©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2006) 5, 163-170

http://www.jssm.org

Young investigator
Research article

LONG TERM EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TRAINING

MODALITIES ON POWER, SPEED, SKILL AND ANAEROBIC

CAPACITY IN YOUNG MALE BASKETBALL PLAYERS

Mindaugas Balčiūnas 1, Stanislovas Stonkus 1, Catarina Abrantes 2

and Jaime

Sampaio 2
1
Department of Sport Games, Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education, Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Sport Sciences Department, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

Received: 18 April 2005 / Accepted: 27 January 2006 / Published (online): 01 March 2006

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of 4 months of different training modalities on power,
speed, skill and anaerobic capacity in 15-16 year old male basketball players. Thirty five Lithuanian
basketball players were randomly assigned into three groups: power endurance group (intermittent
exercise, PE, n = 12), general endurance group (continuous exercise, GE, n = 11) and control group
(regular basketball training, CG, n = 12). The power endurance model was based in basketball game
external structure whereas the general endurance model was based in continuous actions that frequently
occur during the basketball game. The training models were used for 16 weeks in sessions conducted 3
times a week during 90 minutes each in the competition period. The following tests were performed: 20
m speed run, Squat jump, Countermovement jump, Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST), 2
min. shooting test and the Shuttle ball-dribbling test. A 3×2 repeated measures ANOVA revealed no
statistically significant differences in the 20 m speed run, Squat jump and Countermovement jump (p >
0.05). On the other hand, RAST showed significant increases in PE, with greater increases during the 5th
and 6th runs. The PE training model also produced a significant improvement in the shuttle ball-dribbling
test (48.7±1.5 in the pretest, 45.5±1.3 in the posttest, p ≤ 0.05). Globally, our results suggest that both
training modalities were able to maintain initial values of speed and power, however, the anaerobic
capacity and skill increased only in the players from the power endurance group. Therefore, the power
endurance training (intermittent high intensity exercise) may be more beneficial to prepare junior players
according to the game cardiovascular and metabolic specific determinants.

KEY WORDS: Basketball, endurance, training modelling, young players.

INTRODUCTION success (Gillam, 1985; Taylor, 2003; 2004).

Basketball requires tremendous endurance, speed,
The importance of developing good conditioning agility, and power (Siegler et al., 2003). At the elite
programs based on the specific physiological level, research has identified the intermittent high-
demands of each sport is considered a key factor to intensity exercise as predominant and fitness
164 Training modalities in basketball

