Effects of Small-Sided Games Training versus High-Intensity Interval Training Approaches in Young Basketball Players

y aimed to investigate the effects of the 6-week small-sided games training (SSGs) vs. high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on the psychophysiological and performance responses, and technical skills of young basketball players. Thirty-two male players (age: 14.5 0.5 years of age) were

Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal *Correspondence: lipe.clemente5@gmail.com Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the effects of the 6-week small-sided games training (SSGs) vs. high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on the psychophysiological and performance responses, and technical skills of young basketball players. Thirty-two male players (age: 14.5 0.5 years of age) were randomly divided into SSGs group (n= 16) and HIIT group (n= 16) training methods thrice per week for 6 weeks. The players in the SSGs group performed two 5–8 min of 2 vs. 2 with 2 min rest periods, while the players in HIIT performed 12–18 min of runs at intensities (90 to 95%) related to the velocity obtained in the 30-15 intermittent tness test (IFT). Pre-testing and post-testing sessions involved assessments of Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1, 30-15 intermittent tness test, 5 and 30 m sprint times, vertical jump height, repeated sprint ability, defensive and offensive agility, and technical skills. The SSGs group demonstrated signi cantly higher agility-based technical responses in terms of the control dribbling and shooting skills (d= 1.71 vs. 0.20,d= 1.41 vs. 0.35, respectively) compared with the HIIT group. Conversely, the HIIT induced greater improvements in 30 m sprint times (d= 3.15 vs. 0.68). These ndings provided that SSGs in youth basketball players may allow similar positive physical adaptations to HIIT, with an extra advantage of improving technical skills while improving enjoyability. Keywords: interval training; agility; psychophysiological responses; physical enjoyment; perceived exertion 1. Introduction The activity demands of basketball depend dominantly on anaerobic and aerobic energy metabolism to perform high levels of performance in repeated high-intensity ac- tions during basketball match-play [1,2]. Anaerobic energy metabolism is responsible for high-intensity activities such as jumping, sprinting, and changes of direction, while aerobic energy metabolism dominates low-intensity activities such as jogging, walking, and standing [3]. Competitive young players cover approximately 5.5–7.5 km (high-intensity Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931.

changes of direction, while aerobic energy metabolism dominates low-intensity activities such as jogging, walking, and standing [3]. Competitive young players cover approximately 5.5–7.5 km (high-intensity Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931 2 of 11 activities accounts for approximately 15–23% of the total distance covered [4,5] and also perform 750–1050 activities (each lasting from 1 to 3 s), including change of direction, deceleration, and acceleration [1,6] during a basketball match-play. From a kinematic and technical point of view, young players should have not only well-developed aerobic tness and anaerobic capacity, but also technical skills to perform these performance indicators under match conditions [7]. Small-sided games (SSGs), also known as skill-based conditioning games or game- based training, are used in the training of players of many sports games, especially in basketball. Earlier studies have documented that SSGs, involving real movement actions and technical awareness, are frequently used training methods to improve functional and sport-speci c skills of young players [8,9]. Furthermore, SSGs force players to work inten- sively and keep constant attention to the game under pressure, force greater concentration of attention and greater physiological demands, as well as provoke greater fatigue [10]. SSGs facilitate the development of technical and tactical skills and give rise to signi cant improvements in physical and physiological performance [11]. SSGs are widely used by basketball coaches in an attempt to simultaneously develop technical and tactical skills under high physical loads [12]. High-intensity interval training (HIIT), one of the alternatives and popular training methods, is described as the intense and intermittent exercises interspersed with recovery periods. HIIT, provides time-ef ciency and better improvement in aerobic capacity in athletes [13,14]. Previous studies have shown that HIIT induced an increase in aerobic and anaerobic performance, cardiopulmonary capacity, and a decrease in fat mass [15]. Delextrat et al. [12] showed that the maximum aerobic performance of young basketball players increased 4.1% after a 6-week HIIT program. Numerous studies have compared the training effects of HIIT and SSGs programs in team sports, particularly in soccer [8,9,16]; however, few studies have investigated the performance responses and technical activities of young basketball players [12,17]. There is no study in the literature that thoroughly compared the effects of HIIT and SSGs training programs on the psychophysiological, performance responses,

