun 1;8(6):a029769. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a029769. PMID: 28490537; PMCID: PMC5983157.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 342-344).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 346-347).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 349-352).

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully considered your valuable suggestions and revised the sentence (lines: 354-359).

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the editors and the reviewers for their time, efforts and their valuable comments which helped us improve our manuscript.

Decision Letter 2

Effect of Core Training on Athletic and Skill Performance of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review

PONE-D-22-29930R2

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at [email protected] .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected] .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have adequately addressed each specific issue of constructive criticism and/or suggestion. My recommendation is to accept this manuscript.

Acceptance letter

12 Jun 2023

Dear Dr. Zhao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact [email protected] .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected] .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Donald L. Hoover

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data availability statement.

View on publisher site
PDF (908.9 KB)
Collections

Add to Collections

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Roles Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Philadelphia 76ers Athlete Care Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

Affiliation Laboratory for Sport Performance Analysis, University of Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain

Roles Conceptualization

Affiliations UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain, Faculty of Sport Sciences, UCAM, Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

Adam J. Petway,
Tomás T. Freitas,
Julio Calleja-González,
Daniel Medina Leal,
Pedro E. Alcaraz

Published: March 5, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212
Peer Review
Reader Comments

Basketball is a court-based team-sport that requires a broad array of demands (physiological, mechanical, technical, tactical) in training and competition which makes it important for practitioners to understand the stress imposed on the basketball player during practice and match-play. Therefore, the main aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the training and match-play demands of basketball in elite, sub-elite, and youth competition. A search of five electronic databases (PubMed, SportDiscus, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane) was conducted until December 20 th , 2019. Articles were included if the study: (i) was published in English; (ii) contained internal or external load variables from basketball training and/or competition; and (iii) reported physiological or metabolic demands of competition or practice. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type of study participants into elite (20), sub-elite (9), and youth (6). A total of 35 articles were included in the systematic review. Results indicate that higher-level players seem to be more efficient while moving on-court. When compared to sub-elite and youth, elite players cover less distance at lower average velocities and with lower maximal and average heart rate during competition. However, elite-level players have a greater bandwidth to express higher velocity movements. From the present systematic review, it seems that additional investigation on this topic is warranted before a “clear picture” can be drawn concerning the acceleration and deceleration demands of training and competition. It is necessary to accurately and systematically assess competition demands to provide appropriate training strategies that resemble match-play.

Citation: Petway AJ, Freitas TT, Calleja-González J, Medina Leal D, Alcaraz PE (2020) Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0229212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212

Editor: Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, SPAIN

Received: November 3, 2019; Accepted: February 1, 2020; Published: March 5, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Petway et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Basketball is a court-based team sport that requires proficiency in a vast array of physical parameters and motor abilities (i.e., speed, strength, and endurance) to achieve success from both a technical and tactical standpoint [ 1 ]. The ability to accelerate, decelerate, change direction, jump, and shuffle are paramount for on-court success, due to the intermittent high-intensity nature of most actions and basketball-specific movements [ 2 , 3 ] as well as the demands of the sporting activity [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Importantly, in competition settings, the aforementioned abilities must be expressed in an efficient and economical manner over the course of four quarters with contributions from both aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways [ 1 ]. In this context, the density of game-related activity (determined by specific work-to-rest ratios) is dictated by action intensity and by the moment of the game [ 7 ]. This includes medium- to high-intensity actions that last 15 seconds (s) and high- to maximal-intensity actions that last up to 2–5 s [ 8 , 9 ]. It is for this reason that practitioners must have a precise overview of match-play demands as well as the load elicited during training [ 4 , 5 , 2 , 6 , 10 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. In fact, over the past years, there have been several studies documenting match-play demands in basketball [ 4 , 5 , 2 , 6 , 10 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 7 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 9 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Particularly, a recent review by Stojanovic et al. [ 29 ] analyzed the activity demands and physiological responses obtained during basketball competition and found that playing period, playing position, level, geographical location and sex greatly influenced the stress experienced by basketball players. In their article Stojanovic et al. [ 29 ] examined heart rate (HR), blood lactate concentration, total distance, and movement patterns of male and female basketball competitions based on time-motion analysis. However, while the study clearly described the competition characteristics, the authors did not present data on the acceleration/deceleration requirements of the game nor did they examine the demands of training versus match-play. It is for these reasons that the current systematic review is justified.