improvements to this activity pattern have further or perform less than 50-60 high-intensity jumps. At
been defined as power endurance (Siegler et al., the youth level, training models have traditionally
2003; Thomas, 2000; Trinič et al., 2001). focused on increasing general endurance, but no
In elite basketball games, available time attention has been given to intermittent high-
motion analysis research shows that adult athletes intensity training, an aspect so crucial in basketball
performed per game 105 high-intensity bouts (85% (Sampaio et al., 2004; Siegler et al., 2003).
maximum heart rate, HR) while covering a distance Therefore, it seems clear that the physical
of 991m (in high-intensity) executing 50-60 changes fitness of basketball players and, consequently,
in speed and direction and 40-60 maximal jumps game performance can be influenced by these two
(Janeira and Maia, 1998; McInnes et al., 1995). different training approaches and that no literature is
Additionally, McInnes et al. (1995) have reported available to report these training modalities chronic
mean heart rates of 169±9 bpm (89±2% from peak effects. Thus, the purpose of this study was to
HR) and verified that 75% of playing time was spent identify the effect of 16 weeks of power endurance
with a HR response greater than 85% peak HR. On and general endurance training in power, speed, skill
the other hand, Apostolidis et al. (2003) described and anaerobic capacity of junior basketball players.
the physiological characteristics of 30 high-level
junior players and concluded that VO2max and METHODS
anaerobic power values were moderate and the
ventilatory threshold was relatively high. These Subjects
authors also found statistical significant correlations Thirty five Lithuanian basketball players from 15-16
between the mean power output calculated in the years of age were randomly assigned into three
Wingate test and several technical tests (control groups: power endurance group (PE, n = 12),
dribble, speed dribble, high intensity shuttle run, general endurance group (GE, n = 11) and control
shuttle run and dribble). Thus, it seems clear that the group (CG, n = 12). All the players had the same
physiological requirements of men's senior and experience in sports (PE = 7.1 ± 0.4 years; GE = 7.2
junior elite basketball are high, placing considerable ± 0.9 years; CG = 7.1 ± 0.6 years), were of similar
demands on the cardiovascular and metabolic height (PE= 1.82 ± 0.08 m; GE = 1.81 ± 0.05 m; CG
response of players to intermittent exercise. = 1.85 ± 0.06 m) and weight (PE = 75.4 ± 6.2 kg;
One question that remains unknown in the GE = 73.2 ± 5.1 kg; CG = 77.1 ± 8.4 kg). The
literature is the structure of training models and their training models were used for 16 weeks in sessions
chronic impact in players’ physical fitness. In fact, conducted 3 times a week during 90 minutes each.
in order to meet the specificity principle of training, Approval was obtained from the Internal Review
it seems that basketball training models should be Board for research at the University of Vilnius
based on competition physiological determinants (Lithuania) and informed consent was given by the
(Gillam, 1985; Taylor, 2003; 2004) and, basketball players and their parents.
practices should prepare players to respond
adequately to these requirements. We did not find Training models
any study conducted on this particular topic; PE – Power endurance (intermittent exercise)
however, available time-motion research (McInnes This training model is based on a basketball game
et al., 1995; Taylor, 2003) can lead us to two external structure and actual game conditions heart
different approaches in basketball training rate values. The basic workload structure was the
modelling. In the first, coaches could use a training following: basketball technical and tactical actions
model based on power endurance (PE) in which during 4×15 min. periods; mean heart rate 160–170
players will perform their actions within the b/min; 3 passive pauses (2×2 min and 1×15 min,
basketball game external structure (e.g., 4×15 min. Figure 1). In the first part of the training, the main
of intermittent exercise), their heart rate indexes goal was directed to the improvement of ball passing
(e.g., mean heart rate 160–170 beats per min.) and (15 min), the second part to ball dribbling (15 min),
their recovery (e.g., 3 passive pauses 2×2 min. and and the third part to ball shooting (15 min). Each
1×15 min.). In the second, coaches could use a exercise had the approximate duration of 45 – 55 s
training model based on general endurance (GE) in with 15 – 25 s pauses and was repeated 6 times. The
which players will perform continuously the actions fourth part of the training was directed to the
that frequently occur during the basketball game improvement of team tactics (5x5 full-court game).
meaning, for example, that they will never perform Short pauses (2x2 min) were used for free-throw
high-intensity drills more than 10-15 seconds, run shooting and a long pause (15 min) was used by the
farther than 20 meters without a change of direction coach to explain tactical work.
 Balciunas et al. 165

Figure 1. Variation of heart rate values during the power endurance practice sessions.

GE – General endurance (continuous exercise) During this training period the coaches planned the
This training model is based on time motion analysis workouts with regular basketball skills, drills and
data. The drills are planned and performed game periods according to the program usually
continuously using situations which generally occurs applied by the Lithuanian basketball schools. In this
during the basketball competition, i.e., athletes will program, coaches are advised to plan the following
never perform high-intensity drills more then 10-15 typical parts of the training sessions: warming up
sec., run farther than 20 m. without a change of (up to 20 min.); exercises for the improvement of
direction, perform less than 50-60 high-intensity individual technical actions (up to 40 min., ball
jumps (McInnes, 1995). The main focus was on dribble for 10 min., shooting for 20 min. and passing
active defence during the exercises and the drills for 10 min.); tactical training (up to 30 min.).
have been chosen from the most usual basketball
game situation, e.g., plays 1×1; 2×2, 3×3. The Testing
training sessions consisted of 6 exercises repeated 15 Subjects had all the same type of training in the pre-
times; with an approximate duration of 10 – 15 s and season (during 4 weeks). Then, the training models
15 s pauses. Each exercise lasted for approximately were applied on the two experimental groups during
10 min. for a 60 min. total time (Figure 2). The main 16 weeks in the competition period (see Table 1).
goals of these exercises were the improvement of The average training time intended for endurance
ball passing, dribbling and shooting. Short active development was similar in all groups (PE = 56.8
pauses of 10 free-throws were done between min GE 52.8 min and CG = 57.4 min).
exercises. The remaining 30 min. of the training Field testing was performed at the same hours
session were accounted to tactical work (5x5 full- in the same indoor terrain for the pretest and for the
court game). posttest. By the same order, players were tested for
vertical jump, speed and anaerobic capacity in the
CG – Regular basketball training following tests: a) 20 m speed run, two infrared