HIIT program. Numerous studies have compared the training effects of HIIT and SSGs programs in team sports, particularly in soccer [8,9,16]; however, few studies have investigated the performance responses and technical activities of young basketball players [12,17]. There is no study in the literature that thoroughly compared the effects of HIIT and SSGs training programs on the psychophysiological, performance responses, and technical skills of young basketball players during the preparation period; therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 6 weeks of SSG and HIIT on the psychophysiological, performance responses, and technical skills of young basketball players. We hypothesized that both training methods would lead to a similar improvement in performance responses without any negative effects. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Design A 2-group, randomized, parallel matched-group, and short-term design were used to compare the effects of SSGs vs. HIIT on the physical performances, and psychophysiological and technical responses in young basketball players. The study was conducted during the preparation period. Thirty-two young male basketball players were randomly divided into two training intervention groups, either in SSGs (n= 16) or the HIIT (n= 16). The players completed a 30-15 intermittent tness test (30-15 IFT), 5–30 m sprint test, counter-movement jump (CMJ), CMJ with arm (CMJarm), squat jump (SJ), drop jump (DJ), repeated sprint ability (RSA), t-drill and modi ed t-drill agility (t-drill mod), passing skills (PS), control dribbling (CD), shooting skills (SS), and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 (YYIRT-1). The measurements were performed in the same order in both pre-testing and post-testing sessions. Overall, the study was completed in a total of 8 weeks, consisting of 1 week of pre-testing, 6 weeks of training interventions, and 1 week of the post-testing period. Both training interventions were performed thrice a week. Training sessions were separated by 2 days of rest. During the present study, all players performed the same type of training as well as speci c SSGs or the HIIT interventions. Stretching and jogging at various intensity levels together with the integration of basketball-speci c drills were performed in

interventions were performed thrice a week. Training sessions were separated by 2 days of rest. During the present study, all players performed the same type of training as well as speci c SSGs or the HIIT interventions. Stretching and jogging at various intensity levels together with the integration of basketball-speci c drills were performed in

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931 3 of 11 a standardized 10 min warm-up section. All tests and training started and ended at similar hours of the day [18]. 2.2. Subjects Thirty-two young male basketball players (age: 14.5 0.5 years, height:179.3 3.7 cm , weight: 70.0 3.6 kg, body fat %13.6 1.3) participated in this study. All players were members of the same young basketball team competing in a regional league. They were accustomed to a training workload of 5 training units per week and had been involved in basketball training and matches for at least 3 years. The players were divided into two groups: the SSGs group (n= 16, APHV = 14.0 0.4, age: 14.4 0.5 years, height: 178.3 3.7 cm , weight: 70.2 3.3 kg, body fat %13.8 1.3) and the HIIT group (n= 16, APHV = 14.0 0.4, age: 14.6 0.5 years, height: 180.2 3.7 cm, weight: 69.8 3.3 kg, body fat %13.5 1.2) according to their age at peak height velocity (APHV). All players and their parents were informed of the research procedures, requirements, bene ts, and risks of the study. The written informed consent forms were obtained from all the subjects and their parents. The study was approved by the local university Ethics Committee (59754796-050.99-2019) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. 2.3. Testing Procedures The physical and technical tests lasted 7 days for both pre-testing and post-testing assessments. On the rst day, the measurements were performed in the following order: anthropometry, jumping, and sprinting tests. On the third day, the change-of-direction tests and the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness test were performed. On the fth day, technical skill tests and repeated sprint ability tests were performed, respectively. On the seventh day, Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Level 1 tests were performed. Five minutes of rest were provided between tests. A standardized warm-up protocol consisting of jogging and dynamic and static stretching was provided before performance tests. 2.3.1. Anthropometric Measurements and Maturity Body weights were measured using the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (BC-418, Tanita, Tokyo, Japan). The sitting and standing height were measured with a stadiometer