It is important to note that amongst the several methods used to quantify the demands of play, and regarding internal load quantifications, HR [ 6 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 20 ] and blood lactate concentration [ 4 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 9 , 30 ] were the most frequently used. In fact, internal variables such as average and maximal HR can be extracted to quantify loading parameters during match-play [ 11 , 12 , 21 , 30 , 26 ]. Concerning external load, methods such as accelerometry and the use of positional tracking cameras [ 4 , 2 , 13 , 16 , 7 , 17 , 31 ] are amongst the most common. Within this framework, total or high-intensity accelerations and decelerations, total distance traveled, and top speed reached were the widely used variables to assign a value to the mechanical load imposed. In addition, time-motion analysis [ 4 , 14 , 18 , 22 , 9 , 26 , 32 ] measuring time and frequency of movements such as “standing”; “jogging”; “running”; “sprinting”; and “jumping” during competition can be found in the literature. Despite match-play demands based on time-motion analysis having been found to present a high level of variability according to playing position, skill level and training age [ 29 ], no robust evidence exists regarding the use of accelerometry. Therefore, a systematic analysis of both approaches to match demands quantification is warranted. Collectively, a better understanding of this ‘real-time’ feedback can give relevant and useful information concerning normative group standards, as well as relative to the individual athlete. Additionally, having a clear “picture” of both internal and external loading parameters can provide a better insight into global stress that the players deal with during training and competition [ 2 , 10 , 26 ].

In a related topic, tracking training load in this team-sport may be of extreme importance to ensure that the players are physically prepared for competition demands from a fitness standpoint, in order to avoid acute spikes in load from a fatigue and injury prevention perspective [ 3 , 11 , 7 , 17 ] and to provide individualized recovery strategies [ 33 , 34 ]. With this in mind, a copious amount of research has also been focused on investigating and describing basketball training load parameters over recent years [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 21 , 42 , 24 , 43 , 44 ]. As previously mentioned for competition, accelerometry is becoming an increasingly popular means of quantifying load during training [ 36 , 38 , 40 , 21 ]; however, no conclusive data has been reported throughout the different studies. For this reason, a more in-depth and systematic analysis of the literature is warranted. Regarding internal load, HR and session rate of perceived exertion (sRPE) (i.e., the subjective feedback from the player on a 1–10 scale multiplied by duration of training) have been shown to be a cost-effective way of providing valuable information widely used by coaches and sport scientists [ 35 , 37 , 41 ]. Remarkably, an important variability has been reported within basketball training loads based on quantification means of training load, position, perceived exertion, skill level, and training age [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 ], once again identifying the need for a systematic review of the published data.

The current state of the literature is not conclusive regarding the typical training load experienced by basketball players of different competition levels given that only match-play demands and physiological responses during competition have been previously described [ 29 ]. To our knowledge, no previous investigation has focused on systematically reviewing the literature to identify precise loads during training versus match-play whilst clearly defining different levels of competition. As such, there is an important gap in the available research that does not allow concluding whether basketball training is closely mimicking game demands, hence, adequately preparing players for the stress imposed by competition. Moreover, new technologies that allow quantifying the acceleration/deceleration demands in basketball training and competition have emerged, but no current literature review has addressed this topic. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review is to analyze the evidence related to the training load and match-play demands of basketball across different levels of competition.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 study design.

The present study is a systematic review focused on training load and match-play demands at different levels of competition in basketball. The review was not registered prior to initiation, was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 45 ] and did not require Institutional Review Board approval.

2.2 Search strategy

A structured search was carried out in PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, SportDiscus and Cochrane databases, all high quality databases which guarantees strong bibliographic support. The electronic database search for the related articles considered all publications prior to December 20 th, 2019. The following key words were used to conduct the search “basketball”, “training load”, “accelerometry”, “load monitoring”, “internal load”, “total distance”, “average distance”, “top speed”, “average speed”, “metabolic”, “heart rate”, “competition demands”, “training demands”, “training”, and “rate of perceived exertion”. In addition, the key word “basketball” was present in each search to ensure that the relevant information was catered to articles involving only this sport. The reference sections of all identified articles were also examined (by applying the “snowball methods” strategy [ 40 ]). Once the electronic search was conducted, relevant studies were identified and organized in a systematic fashion.

