4.6 Review

Monitoring Internal Load in Women's Basketball via Subjective and Device-Based Methods: A Systematic Review

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s23094447

Keywords

physiological response; monitoring; female basketball

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examines the methods and variables used to measure internal load in female basketball, finding that subjective methods like rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and sensor-based methods like heart rate monitoring are commonly used. However, the lack of standardization in metrics and methods results in significant heterogeneity among studies.
The monitoring of internal load in basketball can be used to understand the effects and potential physiological adaptations caused by external load. The main aim of this systematic review was to identify the methods and variables used to quantify internal load in female basketball. The studies included different populations and events: youth athletes, elite, and amateur players. Subjective methods included using the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) method, and sensor-based methods included monitoring the cardiac response to exercise, using heart rate (HR) as the primary metric. The results showed that the HRAvg exhibited a wider range of values during training than during competition, and different metrics were used to evaluate internal load, such as HRMax, HRmin, %HRMax, total time and % of time spent in different HR zones (2-8 zones), Banister's TRIMP, and summated HR zones. RPE and HR metrics were the most commonly used methods. However, the use of multiple metrics with little standardization resulted in significant heterogeneity among studies, limiting meaningful comparisons. The review provides a reference for current research on female basketball. Future research could address this limitation by adopting more consistent measurement protocols standardizing the use of metrics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available