PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
This study compared the inter-individual variability in adaptive responses to six weeks of small-sided games (SSG) and short sprint interval training (sSIT) in young basketball players. Thirty well-trained young athletes (age: 16.4 ± 0.6 years; stature: 190 ± 8.4 cm; weight: 84.1 ± 8.2 kg) voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to SSG (3 sets of 5 min 3v3 on full length (28 m) and half-width (7.5 m) court, with 2 minutes of passive recovery in-between), sSIT (3 sets of 12 × 5 s sprinting with 20 s recovery between efforts and 2 min of rest between sets), or CON (routine basketball-specific technical and tactical drills) groups, each of ten. Before and after the training period, participants underwent a series of laboratory- and field-based measurements to evaluate their maximum oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2), oxygen pulse, peak and average power output (PPO and APO), linear speed, change of direction (COD), countermovement jump (CMJ), and vertical jump (VJ). Both SSG and sSIT sufficiently stimulated adaptive mechanisms involved in enhancement of the mentioned variables (p < 0.05). However, sSIT resulted in lower residuals in percent changes in V̇O2max (p = 0.02), O2pulse (p = 0.005), VT1 (p = 0.001), PPO (p = 0.03), and linear speed (p = 0.01) across athletes compared to the SSG. Moreover, sSIT resulted in more responders than SSG in V̇O2max (p = 0.02, φ = 0.500), O2pulse (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT1 (p = 0.003, φ = 0.655), VT2 (p = 0.05, φ = 0.436), and linear speed (p = 0.05, φ = 0.420). Our results indicate that sSIT creates a more consistent level of mechanical and physiological stimulus than SSG, potentially leading to more similar adaptations across team members.
摘要：
这项研究比较了年轻篮球运动员六周小边球比赛（SSG）和短距离冲刺间隔训练（sSIT）的适应性反应的个体差异。30名训练有素的年轻运动员（年龄：16.4±0.6岁；身高：190±8.4厘米；体重：84.1±8.2千克）自愿参加，并被随机分配到SSG（在全长（28m）和半宽（7.5m）球场上进行3套5分钟3v3，中间有2分钟的被动恢复)，sSIT(3组12×5s短跑,两手之间恢复20s,两手之间休息2min),或CON（常规篮球技术和战术训练）组，每十个培训前后，参与者进行了一系列基于实验室和现场的测量，以评估他们的最大摄氧量（VO2max），第一和第二通气阈值（VT1和VT2），氧脉冲,峰值和平均功率输出(PPO和APO)，线速度,方向变化（COD），反运动跳跃(CMJ),和垂直跳跃（VJ）。SSG和sSIT都充分刺激了与上述变量增强有关的适应性机制（p<0.05）。然而,sSIT导致较低的残差，在变化的百分比VO2max（p=0.02），O2脉冲（p=0.005），VT1（p=0.001），PPO（p=0.03），与SSG相比，运动员的线速度（p=0.01）。此外，sSIT导致的反应比SSG更多，在V♪O2max（p=0.02，φ=0.500），O2脉冲（p=0.003，φ=0.655），VT1（p=0.003，φ=0.655），VT2（p=0.05，φ=0.436），和线速度（p=0.05，φ=0.420）。我们的结果表明，sSIT比SSG产生更一致的机械和生理刺激水平，可能导致团队成员之间更多类似的适应。