All titles and abstracts from the search were cross-referenced to identify duplicates and any potential missing studies, and then screened for a subsequent full-text review. The search for published studies was independently performed by two authors (AP and TTF) and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies considering healthy, professional or junior, male basketball players. Study participants were categorized into three groups: elite, sub-elite, and youth. The elite basketball group was defined as teams participating in the NBA, NBA G-League, NCAA Division I, Euro League, FIBA International Competition, ACB, Top Divisions in Europe, South America, Australia, and Asia. Sub-elite was defined as professional or semi-professional that did not meet the elite criteria but were over 19 years old. Youth was considered for studies in which the participants were all 19 years of age or younger. Studies were included in the present review if they met the following criteria: (i) the study was published in English; (ii) the study included internal or external load variables from basketball training and/or competition; and (iii) the study reported physiological or metabolic demands of competition or practice.

Studies were excluded if (i) the study participants were wheelchair basketball players; (ii) the study participants were female; (iii) the data being collected did not describe training load or competition demands; and (iv) the study consisted on a review or a conference proceeding.

2.4 Study selection

The initial search was conducted by one researcher (AP). After the removal of duplicates, an intensive review of all of the titles and abstracts obtained were conducted. Following the first screening process, the full-version of the remaining articles was read. Then, on a blind, independent fashion, two reviewers excluded studies not related to the review’s topics and determined the studies for inclusion (AP and TTF), according to the criteria previously established. If no agreement was obtained, a third party intervened and settled the dispute. Moreover, PEDro scale ( Fig 1 ) was used to evaluate whether the selected randomized controlled trials were scientifically sound (9–10 = excellent, 6–8 = good, 4–5 = fair, and <4 = poor) [ 46 ]. Papers with poor PEDro score were excluded. Final outcomes of the interventions were extracted independently by two authors (AP and TTF) using a customized spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel 2016, USA). Disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was achieved.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.g001

3. Search results

As several databases were scrutinized, the initial database search yielded 18,805 citations. After duplicate removal, 3,282 abstracts and titles were left for review. Upon screening, 165 articles met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. Of the 165 articles reviewed, 35 met the criteria for the systematic review. Of the 35 articles that met the criteria, 12 had participants for elite competition demands [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 7 , 9 , 30 , 32 ], 16 articles had participants for elite training load [ 2 , 10 , 3 , 12 , 15 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 20 , 42 , 25 , 27 , 43 , 47 ], 6 for sub-elite competition demands [ 4 , 11 , 13 , 21 , 26 , 32 ], 3 for sub-elite training load [ 23 , 44 , 48 ], 5 for youth competition demands [ 11 , 18 , 22 , 9 , 28 ] and 1 for youth training load [ 24 ]. A full view of the search and selection process can be found in the PRISMA flow diagram [ 45 ] in Fig 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.g002

4. Competition demands

4.1 internal competition load.

Internal load outcomes pertaining to competition demands can be found in Table 1 . The variables displayed in the different studies consisted of HR and blood lactate concentration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.t001

4.1.1 Heart rate.

Heart Rate (HR) during competition ( Table 1 ) was organized into two categories according to the classification used in the included studies: maximal (HR max ) and average HR (HR ave ). The values of HR max during elite level competition ranged from 187 to 198 beats per minute (BPM) with a mean of 190 BPM [ 11 , 12 , 30 ]. With regards to sub-elite competition, values ranged from 192 to 195 BPM with a mean of 194 BPM [ 11 , 21 , 26 ]. In addition, in youth competition, the HR max held a mean of 199 BPM [ 11 , 18 ]. The data extracted indicated that elite competitors presented lower HR max values during competition, which can be interpreted as an indicator of elite players having a higher overall level of fitness and a more efficient work rate compared to sub-elite and youth players [ 11 ]. Interestingly, according to the results retrieved from the literature, the same pattern occurred with the HR ave. During elite level competition the value ranged from 150 to 175 BPM [ 11 , 12 , 30 ], in sub-elite competition ranged from 168 to 169 BMP [ 11 , 21 ] and in youth competition the HR ave ranged from 167 to 172 BPM [ 11 , 18 ].

