4.4 Article

LOWER LIMB MAXIMAL DYNAMIC STRENGTH AND AGILITY DETERMINANTS IN ELITE BASKETBALL PLAYERS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 23, Issue 5, Pages 1570-1577

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a4e7f0

Keywords

field test; team sports; squat performance; vertical jump

Categories

Funding

  1. Tunisian Ministry of Scientific Research, Technology and Development of Competences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chaouachi, A, Brughelli, M, Chamari, K, Levin, GT, Ben Abdelkrim, N, Laurencelle, L, and Castagna, C. Lower limb maximal dynamic strength and agility determinants in elite basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 23(5): 1570-1577, 2009-The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and basketball-relevant tests and the variables that influence agility (T-test) in elite male professional basketball players (n = 14, age 23.3 +/- 2.7 years, height 195.6 +/- 8.3 cm, body mass 94.2 +/- 10.2 kg). T-test performance was significantly related to body mass (r = 0.58, p = 0.03) and to percentage of body fat (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was observed between t-test and 5-jump test performance (r = -0.61, p = 0.02). Squat 1RM was significantly related to 5-, 10-, and 30-m sprint times. Stepwise correlation analysis showed percentage of body fat was the best single predictor factor (p < 0.05) of agility. Squat 1RM performance was the best single predictor of 5-m and 10-m sprint times (p < 0.05). In light of the present study's findings, agility should be regarded as a per se physiological ability for elite basketball players. Consequently, basketball-specific agility drills should be stressed in elite basketball training. Given the association between squat 1RM performance and short sprint times, squat exercises should be a major component of basketball conditioning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available