Figure 2. Variation of heart rate values during the general endurance practice sessions.
166 Training modalities in basketball

Table 1. Description of training models (PE = power endurance, GE =

general endurance, CG = control group) general characteristics.
Training variables PE GE CG
Training days 96 95 93
Resting days 22 24 24
Practices overall 68 68 64
Days of training modelling 50 47 0
Days of game overall 28 27 29
Average intensity (%HRmax) 78 54 48
General physical training (h) 24 24 21
Specific physical and technical training (h) 87 86 83
Tactical training (h) 34 33 36
Total ( h) 145 143 140

photoelectric cells (Newtest Powertimer, Finland) minimum power)/ total time for 6 sprints (s). Test
were positioned at exactly on and 20 m from the reliability was high (r = 0.90). c) 2 min. shooting test
starting line at a height of 1 m. The subject had to (see Figure 3a); In the official basketball court, the
start from a standing position placing his forward subject were shooting from the 2 points distance
foot 70 cm before the first infrared photoelectric (middle and long distance) for 2 minutes. After each
cell. The timing started as soon as the body of the attempt they ran backwards to the mid-court and the
player crossed the infrared beam of first ball was passed to the shooter by another player
photoelectric cell and ended when the player crossed standing under the basket. The number of attempts
the beam of the second photoelectric cell. Before and made shots were recorded. The rates of this test
testing, each subject performed a submaximal sprint are informative in estimating the sensomotory
to familiarize himself with the test procedure. Test capabilities of the player, the stability of shooting
reliability was high (r = 0.88). b) Running-based along with the ability to readjust to the situation in
Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST), It has been shown the game (given the quite intensive physical load
that this test can replace the Wingate test as an and the manifestation of certain fatigue). Test
estimate of anaerobic power and capacity reliability was high (r = 0.85). d) Shuttle ball-
(Zacharogiannis et al., 2004). Each athlete was dribbling test (see Figure 3b), subjects covered an
weighed prior to the test and warmed up for a period overall distance of 212.4 m. Performance time was
of five minutes which was followed by a three determined with photoelectric cells as previously
minute recovery. The test consists of six times 35m described and the better of two trials was registered.
discontinuous sprints. Each sprint represents a Test reliability was high (r = 0.91).
maximal effort with 10 seconds allowed between Power measurement was evaluated with two
each sprint for the turnaround. Power output and protocols: a) Squat jump; The subjects performed a
fatigue indexes were calculated by the following maximal vertical jump with their hands on the waist,
equations: 1) Power: weight (kg) x distance (m2)/ starting from an angle of 90º at the knee; b)
time (s3); 2) Fatigue Index: (maximum power – Countermovement jump; Subjects performed a

Figure 3. Illustration of the protocol for the (a) 2 minutes shooting test and the (b) high intensity shuttle ball-
dribbling test.
 Balciunas et al. 167

Table 2. Changes in speed, skill and power for the different training modalities. Values are means (SD).
Variables PE GE CG
20 m speed run (s)
Pre-test 2.96 (.09) 3.10 (.07) 3.10 (.09)
Pos-test 3.02 (.08) 3.02 (.08) 3.06 (.08)
Squat jump (cm)
Pre-test 43.68 (4.14) 41.65 (5.74) 40.39 (4.12)
Pos-test 44.76 (4.46) 43.34 (5.80) 40.60 (4.52)
Abalakov test (cm)
Pre-test 50.10 (3.73) 51.18 (3.89) 50.21 (4.40)
Pos-test 54.67 (3.39) 51.14 (1.60) 49.08 (4.38)
Shuttle ball-dribbling test (s)
Pre-test 48.7 (2.20) * 47.2 (2.55) 48.5 (3.44)
Pos-test 45.5 (2.31) 45.9 (2.44) 47.9 (3.02)
Number of attempted shoots in 2 min
Pre-test 16.3 (1.20) 15.6 (1.44) * 14.4 (2.01)
Pos-test 16.7 (1.22) 17.4 (1.52) 15.4 (2.22)
Number of successful shoots in 2 min
Pre-test 7.1 (.14) 6.3 (1.00) 5.6 (.55)
Pos-test 7.9 (.17) 7.5 (.82) 6.9 (1.12)
* p ≤ 0.05. PE = power endurance, GE = general endurance, CG = control group.