4.1.2 Blood lactate concentration.

Blood lactate concentration was collected as an internal measurement during select studies of elite level competition. The samples for mean blood lactate post-competition held an average of 5.1 ± 1.3 mmol/L [ 18 , 21 , 9 ] with a range of 4.2 to 5.7 ± 1.2. Abdelkrim et al. [ 9 ] observed a peak of 6.2 ± 1.3 in the fourth quarter for the Tunisian National Team. The fourth quarter peak is likely due to the build-up of blood metabolites and catabolic hormones based on the depletion of muscle glycogen later in competition. The ability to buffer these mechanisms internally may have had a direct impact on mechanical outputs during competition [ 30 ] as internal load parameters leading to fatigue have been reported to negatively affect whole-body work rate, physical and technical performance, and even decision making in team-sports [ 49 ]. It is for such a reason that there is a need for future investigation of blood metabolite accumulation during competition and the effects it has on high-speed movement.

4.2 External competition load

Table 2 displays the external load variables retrieved from the different studies. Total distance, acceleration (ACC) and deceleration (DEC) efforts during basketball competition, average and top speed reached, and time motion analysis movement frequency and duration were the outcomes extracted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.t002

4.2.1 Total distance.

In elite competition, distance traveled ranged from 1,991 to 6,310 m [ 13 , 16 , 9 ]. The total distance covered during sub-elite competition ranged from 3,722 to 6,208 m [ 48 , 13 ]. Finally, considering youth competition, only one study tracked the distance traveled during competition and reported a value of 7,558 m [ 9 ]. Remarkably, there was a discrepancy in distance covered between elite, sub-elite, and youth athletes. Upon review, the elite level basketball athletes covered, on average, less distance (4,369 m) [ 4 , 13 , 16 , 7 ], compared to sub-elite (5,377 m) [ 4 , 13 , 48 ] and youth players (7,558 m) [ 9 ]. This seemingly paradoxical finding suggests that the total distance covered may be a poor indicator of in-game performance. In fact, one could infer that the observed phenomenon is a product of technical mastery relative to the demands of competition, as well as elite level players having a higher level of economy in relation to the tactical aspects of basketball [ 1 , 5 , 6 ]. Based on the present results and as it occurs in other team-sports [ 50 ], the key aspect here appears to be not “ how much ” distance a player covers (i.e., quantity) but “ how ” and at “ what intensity ” that distance is covered (i.e., quality). In fact, in support of the previous, Sampaio et al., [ 5 ] suggested that better players tend to make fewer mistakes when deciding when and where to run which may result in shorter paths to reach their destination. This is more than likely due to a high degree of technical and tactical discipline based on training age and experience, more hours of professional supervised practices, and higher level of coaching.

4.2.2 Accelerations and decelerations.

Accelerometry in basketball is tracked via inertial units containing accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer sensors [ 15 , 7 , 27 ]. These sensors allowed inertial movement analysis by recording accelerations, decelerations, jumps, and changes of direction (COD). As it can be seen in Table 2 , when considering the accelerometry data collected during elite level competition, most research breaks it down into two important categories: accelerations (ACC) and decelerations (DEC) [ 15 , 7 , 27 , 28 ]. Additionally, two sub-sections of these categories can be found: total (T), and high-intensity (HI) [ 15 , 27 ]. For the purpose of this review, total accelerations (ACC T ) were classified as total forward acceleration, whereas high-intensity accelerations (ACC HI ) were classified as the total forward acceleration within the high band (>3.5 m·s -2 ) [ 15 ], and (>3 m·s -2 ) [ 27 ]. Total decelerations (DEC T ) consisted of the total number of decelerations and high-intensity decelerations (DEC HI ) were classified as total deceleration within the high band (>-3.5 m·s -2 ), and (>-3 m·s -2 ) [ 27 ].

