K. Gray,B. Cooper, L. Young

The University of Montana Western, Dillon, MT

Speed, agility, strength and power are key factors to success in collegiate basketball. Coaches, trainers, staff, and players design training and practice sessions to maintain fitness and peak during conference competition. PURPOSE: To assess how practice and in-season competition affect overall fitness and body composition in men and women collegiate basketball players. METHODS: Adult male basketball players (N=12; 21 ± 0.71yr; 74.25 ± 3.54 in; 84.25 ± 12.69 kg) were assessed on hand grip strength (HGR: 47.39 ± 6.8, HGL: 50.52 ± 9.00 kg) using a portable hand dynamometer, agility (TT: 8.37± 0.49 s) using a t-test, flexibility (VS: 4.17 ± 2.72 in) using a v-sit test, vertical jump height (VJ: 27.8 ± 2.80 in) using an electronic timing mat, and estimation of muscle mass using limb girths and skinfolds (MM: 6.99 ± 1.24, MMQuad:46.66 ± 8.25 kg) after four weeks of a conditioning (T1). At the same time, adult female basketball players (N=11; 20.36 ± 1.63yr; 71.91 ± 10.12 in; 71.91 ± 10.12 kg) were assessed for identical measures (HGR: 38.27 ± 3.71 kg, HGL: 3.66 ± 2.46 kg, TT: 11:11 ± 0.62 s, VJ: 19.35 ± 2.22 in, TT: 5.32 ± 0.97 s, MM: 35.47 ± 6.36, MMQuad: 41.52 ± 3.21 kg). All participants were re-assessed for each variable after 4 weeks of regular practice sessions (T2). A repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare T1 to T2 within genders. In addition, a matrix correlation was calculated between all variables within gender groups. RESULTS: Male participants experienced a decrease in body weight 84.25 ± 12.69 vs. 80.71 ± 12.11kg (p<0.00) from T1 to T2. Female participants decreased in TT 11:11 ± 0.62 vs. 10:46 ± 0.49 s (p=0.03) and increased in flexibility (p= 0.04) in T1 vs. T2. All other variables for both genders remained unchanged. As expected, data analysis revealed a strong relationship between MM, MMQuad, height and weight for both genders. VJ height was correlated with flexibility in males (r=0.84) at T1. No other strong relations were revealed for any gender at either T1 or T2. CONCLUSION: These data are part of a larger assessment that will re-evaluate these measures post-season. As men and women training programs were unique, differences between groups during assessment periods cannot be compared. A similar in-season training and competition schedule may reveal possible gender differences between groups.

This document is currently not available here.