Intermittent Recovery Level 1 tests were performed. Five minutes of rest were provided between tests. A standardized warm-up protocol consisting of jogging and dynamic and static stretching was provided before performance tests. 2.3.1. Anthropometric Measurements and Maturity Body weights were measured using the bioelectrical impedance analyzer (BC-418, Tanita, Tokyo, Japan). The sitting and standing height were measured with a stadiometer (Holtain Ltd., UK). A non-invasive technique proposed by Mirwald et al. [19] was used to estimate the maturity status of the players. Firstly, maturity offset the number of predicted years before or after the APHV, was calculated according to the following equation: Maturity Offset= 9.236 + 0.0002708 (leg length sitting height) 0.001663 (age leg length) + 0.007216 (age sitting height) + 0.02292 (weight/height 100). Then, the maturity offset was subtracted from the chronological age of the players to estimate the APHV. 2.3.2. Change-of-Direction Tests The t-drill and t-drill modwere applied for the measurement of change-of-direction (COD) performances. These tests are reliable and valid tests for the evaluation of change of direction performance [20], which were performed on an indoor basketball court. According to the procedures suggested by Pauole et al. [21] in the t-drill test, including basketball- speci c movements such as sprinting, shuf ing, and backpedaling, each player covered a total distance of 36.56 m. The same test protocol was also used in t-drill modtest except for the total covered distance. All players performed each COD test with 3 min of passive resting between consecutive trials and 5 min between COD tests to minimize physical fatigue and risk of injury. Times in COD tests were measured using photocells (Newtest Powertimer 300-series, Newtest Oy, Tyrnävä, Finland). The ICC was 0.95 and 0.93 in t-drill and t-drill mod,respectively.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931 4 of 11 2.3.3. Jumping Tests The vertical jump heights were assessed by CMJ, CMJarm, SJ, and DJ for each player using a portable force plate (Newtest Powertimer 300-series, Newtest Oy, Tyrnävä, Finland). While the CMJ was performed with hands placed on the hips to minimize the contribution of the upper limbs, the players performed the CMJarm with free arm swing [22]. The SJ was performed starting from a static semi squatting position maintained for a second and without any preliminary movement. The DJ was performed starting from a standing position on a 30 cm height, dipping, and then extending the knee in a continuous move- ment [23]. The players performed each jumping test with 2 min of passive resting between consecutive trials and 5 min between jumping tests. The ICC was 0.96, 0.94, 0.95, and 0.94 in CMJ, CMJarm, SJ, and DJ respectively. 2.3.4. Sprinting and Repeated Sprint Tests Each player stood ~70 cm behind the start line and then performed a 30 m sprinting test (with 5–10 and 20 m splits). The player performed three trials separated by 2 min of passive resting for this test. The RSA test involved 6 repetitions of maximal2 15 m shuttle sprints (~6 s) departing every 20 s [24]. The player performed starting from a split-stance standing and sprinted for 15 m, changed the direction at 180 , and sprinted back to the nish line. The players were asked to alternate legs between sprints to minimize imbalances between lower limbs and the risk of injury. Times in these tests were measured using photocells (Newtest Powertimer 300-series, Newtest Oy, Tyrnävä, Finland). The ICC was 0.96 and 0.94 in the 30 m sprinting test and RSA, respectively. 2.3.5. Technical Skill Tests The technical skills were assessed by CD, PS, and SS in the present study. The CD consists of running with ball-handling skills. Each player started with dribbling and covered a total distance of 17.9 m while passing the cones and changing hands [25]. In the PS test, the players were instructed to perform 2-handed chest passes