During elite level match-play, the ACC T ranged from 43 to 145, and the total number of ACC HI ranged from 1 to 15 per match. Remarkably, a substantial variability can be found within the included studies, considering the ACC values. This occurrence makes it difficult to draw precise conclusions regarding the ACC demands of elite basketball competition. In fact, a similar pattern can be observed for DEC T as values ranging from 24 to 95 per match were found. Regarding the total number of DEC HI per match, data extracted ranged from 4 to 40. It seems evident that additional investigations on this topic are warranted before a “clear picture” can be drawn concerning the ACC and DEC demands. Moreover, researchers and sports scientists are encouraged to follow a standardized approach to ACC and DEC quantifications (e.g., determining the same HI bands) so that comparisons between studies and data sets can be conducted. None of the sub-elite or youth teams in the included studies collected accelerometry data during competition.

4.2.3 Average and top speed.

Studies evaluating NBA competition [ 5 , 7 ] recorded average speed in miles per hour (mph), but values were converted by the authors to the global unit measurement of meters per second (m·s -1 ). The speed recorded by using spatial tracking cameras (Sport VU ® ; Chicago, USA) can be seen in Table 2 . Sport VU ® cameras were installed in all 30 NBA arenas from the 2012–2013 season until the 2016–2017 season and McLean et al. [ 51 ] collected data from the entire 82 games plus the playoffs. This technology uses computer vision systems designed with algorithms to measure player positions at a sampling rate of 25 frames per second [ 5 ]. Top speed was also measured by Puente [ 26 ] via SPI PRO X (GPSports ® , Australia) and Abdelkrim et al. [ 16 ], as well as Vázquez-Guerrero et al.[ 28 ] via WIMU PRO Local Positioning System (Realtrack System, Almeria, Spain).

Similar to accelerometry data, positional tracking cameras have only been used to track match demands in elite level basketball, most likely due to the financial limitations on the sub-elite and youth levels. Importantly, when examining normative data points related to movements associated with basketball, it seems that the best performers on an elite level expressed certain performance characteristics. For example, Sampaio et al. [ 5 ], when examining All-Star Players versus Non-All-Star players in the NBA, found that there was a significant difference in average speed on both the offensive and defensive ends of the court. All-Star players had an average speed of 4.38 ± 0.36 mph (2.0 ± 0.2 m·s -1 ) offensively and 3.65 ± 0.16 mph (1.6 ± 0.1 m·s -1 ) defensively, whereas Non-All-Star players had an average speed of 4.50 ± 0.28 mph (2.0 ± 0.1 m·s -1 ) offensively and 3.86 ± 0.20 mph (1.7±0.1 m·s -1 ) defensively. Within the most prestigious level of basketball, the evidence suggests that the most efficient players tend to exert the least amount of energy to achieve the most productive results [ 5 , 7 ]. With regards to top speed, there was also variability among levels. Puente et al. [ 26 ] showed that the average top speed in sub-elite Spanish basketball competition was 6.2 m·s -1 , which is lower than the 8.09 m·s -1 average top speed by NBA players identified in the work of Caparrós et al. [ 7 ]. However, the former study [ 26 ] only analyzed one single sub-elite game and, therefore, caution is warranted when directly comparing the results. For this reason, future research is needed in this area. Taken together, the distance and speed data extracted from the literature hint that higher level basketball players seem to cover less distance but achieve greater top speeds during competition, which is in line with what has been reported in other team sports [ 52 , 50 ].

4.2.4 Time motion analysis.

Time motion analysis has been widely used to track frequency and duration of movements during competition [ 4 , 18 , 26 , 22 , 14 , 9 , 32 ]. Movements such as stand/walk, jog, run, sprint, and jump are commonly recorded among different levels of competition as well as different positions. Within this research, and based on the published literature, stand/walk was defined as movements performed at a velocity of 0–1 m·s -1 [ 1 , 14 , 18 , 22 , 32 ] and jogging was defined as intensities greater than walking but without urgency performed at 1.1–3.0 m·s -1 [ 4 , 18 , 26 , 9 ]. Running was defined as sagittal plane movement at a greater intensity than jogging and with a moderate degree of urgency at 3.1–7.0 m·s -1 [ 18 , 22 , 33 ]. Finally, sprinting was defined as forward movements characterized as effort close to maximum >7.0 m·s -1 [ 4 , 14 , 18 , 9 , 26 , 32 ].

