Purpose: To examine the effect of caffeine supplementation on dribbling speed in elite female and male basketball players. Methods: A double-blind, counterbalanced, randomized, crossover design was used. Elite basketball players (N = 21; 10 female, 11 male; age 18.3 [3.3] y) completed placebo (3 mg·kg−1 of body mass of dextrose) and caffeine (3 mg·kg−1 of body mass) trials 1 wk apart during the in-season phase. During each trial, players completed 20-m linear sprints with and without dribbling a basketball. Performance times were recorded at 5-, 10-, and 20-m splits. Dribbling speed was measured using traditional (total performance time) and novel (dribble deficit) methods. Dribble deficit isolates the added time taken to complete a task when dribbling compared with a nondribbling version of the same task. Comparisons between placebo and caffeine conditions were conducted at group and individual levels. Results: Nonsignificant (P > .05), trivial to small (effect size = 0.04–0.42) differences in dribbling speed were observed between conditions. The majority (20 out of 21) of players were classified as nonresponders to caffeine, with 1 player identified as a negative responder using dribble-deficit measures. Conclusions: Results indicate that caffeine offers no ergogenic benefit to dribbling speed in elite basketball players. The negative response to caffeine in 1 player indicates that caffeine supplementation may be detrimental to dribbling speed in specific cases and emphasizes the need for individualized analyses in nutrition-based sport-science research.
Aaron T. Scanlan, Vincent J. Dalbo, Daniele Conte, Emilija Stojanović, Nenad Stojiljković, Ratko Stanković, Vladimir Antić and Zoran Milanović
Maria C. Madueno, Vincent J. Dalbo, Joshua H. Guy, Kate E. Giamarelos, Tania Spiteri and Aaron T. Scanlan
Purpose: To investigate the physiological and performance effects of active and passive recovery between repeated-change-of-direction sprints. Methods: Eight semiprofessional basketball players (age: 19.9 [1.5] y; stature: 183.0 [9.6] cm; body mass: 77.7 [16.9] kg; body fat: 11.8% [6.3%]; and peak oxygen consumption: 46.1 [7.6] mL·kg−1·min−1) completed 12 × 20-m repeated-change-of-direction sprints (Agility 5-0-5 tests) interspersed with 20 seconds of active (50% maximal aerobic speed) or passive recovery in a randomized crossover design. Physiological and perceptual measures included heart rate, oxygen consumption, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion. Change-of-direction speed was measured during each sprint using the change-of-direction deficit (CODD), with summed CODD time and CODD decrement calculated as performance measures. Results: Average heart rate (7.3 [6.4] beats·min−1; P = .010; effect size (ES) = 1.09; very likely) and oxygen consumption (4.4 [5.0] mL·kg−1·min−1; P = .12; ES = 0.77; unclear) were moderately greater with active recovery compared with passive recovery across sprints. Summed CODD time (0.87 [1.01] s; P = .07; ES = 0.76, moderate; likely) and CODD decrement (8.1% [3.7%]; P < .01; ES = 1.94, large; almost certainly) were higher with active compared with passive recovery. Trivial–small differences were evident for rating of perceived exertion (P = .516; ES = 0.19; unclear) and posttest blood lactate concentration (P = .29; ES = 0.40; unclear) between recovery modes. Conclusions: Passive recovery between repeated-change-of-direction sprints may reduce the physiological stress and fatigue encountered compared with active recovery in basketball players.