ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify, describe and synthesize the skill tests used in wheelchair basketball. METHOD: A systematic review was carried out in the databases: PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of science and Google Scholar from inception to January 2021 with up to date in January 2022. the eligibility criteria used were Inclusion: (i) evaluation of wheelchair basketball athletes; (ii) using skill tests (defined as agility, speed, ball maneuverability, slalom, etc.) and (iii) papers needed to be written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. Exclusion: (i) papers with poor description of the test methodology, (ii) participants not classified as wheelchair basketball athletes (less than one year of practice) and (iii) Participants were not people without disabilities. RESULTS: Our main findings were: a) the most explored skills were pass and speed, and the most frequent test was the pass tests and sprint tests, b) Strong associations were found between sports classes and performance in field tests, c) The most used tests for each skill were: pass = pass accuracy and maximum pass; speed = 20m sprint test with and without the ball; agility = slalom test; dribbling = obstacle dribbling tests and throw = free throw and spot shot. CONCLUSION: The most explored skills were passing and speed, and to evaluate these skills we highlight the two-handed chest pass test, 20m sprint test with ball and the WMP test. The use of specific tests can facilitate the creation of reference standards and possible comparison of athletes and, thus, enable better training conditions, aiming to meet the specific demands of each athlete and team.
Subject(s)
Basketball , Para-Athletes , Wheelchairs , Humans , Athletes , HandABSTRACT
Introduction: Body composition assessment in cervical spinal cord injury (c-SCI) individuals is important to monitor the fat free-mass (FFM) loss, due to immobilization, or gain, due to exercise practice. Single frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SF-BIA) is low in cost, simple and easy. Objectives: The aims of this study are: to evaluate the concordance between the FFM values obtained using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and the three SF-BIA previous predictive equations; and to test the applicability of the bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA). Methods: Twenty-three c-SCI males were divided into two groups: Physically active (PA; n = 13; at least 150 min/week) and non-active individuals (NPA) and were assessed by DXA and SF-BIA simultaneously. Results: FFM values were similar between groups PA and NPA. Considering all participants, FFM values obtained by Kocina and Heyward (>11%) and Sun (<15.4%) predictive equations were different when compared to DXA (p < 0.01). However, Buchholz's et al. predictive equation showed FFM values similar to DXA, but presented poor concordance (<7%, p = 0.99; concordance coefficient = 0.85). BIVA showed consistency in ellipse distribution using FFM obtained using Buchholz et al. predictive equation. Conclusions: The use of non-specific BIA equations can lead to misinterpretation in FFM values in male c-SCI individuals. Predictive equations for this group need to be developed.
ABSTRACT
This systematic review aimed to identify nutritional interventions and supplements that improve the performance for wheelchair athletes. Intervention trials involving high-performance wheelchair athletes were analyzed, including those that comprised a nutritional intervention, defined as any intervention related to food, beverages, and supplementation aiming at evaluating the performance of wheelchair athletes. Of the included studies, four evaluated caffeine supplementation, of which one also evaluated sodium citrate supplementation; two studies evaluated vitamin D supplementation; one study assessed creatine monohydrate supplementation; and one assessed carbohydrate supplementation. Most studies were conducted on athletes with spinal cord injury. Athletes who consumed caffeine exhibited an improvement in performance, but this finding is not strong enough to become a recommendation.