maximal vertical jump starting from a standing (125 and 144 W, p ≤ 0.001). The PE had a mean
position with arm swing allowed. All jumps were (±SD) working capacity of 457 ± 53 W before the
performed on the Ergojump (Globus Inc., Italy) that experiment and 565±48 W after the experiment. No
recorded the flight time of all jumps. The flight time statistically significant differences were observed in
was used to calculate the change in the height of the GE (Figure 4b) and CG (Figure 4c).
body’s centre of gravity (Bosco et al., 1983). Results from RAST test fatigue index
Subjects performed three trials in each protocol and followed the same tendency (see Figure 4d). The
the best of them was used in the analysis. Test average indexes of PE changed statistically
reliability was high for both tests (respectively, r = significantly (p ≤ 0.05) from 7.0 ± 1.3 scores to 5.4
0.97 and r = 0.95). ± 0.8 scores.
In the 2 minutes shooting test the average
Data analysis number of attempted shots of GE improved
For statistical analysis, a 3 (PE, GE, CG) × 2 significantly from 15.8 to 17.2. In the remaining
(pretest, postest) repeated measures ANOVA was groups, no differences were observed either for
carried out using group and trial as factors (between attempts or made shots.
and within factors, respectively). A Tukey post-hoc Finally, results from PE in the shuttle ball-
test was used to identify differences between groups dribbling test improved significantly (p ≤ 0.05). No
and trials. All data undergoing ANOVA were tested statistically significant differences were observed in
for assumptions of normality, homogeneity of GE and CG.
variance and covariance matrices and sphericity.
Neither assumption was violated. Statistical DISCUSSION
significance was set at 5%.
The main purpose of this study was to identify the
RESULTS effects of two basketball training models in players’
power index, speed, skill and anaerobic capacity.
Results from the 20 m speed run, Squat jump and Our results suggest that both training modalities
Countermovement jump did not changed were able to maintain initial values of speed and
significantly after the end of the training modelling power, however, the anaerobic capacity and skill
period (p > 0.05, Table 2). increased only in the players from the power
On the other hand, power endurance training endurance group.
(PE) significantly increased the subjects’ anaerobic Training loads have an important effect on an
capacity. These differences could be observed in athlete's performance and can be a determinant
Figure 4a by the RAST test results. The greatest factor in achieving success. Therefore the ultimate
differences were noticed during the 5th and 6th runs goal of training modelling is to optimize
168 Training modalities in basketball

800 800

700
* * Pretest Postest 700 Pretest Postest
*
Power (W)

**

Power (W)
600
* ** 600

500 500

400
PE 400
GE
300
a 300 b
200 200
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Repetitions Repetitions
800
8

700
* Pretest Postest
Pretest Postest

RAST fatigue index

7
Power (W)

600
6
500
5
400 CG

300
CG 4
PE GE

c
200 3 d
1 2 3 4 5 6
Repetitions

Figure 4. Changes in the RAST test for the different training modalities (a = power endurance – PE; b =
general endurance – GE; c = control group – CG; d – fatigue index). *p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.001.

