751
Basketball / Re: mile time
« on: June 11, 2012, 10:59:01 am »
TLDR: A guy who can run aerobically for 20-40 minutes at game pace (not including fast breaks and the like) is fitter than someone who can't and has to go quickly into and stay in an aerobic state during a game.
I agree with you that specialising in running a great mile might not do much for a basketball player. But i'm more interested in finding a good test for aerobic fitness for a basketball player.
The simple answer to your question is no. A couple things you should get:
1) A basketball game is NOT sustained. The average nba games last about two and half hours. If an NBA runs on average 5 miles per game, then for the entire course of the game he is averaging 32 minutes per mile. This includes timeouts, commercials, half time, free throws, out of bounds, substitutions for rest, etc, etc. While running a basketball game is much more challenging than covering 5 miles at a 32min pace, the point is it's not an easy distribution to simulate with some running drill. That's why intervals are better but still not great at building/predicting basketball specific fitness. Consider that when an NBA returns from sustained time off, even if not injured his minutes are limited and ramped up slowly so he can build up his basketball specific fitness base. Despite NBA players having some of the greatest training there is, there is just not a great substitute for the fitness required to play basketball and virtually all players have to "play there way into shape" to some degree.
2) Second, you are not understanding the differences and overlaps between energy systems. Great aerobic shape does not allow you to keep the "OFF" switch on the anerobic energy system. At the beginning of a middle distance race (ie. 400m, 800m, etc) your body begins by using the quickest energy system possible. The body doesn't say "Oh I'm running an 800m let me leave this free ATP in the cell and go start using my aerobic capacity". At the beginning of activity the body will begin to use free ATP, creatine phosphate and other quick energy pathways. After these are used up the body will start to get energy from aerobic respiration and glycolysis. If a lot of energy is needed glycolysis will dominate and the body will produce lactate which will cause the athlete to "hit the wall or tighten up". If a lot of energy is not needed the body will primarily be using aerobic pathways which produce much much more ATP and will last a lot longer. If you ever sprint the knowledge of these pathways is very important, they are why you run the 400m in the following way:
First 5-7 seconds: 95-100 effort because free energy is burned no matter what
Back stretch and most of turn: 90 percent effort (anything over would put you in glycolysis and cause u to fail)
Last 80-150m: Full effort (might as well go into glycolysis because you are almost done)
Understand that these are not huge differences in effort, but they make a huge difference in a race. These slight differences in effort are what make a good 400m runner vs a bad one. For example, I am currently a sub 11 100m runner but a very poor 400m runner. A training partner I have is a decent 400m runner but a poor 100 m runner (11.6). He can beat me in the 400m because he can stay aerobic at about 91% effort while I have to run closer to 88%. It's a small difference.
But on a repeatable event like 400m around a circular track he wins everytime. Unfortunately a basketball game isn't repeatable. You don't know how much to save or know how much you will need or when the lulls and breaks will come. Additionally, during the "easy" parts of the game, being at 80% is probably good enough, and everyone can do this. The advantage goes to the guy who can jump higher and move faster when it's called upon. That's demonstrated in this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18545206