Ferioli et al. [ 32 ] and Scanlan et al. [ 4 ] examined time motion analysis among elite and sub-elite populations. Upon review, Ferioli et al. [ 32 ] found that there was a stark difference between time spent and frequency in high-speed running and sprinting versus jogging in the first division compared to the second division. The 1 st Italian Division had frequency of exposures to high-intensity actions (HIA) of 107 ± 26, compared to an average of 78 ± 35 HIA in the second division. Scanlan et al. [ 4 ] found that elite backcourt (EBC) and elite frontcourt (EFC) had a much higher frequency of running compared to sub-elite backcourt (SEBC) and sub-elite front court (SEFC) during match-play. EBC had a mean frequency of 504 ± 38 and EFC had a mean frequency of 513 ± 26 of exposures to running during competition. These figures for running during competition are much higher than the SEBC (321 ± 75) and SEFC (352 ± 25), respectively. Again, these results would suggest that top-level basketball players spend more time at high-intensity activities compared to their sub-elite counterparts. In addition, elite players tend to display greater control over the most appropriate time and situations to express high-intensity actions relative to the total distance covered whilst on the court.

Abdelkrim et al. [ 18 ] and Puente et al. [ 26 ] examined the positional differences using time motion variables during competition. Both studies showed that guards spend more time running compared to forwards and centers. Abdelkrim et al. [ 18 ] found that guards had a greater frequency of running during competition (103 ± 11), compared to forwards (88 ± 5) and centers (101 ± 19). Puente et al. [ 26 ] found that guards run a longer distance of 3.1 ± 1.1 (m.min -1 ) compared to forwards (2.2 ± 1.9) and centers (1.6 ± 1.6). This information, seen in Table 3 , is useful and may have important implications when prescribing high-intensity running relative to each position in basketball. Based on these results, individual conditioning programs should be adapted to the specific physical requirements of guards, forwards, and centers, keeping in mind that the latter have been found to have a lower proportion of high-intensity running, acceleration, decelerations, and COD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.t003

5. Training demands

5.1 internal training demands.

Internal Training Load, displayed in Table 4 , considered the following variables: s-RPE, Weekly Training Load, HR max , HR ave , % HR max , and Training Impulse (TRIMP).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.t004

5.1.1 Heart rate.

Heart rate in training was used to quantify the cardiovascular demands imposed on the athletes [ 3 , 12 , 35 , 20 , 23 , 24 ]. Torres-Ronda et al. [ 12 ] examined HR max , HR ave , and %HR max in 5vs5, 4vs4, 3vs3, 2vs2, and 1vs1 games and found the 1vs1 situations had elicited the largest physiological response. Gocentas et al. [ 23 ] compared the HR max between guards and forwards in different training sessions and found that on average guards had a higher HR response (194 ± 14) than forwards (190 ± 12.7). More investigation is needed in the future as it relates to the HR demands of varying training programs.

5.1.2 Session RPE and total weekly training load.

A fairly common strategy to monitor players’ load is to track the total weekly load via the sRPE (RPE multiplied by session duration), collected throughout the training week. In basketball, this method has been widely used to assess Training Load [ 35 , 37 , 41 ] and has been shown to provide good insight on the energy cost of different movement patterns, particularly when coupled with external load data [ 2 , 10 , 39 ]. Briefly, it involves players reporting their RPE score using the Borg 10-point scale thirty minutes after the completion of each training session, multiplying the value by the number of minutes of the session [ 41 ] and then calculating the sum of the values of each training session during the week.

As noted in Table 4 , the Total Weekly Training Loads in the studies analyzed ranged from 2255 to 5058 AU in elite level teams [ 35 , 37 , 41 ]. The large range observed is likely due to the high variability on the number of training sessions or practice duration based on the loads provided by the technical staff. Since sRPE is obtained by multiplying RPE by session duration, the accumulative amount of weekly training load is dependent on the duration of each training session, which can vary based on style of play, level of competition, or moment of the season [ 36 , 42 , 44 ]. In addition, Svilar et al. [ 2 ] found that sRPE showed a very strong correlation with DEC T and COD T . According to the authors, the rapid eccentric actions involved in decelerations, cuts, and COD may explain the abovementioned relationship [ 1 , 2 ]. Nevertheless, the mechanical stress imposed on the athletes during these movements, as well as the effects of eccentric training in basketball athletes, are areas that need additional investigation in upcoming studies. A key aspect to consider when utilizing this method to monitor training loads and demands is that in the examination of coach and player perception of recovery and exertion, research has shown that coaches tend to overestimate recovery when compared to the athletes’ perception [ 17 ]. Therefore, when designing appropriate training sessions, a combination of internal and external load variables is recommended [ 2 , 10 , 39 ].