performance (Kuipers, 1996; Taylor, 2003). demonstrate that PE training model not only better
Designing research-based basketball training exemplifies the external structure of basketball but
protocols for young players is difficult, because also develops the aerobic and anaerobic component
there are no validated sport-specific measures to of the players. In fact, the metabolic requirements of
evaluate adolescent basketball-specific training. the basketball game are both aerobic and anaerobic
Additionally, our main concern was to identify the (Giliam, 1985; Stone and Steingard, 1993). Despite
changes not in the preseason but in the competition the role that each one of these energy systems plays
period. This way coaches could also have a precise is not completely understood, it is however
idea on how the players adapt to this training model consensual that the primary energy system used in
along with the strong loads imposed by the anaerobic metabolism (Hoffman and Maresh,
competitions. 2000; Hoffman et al., 2000).
Therefore, our results seem to place an The statistically significant differences
emphasis on the importance of simulating obtained in the RAST test and in the Shuttle ball-
physiological requirements, while at the same time dribbling test are the main focus of our results.
honouring the external structure of a basketball These tests identified differences in anaerobic
game. From an overall analysis, it is clear that the 4 capacity because training modelling in PE was based
months of training modelling have produced on basketball game external structure and simulation
different adaptations on players’ physical fitness. of game intensity through heart rate. The same did
Our data support the notion that the anaerobic not happen in GE or in CG, i.e., players submitted to
capacity and probably game performance were most general endurance training and regular basketball
likely result of the performed training models, with training failed to improve results in the performed
PE showing significant improvements, whereas no anaerobic capacity tests. In fact, evidence supports
improvements were detected in the GE and or in the that extensive aerobic training decreases power
CG. Also, it is probable that subjects from PE could endurance performance when interfering with gains
be less fatigued throughout the competitions, and in lean muscle mass, strength and power (Dudley
could show a better level of fitness throughout the and Fleck, 1987; Hickson, 1980; Taylor, 2004).
season (Hoffman et al., 2000). Our overall results From our results, the greatest differences between
 Balciunas et al. 169

general endurance and power endurance training REFERENCES

effects were noticed during the 5th and 6th runs of
the RAST test. Abrantes, C., Maçãs, V. and Sampaio, J. (2004) Variation
Anaerobic performance is mainly determined in football players’ sprint test performance across
by fibre type proportion and glycolytic enzyme different ages and levels of competition. Journal of
capacity of skeletal muscle which are very Sports Science and Medicine 3 (YISI 1), 44-49.
Apostolidis, N., Nassis, G., Bolatoglou, T. and Geladas,
influenced by genetic factors, however there is
N. (2003) Physiological and technical
always a training potential to be considered. The characteristics of elite young basketball players.
anaerobic trainability increases with age (from Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness 43,
childhood to adulthood with greater increases during 157-163.
puberty) and also with the increase in glycolytic Bosco, C., Luhtanen, P. and Komi. P. (1983) A simple
enzyme activity (particularly phosphofructokinase) method for measurement of mechanical power in
triggered by training (Fournier et al., 1982). jumping. European Journal Applied Physiology
Abrantes et al. (2004) compared the repeated sprint Occupational Physiology 50, 273-82.
ability on six different groups of football players and Brittenham, G. (1996) Complete Conditioning for
verified that sub-16 young players were already able Basketball. Human Kinetics, Champaign.
Dudley, G. and Fleck, S. (1987) Strength and endurance
to perform very close to professional senior players,
training: are they mutually exclusive? Sports
confirming the high trainability of anaerobic Medicine 4, 79-85.
pathways for energy turnover at these ages. Fournier, M., Ricci, J., Taylor, A., Ferguson, R.,
On the other hand, it could be argued that 16 Monpetit, R. and Chaitman, B. (1982) Skeletal
weeks of training modelling based on power muscle adaptation in adolescent boys: sprint and
endurance could have a diminished effect on power endurance training and detraining. Medicine and
or speed performance. Our results, however did not Science for Sports and Exercise 14, 453-456.
detect any changes in these performances. Gillam, G (1985) Physiological basis of basketball
Additionally, PE speed results (2.96-3.02 s, bioenergetics. NSCA Journal 6, 44-71.
p > 0.05) correspond to very good results, when Hickson, R. (1980) Interference of strength development
by simultaneously training for strength and
comparing them with results from elite basketball
endurance. European Journal Applied Physiology
players’ (Brittenham, 1996). 56, 255-263.
The results of this study should be viewed in Hoffman, J. and Maresh, C. (2000) Physiology of
the context of the analysed sample (very experienced basketball. In: Exercise and Sport Science. Ed:
junior basketball players). Further research on the Garrett, W. and Kirkendall, D. Philadelphia,
chronic effects of power endurance training in Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins. 733-744.
younger players is needed. However, the Hoffman, J., Epstein, S., Einbinder, M. and Weinstein, Y.
implementation of a basketball specific intermittent, (2000) A Comparison between the Wingate
high-intensity exercise program (power endurance) anaerobic power test to both vertical jump and line
during the competitive season appears to be drill tests in basketball players. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 3, 261-264.
beneficial to prepare junior players according to the
Janeira, M. and Maia, J. (1998) Game intensity in
game cardiovascular and metabolic specific basketball. An interactionist view linking time-
determinants. In fact, this type of training seems to motion analysis, lactate concentration and heart
be better suited for basketball players because it rate. Coaching & Sport Science 2, 26-30.
exactly simulates the external structure of the sport Kuipers, H. (1996) How much is too much? Performance
and because extrinsic motivation is enhanced during aspects of overtraining. Research Quarterly for
PE practice. Exercise and Sport 67, 65-69.
McInnes, S., Carlson, J., Jones, C. and McKenna,
M. (1995) The physiological loads imposed on
CONCLUSIONS
basketball players during competition. Journal of
Sports Sciences 5, 387-397.
Our results suggest that both training modalities Sampaio, J., Ibáñez, S. and Feu, S. (2004) Discriminative
were able to maintain initial values of speed and power of basketball game-related statistics by level
power, however, the anaerobic capacity and skill of competition and sex. Perceptual and Motor
increased only in the players from the power Skills 99, 1231-1238.
endurance group. Therefore, the power endurance Siegler, J., Gaskill, S. and Ruby, B. (2003) Changes
training (intermittent high intensity exercise) may be evaluated in soccer-specific power endurance
more beneficial to prepare junior players according either with or without a 10-week, in-season,
intermittent, high-intensity training protocol.
to the game cardiovascular and metabolic specific
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2,
determinants. 379-387.
170 Training modalities in basketball

