4.3 Review

Training and Competition Load in Female Basketball: A Systematic Review

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082639

Keywords

performance analysis; load; women; basketball

Funding

  1. Government of Extremadura (Ministry of Employment, Business and Innovation) [GR18170]
  2. European Union through the European Regional Development Funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The scientific literature on women's basketball is still limited, mainly in performance parameters. The purpose of this study was to analyse the state of art on the internal and external loads supported by female basketball players during sports practice. The design of this research is theoretical. The most relevant databases were searched for pertinent published studies according to the following keywords: basketball, female or woman, training or competition, load or demand. Of the 644 studies initially identified, 26 were selected for a complete review. These investigations were characterised by having as an objective an individualization of training for this type of population. Of the selected studies, it was evaluated: (i) goal (training, competition or both); (ii) category (stages: U14, U16, U18 and senior; level: state, national or international); (iii) type of load (Internal, External or both); (iv) instruments used and (v) variables analysed. The most studied goal was competition, mainly in senior national level, carrying out an analysis of the external and internal load together. Depending on the instruments and the variables used, the subjective load analysis was recurrent and important in the publication of articles in this topic. The quality of the studies was good, but for a better description of women's basketball, there is a need to jointly investigate sports training and competition, to study the training categories and to use micro technology that guarantees obtaining objective and reliable data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available