Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Neal Wen x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Aaron T. Scanlan, Neal Wen, Patrick S. Tucker, Nattai R. Borges, and Vincent J. Dalbo


To compare perceptual and physiological training-load responses during various basketball training modes.


Eight semiprofessional male basketball players (age 26.3 ± 6.7 y, height 188.1 ± 6.2 cm, body mass 92.0 ± 13.8 kg) were monitored across a 10-wk period in the preparatory phase of their training plan. Player session ratings of perceived exertion (sRPE) and heart-rate (HR) responses were gathered across base, specific, and tactical/game-play training modes. Pearson correlations were used to determine the relationships between the sRPE model and 2 HR-based models: the training impulse (TRIMP) and summated HR zones (SHRZ). One-way ANOVAs were used to compare training loads between training modes for each model.


Stronger relationships between perceptual and physiological models were evident during base (sRPE-TRIMP r = .53, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .75, P < .05) and tactical/game-play conditioning (sRPE-TRIMP r = .60, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .63; P < .05) than during specific conditioning (sRPE-TRIMP r = .38, P < .05; sRPE-SHRZ r = .52; P < .05). Furthermore, the sRPE model detected greater increases (126–429 AU) in training load than the TRIMP (15–65 AU) and SHRZ models (27–170 AU) transitioning between training modes.


While the training-load models were significantly correlated during each training mode, weaker relationships were observed during specific conditioning. Comparisons suggest that the HR-based models were less effective in detecting periodized increases in training load, particularly during court-based, intermittent, multidirectional drills. The practical benefits and sensitivity of the sRPE model support its use across different basketball training modes.

Restricted access

Aaron T. Scanlan, Neal Wen, Joshua H. Guy, Nathan Elsworthy, Michele Lastella, David B. Pyne, Daniele Conte, and Vincent J. Dalbo

Purpose: To examine correlations between peak force and impulse measures attained during the isometric midthigh pull (IMTP) and basketball-specific sprint and jump tests. Methods: Male, adolescent basketball players (N = 24) completed a battery of basketball-specific performance tests. Testing consisted of the IMTP (absolute and normalized peak force and impulse at 100 and 250 ms); 20-m sprint (time across 5, 10, and 20 m); countermovement jump (CMJ; absolute and normalized peak force and jump height); standing long jump (distance); and repeated lateral bound (distance). Correlation and regression analyses were conducted between IMTP measures and other attributes. Results: An almost perfect correlation was evident between absolute peak force attained during the IMTP and CMJ (r = .94, R 2 = 56%, P < .05). Moderate to very large correlations (P < .05) were observed between IMTP normalized peak force and 5-m sprint time (r = −.44, R 2 = 19%), 10-m sprint time (r = −.45, R 2 = 20%), absolute (r = .57, R 2 = 33%), normalized (r = .86, R 2 = 73%) CMJ peak force, and standing long-jump distance (r = .51, R 2 = 26%). Moderate to very large correlations were evident between impulse measures during the IMTP and 5-m sprint time (100 ms, r = −.40, R 2 = 16%, P > .05) and CMJ absolute peak force (100 ms, r = .73, R 2 = 54%; 250 ms, r = .68, R 2 = 47%; P < .05). Conclusions: The IMTP may be used to assess maximal and rapid force expression important across a range of basketball-specific movements.

Restricted access

Markus N.C. Williams, Neal Wen, David B. Pyne, Davide Ferioli, Daniele Conte, Vincent J. Dalbo, and Aaron T. Scanlan

Purpose : To compare anthropometric and power-related attributes between competition levels in under-19-year-old (U19) male basketball players. Methods : National-level (n = 7; age: 17.7 [0.5] y), first-division state-level (n = 8; 17.4 [0.4] y), and second-division state-level (n = 8; 17.1 [0.4] y) players from Australian basketball programs participated in this pilot study. Players had various anthropometric attributes (height, standing reach height, wingspan, and body mass) and power-related attributes (isometric midthigh pull, linear sprint, countermovement jump, 1-step vertical jump, standing long jump, repeated lateral bound, and Modified Agility T Test) measured in the preseason. Differences between groups were assessed using 1-way analyses of variance with Tukey post hoc tests and effect sizes (ES) interpreted as trivial, <0.20; small, 0.20 to 0.59; moderate, 0.60 to 1.19; large, 1.20 to 1.99; and very large, ≥2.00. Results : Regarding anthropometric attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) height (ES = 2.09), standing reach height (ES = 1.54), wingspan (ES = 1.45), and body mass (ES = 1.77) than second-division state-level players. For power-related attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) isometric midthigh-pull peak force (ES = 1.46–2.57), sprint momentum (ES = 1.17–2.18), and countermovement jump peak force (ES = 1.73–2.01) than state-level players. Moreover, national-level players demonstrated greater (P < .05) 1-step vertical jump height (ES = 1.95, large) than second division state-level players. Conclusions : Specific anthropometric and power-related attributes clearly differ between competition levels in U19 male basketball players. This information can inform development of testing protocols, reference ranges, and training programs in practice. Further research is encouraged on this topic to confirm our findings across larger samples of basketball players.