Efeito dos métodos de treinamento com distância fixa e distância progressiva no desempenho do lance livre no basquetebol

• Autor(a) principal: Lima, Gisele Santos
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFS
• Texto Completo: https://ri.ufs.br/jspui/handle/riufs/18393
• topic: Educação física; Basquetebol; Desempenho; Lance livre (Basquetebol); Treinamento; Variabilidade do movimento; Basketball; Free throw; Training; Performance; Movement variability; CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::EDUCACAO FISICA

Introduction: The free throw (FT) is one of the easiest shots performed during basketball matches because it does not have any type of marking, has a fixed distance and a specified time for completion. Success in the FT is a determining factor for victories, especially in matches played away from home and balanced games. Despite that, professional and amateur players have average hits below 70%. Biomechanical and kinetic factors are related to a good technique for successful FT execution, however the traditional way used in training does not seem to be the most efficient for this purpose. Objective: to analyze the effectiveness of the training method with progressive distance and fixed distance in improving the performance and variability of the FT movement in basketball. Methodology: The present study included 10 college athletes (age: 20.3±2.2 years; body mass: 77.1±15.8 kg; height: 174±10 cm) who are part of the women's and men's basketball teams at Federal University of Sergipe. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: progressive training (PROG) and traditional training (TRAD). The athletes were laterally filmed performing five throws with six marked anatomical points, for movement analysis, and then performed 100 throws in 10 x 10 blocks, with a 3- minute rest between each block, for performance analysis. During the intervention month, the TRAD group performed 50 shots from the official FT line and the PROG group distributed in three stations, the first station at half the distance from the FT line to the center of the hoop (1.48 meters), the second station at ¾ of that distance (2.74 meters), and finally, at the regulation free throw line (4.45 meters). The groups were retested immediately at the end of the intervention and one month later to observe retention. Performance was analyzed using a 6-point scale and movement variability with Kinovea® software. The comparison of performance, expressed as mean ± standard deviation, was performed using ANOVA 2x3 and Sidak's post hoc. Magnitude-based inference with t-test, and Kruskal Walis. Analysis of angular and backspin variation by coefficient of variability, comparing groups with two-way ANOVA and Friedman's test. Results: Performance showed no differences between groups (p = 0.814), time of measurement (p = 0.382) or interaction of factors (p = 0.510) when analyzed according to the 6-point scale. However, effect size and magnitude-based inference revealed slight advantages for the TRAD group, with an almost five-fold increase. The elbow angle showed a decrease in variability (p < 0.005) in the preparation phase of the throw for the TRAD group for the Pre and retention periods, and for the inertia phase in both groups when observing the effect size. Conclusion: the progressive distance method did not improve performance or decrease the athletes' joint variability. None of the methods contributed to biomechanical stability, increased ball backspin, or better learning retention.