Application of Functional Training on Physical Fitness in Basketball

Abstract

Introduction: Basketball is a predominant competitive sport among the masses. Its practice requires scoring as many points as possible within a specific time limit, manifesting a short-duration, high-intensity intermittent training session. To meet the sport's requirements, the athlete must have ample directional control, rapid changes in speed, and good jumping ability. Objective: Verify the effects of functional training on basketball players aiming to improve explosive power, stability, and agility. Methods: 18 college basketball players were randomly selected as volunteers for the investigation. They were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. Only to the experimental one was functional physical training added during routine training. The trial lasted for eight weeks. All participants were tested for agility, strength, speed, endurance, power, and cartilage repair before and after the experiment. Finally, a comprehensive statistical data analysis was performed. Results: There were significant differences between the experimental group and the control group in push-ups, 3200-meter run, physical acuity detection, 17 sidelines, and running items, and touch height (P<0.05). In the experimental group, there was no significant difference in high school grades (P>0.05). There was significant statistical significance in the supine project, the 3200-meter athletics project, the 17 sideline projects, and the touchdown project (P<0.05). Conclusion: The physical fitness of the experimental group improved significantly after functional physical training. After routine physical training, the control group athletes had significantly positive absolute strength and endurance results. Overall, functional fitness training is superior to conventional fitness training. Level of evidence II; Therapeutic studies - investigation of treatment outcomes.

The effects of functional training on physical fitness and skill-related performance among basketball players: a systematic review

“…Two authors independently assessed the quality of the 11 studies according to the “Qualsyst”, and the Kappa statistic was 0.876. Four of the 11 selected studies were of high quality ( Hovsepian et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ). The remaining seven studies were of moderate quality ( Hany, 2017 ; Chen, 2018 ; Lukose, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Wibowo et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ).…”

“… (2) Sex. Six studies investigated males ( Hany, 2017 ; Lukose, 2018 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Wibowo et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ), one study investigated females ( Hovsepian et al, 2021 ), with four studies not reporting the sex of players ( Chen, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ); (3) Level. Four studies investigated professional basketball players ( Hany, 2017 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ), four studies investigated collegiate basketball students ( Chen, 2018 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ), with three studies not reporting the level for players ( Lukose, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ).…”

“…(2) Sex. Six studies investigated males ( Hany, 2017 ; Lukose, 2018 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Wibowo et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ), one study investigated females ( Hovsepian et al, 2021 ), with four studies not reporting the sex of players ( Chen, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 );…”

“…(3) Level. Four studies investigated professional basketball players ( Hany, 2017 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ), four studies investigated collegiate basketball students ( Chen, 2018 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ), with three studies not reporting the level for players ( Lukose, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ).…”

“… (2) Training duration: Only two studies specified the training duration of the intervention, which were 21 min ( Wibowo et al, 2020 ) and 30 min ( Ding, 2022 ) per session. The remaining nine studies did not provide this detail ( Hany, 2017 ; Chen, 2018 ; Lukose, 2018 ; Zuo, 2018 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Hovsepian et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ; Shang et al, 2023 ). (3) Training frequency: Seven studies detailed the training frequency of the intervention ( Hany, 2017 ; Usgu et al, 2020 ; Wibowo et al, 2020 ; Bhardwaj and Kathayat, 2021 ; Hovsepian et al, 2021 ; Ding, 2022 ; Shang et al, 2023 ), which varied from 2 to 4 times per week.…”