以穿戴式裝置探討不同專項位置籃球員與訓練情境之運動負荷

Exploring basketball load in positional difference and training scenario by wearable device

緒論：穿戴式裝置常被用來監測籃球員之運動負荷，提供科學數據，避免訓練過量以預防運動傷害發生。然而籃球位置與訓練方式多元，需更進一步探討。目的：比較不同專項位置籃球運動員在不同訓練情境下外在負荷與內在負荷。方法：招募19名男性大專甲組籃球員（12名後場球員、7名前場球員），球員在不同訓練情境 （3對3、5對5）配戴慣性感測器及心率帶，外在負荷以慣性感測器所測量的數據經過計算轉換成PlayerLoad（PL）與不同動作方向之外在負荷值。內在負荷則透過心率帶擷取運動時的平均心跳、最大心跳及利用區段訓練衝量法（summated heart rate zone, SHRZ）進行運算，另比較內外在負荷整合指標SHRZ：PL。內外在負荷各變項以專項位置（後場、前場）與訓練情境（3對3、5對5）進行混合設計二因子變異數分析統計考驗。結果：後場組PlayerLoad（PL）顯著大於前場組（205.1 ± 34.4 AU ＞ 175.29 ± 31.89 AU），垂直方向動作負荷顯著大於前場組（108.1 ± 18.4AU ＞ 92.4 ± 15.4AU），額狀面動作負荷顯著大於前場組（162.1 ± 24.7 AU ＞140.8 ± 24.7 AU）。平均心跳、最大心跳與SHRZ在專項位置與訓練情境均未達顯著水準。專項位置前場組的SHRZ: PL顯著大於後場組（0.17 ± 0.07 AU ＞ 0.12 ± 0.03 AU），訓練情境3對3的SHRZ: PL顯著大於5對5（0.15 ± 0.06AU ＞ 0.13 ± 0.05 AU）。結論：後場球員PlayerLoad（PL）、垂直方向、額狀面負荷較前場球員高，顯示不同專項位置的特性。前場球員的SHRZ：PL大於後場球員，3對3SHRZ：PL大於5對5，提供籃球專項化訓練及訓練情境安排方針。最後，內外在負荷整合指標可能可以更了解運動負荷特性，利於運動負荷之監測，未來可利用於籃球專項訓練上，讓訓練時負荷量的監控能更能符合實際場上的負荷水準。

Introduction: Wearable devices have commonly been used to detect basketball load, providing objective data, and preventing injuries. However, basketball involves different player positions with a variety of training scenarios, which may impact basketball load. This study aimed to explore external and internal load over different basketball player positions and training scenarios. Methods: Nineteen male division one university basketball players (twelve backcourt, seven frontcourt) wore inertial measurement units and heart rate belts in different training scenarios (3 vs. 3 players or 5 vs. 5). External load data from the inertial measurement units were transformed into Player Load (PL) and movement direction. Internal load data from the heart rate belts were transformed into mean heart rate, peak heart rate, and summated heart rate zones (SHRZ). An integrated measure was calculated as SHRZ:PL. A mixed-design two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was adopted to analyze different player positions and training scenarios. Results: The PL of the backcourt players was significantly greater than frontcourt players (205.1 ± 34.4 AU ＞ 175.29 ± 31.89 AU; p = .049). The PL of the backcourt players was significantly greater than that of frontcourt players in the vertical direction (108.1 ± 18.4AU ＞ 92.4 ± 15.4 AU; p = .035) and frontal plane (162.1 ± 24.7 AU ＞ 140.8 ± 24.7 AU; p = .043). There was no significant difference in mean heart rate, peak heart rate, or SHRZ. The ratio of SHRZ:PL was significantly higher during the 3 vs. 3 than the 5 vs. 5 scenario (0.15 ± 0.06 AU ＞ 0.13 ± 0.05 AU; p = .034), and frontcourt players' SHRZ:PL was significantly higher than backcourt players (0.17 ± 0.07 AU ＞ 0.12 ± 0.03 AU; p = .045). Conclusion: There was a consistent significant difference between player positions, with greater PL vertical direction and frontal plane in backcourt players, and higher SHRZ:PL in frontcourt players. The training scenario also had an impact, with the 3 vs. 3 scenario producing higher SHRZ:PL. These results provide a training guideline for basketball position-specific training and exercise intensity. The integrated measure may offer a more comprehensive observation about basketball load for future management of basketball load.