5.2 External training load

Regarding External Training Load ( Table 5 ), the variables retrieved from the studies were the number of ACC, DEC, and COD, tracked with inertial units through accelerometry.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.t005

5.2.1 Accelerations and decelerations.

In elite level basketball, ACC T in training varied from 16.9 to 59.5 [ 2 , 10 , 15 , 26 , 47 ]. The ACC HI in elite training, classified as the total forward acceleration within the high band (>3.5 m·s -2 ), ranged from 1.9 to 7.2 with a mean of 5.56 per training session. The DEC T in elite basketball training ranged from 16.4 to 93.2 with a mean of 64.6 per training session whereas the DEC HI (n), which were classified as the total number of decelerations within the high band (>-3.5 m·s -2 ), ranged from 1.6 to 12. When interpreting this data, it is important to acknowledge that ACC T and DEC T are qualified measures to quantify training volume, whereas ACC HI and DEC HI are quality measures of training intensity [ 2 , 10 , 15 , 43 ].

Remarkably, the number of ACC T, ACC HI, DEC T, and DEC HI reported during training were considerably lower than the data found in competition settings [ 15 , 7 , 27 ]. The total volume of ACC in competition was 81 per match on average, as opposed to a mean of 38 accelerations per training session [ 36 , 40 , 43 , 47 ]. The total number of ACC HI was moderately less in training (5.6) opposed to (7.3) during match-play. This was also the case with DEC. DEC T in competition was 73.1 and the DEC HI 16.4, which is slightly greater than the 64.6 (DEC T ) and 7.4 (DEC HI ) in elite level training. The present data supports the notion that training, and match demands seem to be considerably different, at least considering the number of ACC and DEC [ 15 ]. Matching the volume and intensity of competition via training is important during certain times of the preparatory and competitive season to adequately prepare the athletes for competition. As a consequence, the data reported herein may be extremely pertinent for practitioners in regard to training reflecting the demands of match-playing, as well as modulating training load based on outputs of these variables during competition. In this context, to try and achieve similar or even greater ACC demands in training with respect to match-play, manipulating constraints such as the number of players, the duration of drills or court dimension may be a potential strategy [ 12 , 15 , 47 ]. Within this framework, Schelling and Torres [ 47 ] found that ACC load in 3vs3 and 5vs5 full court scrimmage drills was greater than 2vs2 and 4vs4 full court scrimmage drills, indeed suggesting that manipulating training variables may greatly affect the total load imposed to the players.

A study by Svilar et al. [ 10 ] reported interpositional differences in training load accelerometry data among guards, forwards, and centers. Interestingly, the authors examined load parameters according to positional on-court roles and found that centers had a higher volume of ACC T (59.5 ± 27.1) and ACC HI (7.2 ± 4.8) opposed to forwards (42 ± 21.5, 5.8 ± 4.3, respectively) and guards (43.5 ± 17.5, 6.4 ± 4.4, respectively). Also, noteworthy, forwards were shown to have a high volume of DEC T (93.2 ± 35.0) and DEC HI (12.7 ± 8.3) compared to guards (84.7 ± 30.1, 11.9 ± 5.7) and centers (88.5 ± 30.3, 6.8 ± 4). It appears that the profiles of activity are quite different amongst positions and further research is necessary to better understand each individual profile. Still, the amount of exposures to cuts, COD, or screening actions, as well as the typical movement area of each positional role may conceivably explain such findings [ 6 , 10 , 12 , 16 , 27 , 53 ].

Despite the aforementioned, one must consider the limitations of accelerometry when measuring external load. Even though such technology is extremely useful, accelerometers fail to measure the metabolic demands of isometric muscle contractions during player-on-player contact due to the low velocity outputs. While these actions have very low acceleration, they potentially have very high energy demands [ 1 , 19 , 54 ]. Therefore, the physical cost of player-on-player contact loading is a component of basketball that must be examined more thoroughly in future research to more accurately quantify training and competition load.

