This study compared the external [movement load (ML)] and internal [rating of perceived exertion (RPE), mean and peak heart rate (HRmean, HRpeak)] loads, performance and enjoyment between time-matched (~12 min) traditional (TRAD) and small-sided game (SSG) warm-ups in youth basketball players. Using a counterbalanced crossover design, 24 male players (16.0 ± 0.1 years) performed both warm-up types after reporting fatigue (ROF) and completing an 8 min standardized pre-warm-up. Before and after each warm-up, players completed 20 m sprint and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests; enjoyment (ENJ) was assessed post-warm-up. No significant differences were found between warm-ups for ROF (p = 0.053), RPE (p = 0.259), or HRmean (p = 0.053). However, SSG induced a higher HRpeak than TRAD (p = 0.001), while ML was greater in TRAD (p < 0.001). No interaction, time effect, or typology effect emerged for performance in sprinting and change of direction, although CMJ was higher after TRAD (p = 0.047). Enjoyment did not differ significantly (p = 0.066), although with a large effect size (r = 0.612). The greater ML in TRAD may reflect more dynamic basketball actions compared with SSG, which emphasized static tasks (e.g., screening, boxing out) yet produced higher HRpeak. Coaches may consider SSG warm-ups to replicate game-specific conditions while controlling the external load and maintaining adequate physiological preparation.

Warming Up for Basketball: Comparing Traditional vs. Small-Sided Game Approaches in Youth Players

Sansone, Pierpaolo;Conte, Daniele
2025-01-01

Abstract

This study compared the external [movement load (ML)] and internal [rating of perceived exertion (RPE), mean and peak heart rate (HRmean, HRpeak)] loads, performance and enjoyment between time-matched (~12 min) traditional (TRAD) and small-sided game (SSG) warm-ups in youth basketball players. Using a counterbalanced crossover design, 24 male players (16.0 ± 0.1 years) performed both warm-up types after reporting fatigue (ROF) and completing an 8 min standardized pre-warm-up. Before and after each warm-up, players completed 20 m sprint and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests; enjoyment (ENJ) was assessed post-warm-up. No significant differences were found between warm-ups for ROF (p = 0.053), RPE (p = 0.259), or HRmean (p = 0.053). However, SSG induced a higher HRpeak than TRAD (p = 0.001), while ML was greater in TRAD (p < 0.001). No interaction, time effect, or typology effect emerged for performance in sprinting and change of direction, although CMJ was higher after TRAD (p = 0.047). Enjoyment did not differ significantly (p = 0.066), although with a large effect size (r = 0.612). The greater ML in TRAD may reflect more dynamic basketball actions compared with SSG, which emphasized static tasks (e.g., screening, boxing out) yet produced higher HRpeak. Coaches may consider SSG warm-ups to replicate game-specific conditions while controlling the external load and maintaining adequate physiological preparation.
2025
basketball performance
external load
internal load
youth athletes
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
sports-13-00452 (1).pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 2.22 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.22 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14244/10664
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
social impact