2.3.5. Technical Skill Tests The technical skills were assessed by CD, PS, and SS in the present study. The CD consists of running with ball-handling skills. Each player started with dribbling and covered a total distance of 17.9 m while passing the cones and changing hands [25]. In the PS test, the players were instructed to perform 2-handed chest passes behind a line placed 2.45 m from the rst and sixth target on the wall, while side-shuf ing during the 30 s. Passes were executed in the following sequence order: A-B-C-D-E-F-F-E-D-C-B-A-A-B- . . .during the test. Two points were given when the ball hit the target or targets' border, while the players were awarded one point when the ball touched the spaces between targets [26]. In the SS test, the players were instructed to shoot, starting behind any of the 5 different positions approximately 4.54 m from the basket, following getting their rebound and immediately dribbling to another position during the 60 s. They were also instructed to attempt at least 1 shot from each position. The players were allowed to attempt a maximum of 4 lay-ups during each trial, but these could not be performed in succession. In total, 2 and 1 points were given for each successful and unsuccessful shot, respectively [26]. The ICC was 0.93, 0.95, and 0.94 in CD, PS, and SS, respectively. 2.3.6. 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test The 30-15 IFT, which consists of a 30-s run and 15-s passive rest on a standardized indoor basketball court, is an acoustically progressive eld test. Each player performed the 30-15 IFT to determine players' individual high-intensity intermittent running performance with changes of direction. The players were instructed to complete as many stages as possible during the test. The test ended when a player could no longer maintain the imposed running speed or when a player was unable to reach a 3 m zone around each line at the moment of the audio signal 3 times consecutively. The running speed during the last successfully completed stage was recorded as velocity obtained in the intermittent tness test (VIFT) [27]. 2.3.7.

test ended when a player could no longer maintain the imposed running speed or when a player was unable to reach a 3 m zone around each line at the moment of the audio signal 3 times consecutively. The running speed during the last successfully completed stage was recorded as velocity obtained in the intermittent tness test (VIFT) [27]. 2.3.7. Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Level 1 Test To evaluate aerobic capacity, the YYIRT-1 was performed according to procedures described by Bangsbo et al. [28]. Brie y, the test consisted of 20 m shuttle runs with an

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 2931 5 of 11 increasing velocity during the test. After the test, the estimated VO2maxwas calculated using the following formula VO2max= 36.4 + (0.0084 covered distance in YYIRT-1) Except for YYIRT-1, 30-15 IFT, and RSA tests, two trials were given, and the better score was used for statistical analysis. All players were familiar with all tests used in this study and were verbally encouraged by their team coach to exert maximal efforts during the testing and training sessions. All tests and training were performed on an indoor basketball court with a sprung wooden oor at a similar time of the day for similar chronobiological characteristics [18]. 2.4. Training Interventions The 6-week study was conducted during the preparation period. Each daily training session started with a 10-min standardized warm-up consisting of jogging, dynamic stretch- ing, and sprinting with the integration of basketball-speci c technical actions. Following the warm-up, the players performed either SSGs or a HIIT session with the same amount of total training time during each training session. To minimize the adverse effects of fatigue on psychological, physiological, and performance responses, each training intervention was performed by at least 2 days interval. The players performed intermittent running at 90–95% of players' VIFT or 15 s, followed by 15 s of passive resting in the HIIT sessions around a standard athletics track. Meanwhile, players in SSGs performed full-court 2-a-side SSGs (one of the most popular basketball-speci c game strategies), lasting for 10 and 18 min per training session, with 2 min passive resting between bouts of 2-a-side SSGs, were also performed because the players showed similar exercise intensity (>85% of their individual HRmax) to the running-based HIIT exercises in young basketball players [29,30]. Each team in SSGs was selected by their coach to avoid having unbalanced groups, especially in regard to physical tness and technical abilities, and these teams remained stable during the study. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was obtained using the category ratio scale (CR-10) to calculate internal training load (ITL) immediately after the completion of each session [31]. The scale was

The study compares SSGs and HIIT training effects on young basketball players' performance.