6. Limitations

Some limitations should be addressed when considering the present research on training load and competition demands among different levels of basketball. Firstly, several elite leagues (e.g., NBA or ACB) do not allow for wearable technology to be used during competition which creates a gap in the literature as far as linking demands placed on the players during elite competition and how that compares to training. Secondly, when trying to investigate these variables, most sub-elite and youth teams do not have the financial means to invest in equipment to accurately quantify load during training. Finally, the limited number and sample size of youth and sub-elite studies made it difficult to conclude the precise demands of training and competition at these levels. As such, more resources need to be invested in these areas.

7. Conclusion

Basketball is a highly competitive team-sport that requires a cascade and flow of various movement patterns relative to the technical and tactical aspects of the sport. Examining the internal and external loads imposed on the players from both training and competition provides context for the practitioner to create an optimal training environment. Having the knowledge of the stress demands on the player during competition will help to dictate the volume and dosage of load for desirable adaptations in the player’s training regimen. From the results of the present systematic review, it appears that higher-level players seem to be more efficient while moving on-court. Elite level players cover less distance, at lower average velocities, and with lower HR max and HR ave during competition. However, they seem to have greater capacities to move at higher speed. This is likely due to a heightened sense of awareness based on the schematics of the game. Such information may provide insight into personalized testing protocols as well as training recovery strategies based on each player’s response and considering mechanical and physiological loading parameters relative to competition level. Examining this holistic approach creates an ideal training environment that facilitates both technical and tactical development as it relates to the game of basketball. Future research must be dedicated to this area to provide more precise insight into the physical and interpositional demands of the sport. It is necessary to accurately and systematically assess competition demands to help determine valid training strategies that resemble match-play, considering training age, physical characteristics, and in-game role of guards, forwards, and centers. Reviewing these principals will allow priming and preparing basketball players for the rigorous of match-play demands.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229212.s001

Acknowledgments

All contributing authors would like to acknowledge Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia and The Philadelphia 76ers Athlete Care Department.

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI

IMAGES

Research paper how to shoot basketball
History of Basketball Research Paper
Basketball Research Project by Common Core English With Ease
History of Basketball Research Paper
⇉Basketball: Free Throw and Game Research Paper Essay Example
Basketball Skills Essay

VIDEO

Paper basketball making
Media Paper mini basketball
Basketball point with paper airplane
How to make a paper basketball
Paper absorbing building of Basketball #trend #Tempoapp #bfdi
The Best NBA teams on paper. #nba #basketball #

Effect of core training on athletic and skill performance of basketball players: A systematic review

Kim Lam Soh

Introduction

Search strategy

Eligibility criteria

Study selection

Data extraction

Quality assessment

Search results

Fig 1. The PRISMA flow chart for the search, screening, and selection strategy for the eligible studies.

Participant characteristics and study design

Table 1. Populations, interventions, andmain outcomes of the included studies.

Quality assessment using the PEDro scale

Table 2. Summary of methodological quality assessment scores of all included studies using the PEDro scale.

3.5.1 Effect of core training on strength

3.5.2 Effect of core training on sprint

3.5.3 Effect of core training on jump

3.5.4 Effect of core training on balance

3.5.5 Effect of core training on agility

3.5.6 Effect of core training on skills

Effect of core training on strength

Effect of core training on sprint

Effect of core training on jumping

Effect of core training on balance

Effect of core training on agility

Effect of core training on basketball skills

Limitations

Practical application

Supporting information

Funding Statement

Decision Letter 0

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Acceptance letter

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Similar articles

Add to Collections

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.2 Search strategy

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

2.4 Study selection

3. Search results

4. Competition demands

4.1.1 Heart rate.

4.1.2 Blood lactate concentration.

4.2 External competition load

4.2.1 Total distance.

4.2.2 Accelerations and decelerations.

4.2.3 Average and top speed.

4.2.4 Time motion analysis.

5. Training demands

5.1.1 Heart rate.

5.1.2 Session RPE and total weekly training load.

5.2 External training load

5.2.1 Accelerations and decelerations.

6. Limitations

7. Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

IMAGES

VIDEO