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.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of unilateral (U) and bilateral (B) contrast training on lower limb explosiveness, agility, and balance in college basketball athletes.Methods: Twenty male college basketball players were randomly assigned to either a unilateral group (U, n = 10) or a bilateral group (B, n = 10). Both groups underwent an 8week strength training program, with sessions held twice a week. The unilateral group performed six Bulgarian split squats and ten reverse lunge jump squats, while the bilateral group performed six barbell rear squats and ten double-leg vertical jumps. To comprehensively assess the training effects, the study utilized one-repetition maximum (1RM), countermovement jump (CMJ), 20m sprint, and single-leg hop tests to evaluate explosive power; the 505 and t-test to assess change-of-direction ability; and the Y-balance test (YBT) to evaluate dynamic balance. Paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate within-group changes, and a 2 (pre- and post-) × 2 (experimental and control groups) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess between-group differences.Results: Within-group comparisons indicated that both unilateral and bilateral contrast training significantly improved all performance metrics. Between-group comparisons revealed that bilateral training was superior to unilateral training in improvements in 1RM and CMJ (p > 0.05) (growth rate of 1RM: B: 8.4%, U: 5.15%; growth rate of CMJ: B: 15.63%, U: 6.74%). Unilateral training showed greater improvements in the 20m sprint, dominant leg single-leg hop, YBT left, and YBT right (p > 0.05) (growth rate of 20m sprint: B: 5.43%, U: 10.41%; growth rate of advantage foot touch high: B: 4.56%, U: 9.35%; growth rate of YBT left: B: 3.77%, U: 8.53%; growth rate of YBT right: B: 4.72%, U: 13.8%). Unilateral training also significantly outperformed bilateral training in non-dominant leg single-leg hop, t-test, 505 left, and 505 right improvements (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Unilateral contrast training may offer advantages for enhancing change-of-direction ability and explosive power in the non-dominant leg, and it may also provide benefits for improving short-distance sprinting ability, explosive power in the dominant leg, and dynamic balance. In contrast, bilateral contrast training appears to be more effective for enhancing bilateral explosive power and may be more advantageous for increasing maximal strength.

Objective: To perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy and dose-response relationship of blood flow restriction training on muscle strength reported worldwide.Methods: Thirty-four eligible articles with a total sample size of 549 participants were included in the meta-analysis. This study was performed using the method recommended by the Cochrane Handbook (https://training.cochrane.org/handbook), and the effect size was estimated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and using RevMan 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, 2014).Results: The meta-analysis showed that blood flow restriction training increased the lower limb extensor muscle strength [SMD = 0.72, 95%; confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 1.00, p < 0.01], knee extensor isokinetic torque SMD = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24 to 0.73, p < 0.01], knee flexor isokinetic torque SMD = 0.39 [95% CI: 0.11 to 0.67, p < 0.01], and squat one-repetition maximum [SMD = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.55, p < 0.01]. There was no publication bias. Evaluation of dose-response relationship showed that the training load, mode, frequency, duration, and maximum cuff pressure affected the muscle function.Conclusion: blood flow restriction training. 16 significantly improved lower limb muscle strength, and the optimal training conditions consisted of a weight load smaller or equal to 30% of one-repetition maximum, training duration longer than 4 weeks, frequency of more than 3 times/week, and maximum cuff pressure lower than 200 mmHg.Systematic Review Registration: website, identifier registration number.

Objective: This exploratory study aimed to investigate how shooting distance is associated with the adaptations in lower limb inter-joint coordination of male university basketball athletes during the Loading and Jump Phases. Methods: Kinematic data from 14 university basketball athletes performing jump shots at four distances (4.6 m, 5.8 m, 7.0 m, and 8.325 m) were collected using OpenCap. Inter-joint coordination was quantified using a vector coding technique based on angular velocity data. This approach was selected to conform with biomechanical conventions for calculating angular dynamics, preserve more temporal information, and make the measure more robust to any noise that may be present in the data. Subsequently, the adaptations were analyzed using Bayesian circular mixed-effects models. Results: Analysis of the data showed a primary adaptation in the Jump Phase: as shooting distance increased, coordination showed a trend towards greater Distal (knee and ankle) Dominancy. This change was underpinned by interaction effects (95% HPD that did not contain zero) between shooting distance and movement phase in multiple lower-limb joint couplings. Alongside this primary adaptation, an asymmetrical adjustment in the bilateral Knee-Ankle coordination during the Loading Phase emerged: with increasing distance, the right side showed enhanced Distal Dominancy while the left side trended towards Proximal Dominancy. Conclusion: Based on these observed patterns, we propose two hypotheses for future confirmatory research: (1) that this trend towards greater Distal Dominancy may reflect a functional optimization of the lower limb for long-range shooting, and (2) that the observed asymmetry might be a functional adaptation to the specific demands of the shooting motion.

This study compared the effects of an 8-week program of low-load blood flow restriction training combined with chain-based variable resistance training (BFR-VRT) and high-load chain-based variable resistance training (VRT) on lower-limb performance in male college basketball players. A total of 27 players were randomly assigned to the BFR-VRT group (n = 9), the variable resistance training group (n = 9), or a control group (n = 9). The BFR-VRT protocol used pneumatic cuffs applied to the proximal thighs, with training pressure set at 180 mmHg, and combined a 10% 1RM barbell load with 10%–30% 1RM from chains, whereas the VRT protocol consisted of a 55% 1RM barbell load plus 10%–30% 1RM from chains. The control group did not receive any resistance training. Repeated-measures Repeated-measures ANOVA showed significant within-group improvements in SQ-1RM, LTC, RTC, countermovement jump, squat jump, DJ-RSI, standing long jump, and 30-m in both the BFR-VRT and VRT groups (all p < 0.05), whereas the CON group showed no significant change (p > 0.05). Between-group comparisons indicated no significant differences among the three groups on these outcomes (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, both BFR-VRT and VRT improved lower-limb performance; under a lower external load, BFR-VRT showed effects comparable to, or trending greater than, VRT on certain performance measures. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojEN.html?proj=201896 , identifier ChiCTR2400086132.