Stone, W. and Steingard, P. (1993) Year- round Jaime SAMPAIO

conditioning for basketball. Clinics in Sport Employment
Medicine 2, 173-191. Assoc. Prof., Sport Sciences
Taylor, J. (2003) Basketball: applying time motion data to Department, University of Trás-os-
conditioning. Strength and Conditioning Journal 2, Montes e Alto Douro at Vila Real.
57-64. Degrees
Taylor, J. (2004) A tactical metabolic training model for MSc, PhD
collegiate basketball. Strength and Conditioning Research interest
Journal 5, 22-29. Monitoring training status and
Thomas, R. (2000) A conditioning program to increase performance
vertical jump. Strength and Conditioning Journal E-mail: [email protected]
2, 7-11.
Trinic, S., Markovic, G. and Heimer, S. (2001) Effects of
developmental training of basketball cadets
realised in the competitive period. Collegium KEY POINTS
Antropologicum 2, 591-604.
Zacharogiannis, E., Paradisis, G. and Tziortzis, S. (2004)
An evaluation of tests of anaerobic power and • Power endurance training produced significant
capacity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise increases in anaerobic capacity during the
36 (suppl. 5), S116. competition period.
• Power endurance training did not have a
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY detrimental effect on power or speed
Mindaugas BALCIUNAS performance during the competition period.
Employment • The greatest differences between general
Lector, Sport Games Department, endurance and power endurance training were
Lithuanian Academy of Physical noticed during the 5th and 6th runs of the
Education at Kaunas. RAST test.
Degrees
MSc, PhD student
Research interest
Jaime Sampaio
Monitoring training status and
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Quinta de
performance in team sports
Prados Ap. 202, 5001-911 Vila Real, Portugal.
E-mail: [email protected]
Stanislovas STONKUS
Employment
Prof., Sport Games Department,
Lithuanian Academy of Physical
Education at Kaunas.
Degrees
MSc, PhD
Research interests
Time motion analysis and playing
activity
E-mail: [email protected]
Catarina ABRANTES
Employment
Assistant Professor of Exercise
Physiology at the Sport Sciences
Department, University of Trás-os-
Montes e Alto Douro at Vila Real.
Degrees
MSc, PhD student
Research interest
Exercise Physiology, Sports
Performance
E-mail: [email protected]