Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > Articles online first > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 Oct 22



To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2020 Oct 22

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.11396-3


language: English

Workload and well-being across games played on consecutive days during inseason phase in basketball players

Daniele CONTE 1 , Paulius KAMARAUSKAS 1, Davide FERIOLI 2, Aaron T. SCANLAN 3, Sigitas KAMANDULIS 1, Henrikas PAULAUSKAS 1, Inga LUKONAITIENĖ 1

1 Institute of Sport Science and Innovations, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania; 2 Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 3 Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia


BACKGROUND: Study aimed to quantify and compare workload and well-being across basketball games played on consecutive days during the in-season phase.
METHODS: Seven players (mean [SD]: age, 20.8 [1.6] y; stature, 195.0 [5.4] cm; body mass, 88.3 [4.2] kg; training experience, 11.6 [3.7] y) competing in the second-tier Lithuanian league were recruited. Changes in workload and well-being were monitored across six NKL games in three separate weeks during the in-season phase, with two games per week played on Friday (Day 1) and Saturday (Day 2). External workload was determined as PlayerLoad (PL) and PL per minute (PL/min) via microsensors. Internal workload was determined as percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax), summated heart rate zones (SHRZ) workload, and session-rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) workload. Well-being was evaluated using questionnaires assessing fatigue, sleep quality, general muscle soreness, stress levels and mood. Linear mixed models and effect size analyses were used to compare workload and well-being between recorded in Day 1 and Day 2.
RESULTS: Significantly lower PL/min (P = 0.029; ES = 0.26, small), greater perception of fatigue (P <0.001; ES = 1.31, large) and lower total well-being score (P <0.001; ES = 0.59, small) were observed for basketball games played on Day 2 compared to games played on Day 1.
CONCLUSIONS: Two games played on consecutive days elicited similar game workloads with higher perceived fatigue and lower wellbeing in the second game day. These findings suggest basketball coaches using recovery strategies to optimize player well-being during congested game schedules.

KEY WORDS: Training load; Fatigue; Microsensor; Wellness

top of page