Introduction/Objective The rapid growth of 3×3 basketball as an Olympic discipline has raised questions regarding its differences from traditional 5×5 basketball. Although previous research has examined physiological and performance characteristics, coaches’ perspectives remain underexplored. This study investigated coaches’ perceptions of differences between 3×3 and 5×5 basketball in terms of physical conditioning, training structure, tactical approaches, and psychological demands. Methods A qualitative design was employed using semi-structured interviews with eleven experienced basketball coaches involved in 3×3 competitions. Twelve open-ended questions explored coaching practices, training priorities, and perceptions of both formats. Data were analyzed through Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers, with disagreements resolved through consensus. Results Three themes emerged, namely physical conditioning, training structure and tactics, and psychological factors. Coaches described 3×3 as emphasizing speed, explosiveness, rapid transitions, individual technical skills, frequent pick-and-roll situations, and faster decision-making under time pressure. Conversely, 5×5 was perceived as requiring greater endurance, strength, structured team organization, coordinated offensive systems, and more complex defensive strategies. While both formats were considered competitive and entertaining, 3×3 involved greater individual responsibility and cognitive demands, whereas 5×5 emphasized teamwork and collective tactical execution. Discussion The findings indicate that 3×3 represents a distinct performance environment rather than merely a reduced version of 5×5 basketball. Conclusion Recognizing these differences may help coaches develop format-specific training programs and better prepare athletes for the physical, tactical, and psychological demands of each game.
Introduction Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) is increasingly applied beyond rehabilitation to athletic performance training, yet direct evidence in athletes is limited and scattered across clinical and non-athlete literature. Methods In this narrative review, literature published mainly between 2015 and 2025 was identified by a single author through non-systematic, iterative searches of PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar and by reference-list checking, without fixed search strings or formal screening. Sources were classified as direct PNF evidence in athletes or physically active individuals, direct PNF evidence in clinical populations, or indirect evidence from the broader neuromuscular training, motor learning, and rehabilitation literature. Results Fourteen PNF-specific sources were identified, including three primary studies in athletes. Direct evidence was most consistent for range of motion. Findings for strength, power, and agility were mixed: in athletes, PNF was not superior to other stretching methods, and one systematic review reported acute performance decrements after PNF stretching. Clinical studies ( e.g ., stroke, low back pain) reported improvements in pain, balance, and gait, but these cannot be generalized to athletes. No PNF study measured injury incidence, return-to-sport outcomes, or markers of neuroplasticity. Discussion PNF may be viewed as a component of broader neuromuscular training rather than solely as a stretching technique. Its links to injury-related factors, motor learning, and neuroplasticity are potential mechanisms inferred from indirect evidence rather than established outcomes. Conclusion Direct evidence for PNF is currently most consistent for range of motion; effects on performance are mixed, and effects on injury risk and neuroplasticity in athletes remain hypothetical. Randomized trials using standardized PNF protocols in clearly defined populations of athletes are needed.
Introduction Team-sport athletes compete across diverse thermal environments that can alter physiological, neuromuscular, cognitive, and perceptual responses. Because intermittent match play is shaped by pacing, tactics, substitutions, position, and recovery opportunities, evidence from continuous exercise cannot be directly extrapolated to team sports. This review summarizes the effects of hot and cold environments and evaluates practical mitigation strategies. Methods A structured search of PubMed, Web of Science, and ResearchGate identified English-language original studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and position statements addressing environmental stress, physiological responses, performance, athlete safety, and mitigation strategies relevant to team sports. Results Exposure to heat increases cardiovascular and perceptual strain, dehydration, neuromuscular fatigue, and cognitive impairment, although match-performance effects vary with humidity, environmental severity, acclimatization, pacing, tactical behaviour, and competition demands. Cold exposure may impair muscle function, agility, dexterity, and cognitive performance and may increase the risk of dehydration, particularly during periods of inactivity, substitutions, and exposure to windy or wet conditions. Heat acclimation, individualized hydration, and appropriately timed cooling have the strongest practical support, whereas hyperhydration remains context-dependent. In cold conditions, layered clothing, optimized warm-up and re-warm-up, hydration, nutrition, and protection for substitute players are recommended, although team-sport-specific evidence is limited. Discussion Environmental effects on team-sport performance are context-dependent and reflect interactions among climatic, physiological, behavioural, and sport-specific factors; laboratory findings should therefore be translated cautiously to competition. Conclusion Environmental stress should be integrated into preparation, monitoring, medical management, and tactical planning using individualized, sport-specific, multidisciplinary strategies to preserve performance and reduce health risks.
IntroductionApproximately 240,000 people drown annually worldwide. The benefits of programs of long-distance swimming in the sea are important for children. However, due to safety concerns, fewer schools are implementing the programs. A better system for monitoring heart rate that enables the detection of physiological abnormalities and improves the safety of long-distance swimming is needed. In this feasibility study, a system was developed for an open-water setting. Furthermore, we explored acute stress responses using Virtual Reality (VR) as a potential screening tool. Methods40 healthy subjects (28 males, 12 females; age: 18 ± 0.4 years) were timed in the 400m breaststroke, and their peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) was measured; heart rate was monitored during long-distance swimming in the sea. Furthermore, cardiac autonomic nerve activity was measured during swimming VR exposure. ResultsA significant correlation was observed between heart rate during long-distance swimming in the sea and the 400m breaststroke time (r = 0.46, p < 0.01), but not at peak VO2 (r = -0.10, n.s.). A rapid increase in a subject's heart rate was observed immediately before fitting the buoyancy device. Sympathetic activity after VR exposure was significantly higher than before exposure (p < 0.05). DiscussionHeart rate during long-distance swimming depends on swimming ability, not maximum aerobic fitness. Monitoring early heart rate spikes could assist in detecting physiological abnormalities. Furthermore, acute stress responses during VR exposure offer a safe screening method for collecting near-miss data in simulated environments. ConclusionReal-time heart rate monitoring showed a relationship between swimming ability and heart rate in the sea. The swimming VR exposure demonstrated potential as an exploratory method for safe risk assessment, though its clinical value requires further validation.
IntroductionA baseball bat swing is an explosive action completed within approximately 150–200 ms. Given this extremely short execution time, it is reasonable to assume that athletes with a higher Rate of Force Development (RFD) may be capable of producing faster swings. Despite this assumption, limited research has examined the relationship between bat swing speed and RFD, and few studies have specifically investigated how RFD measured during bench press movements relates to bat swing speed. MethodsThis study investigated the association between bat swing speed during tee batting and Maximum RFD obtained from bench press movements in 50 male collegiate baseball players (age: 20.1 ± 1.0 years; height: 173.2 ± 4.5 cm; body mass: 74.1 ± 7.4 kg). ResultsBat swing speed showed significant positive correlations with Maximum RFD under absolute load conditions of 20, 30, and 50 kg. When estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM) was controlled for using partial correlation analysis, a significant relationship remained only at the 20 kg load. In addition, the strongest association with bat swing speed (r = 0.50) was identified at relative load levels corresponding to 20–29% of estimated 1RM. Players who recorded bat swing speeds of at least 100 km/h produced greater Maximum RFD values than their counterparts with slower swings, particularly under loads between 20 and 60 kg. DiscussionMaximum RFD measured under relatively light loading conditions showed a close association with bat swing speed. Players with faster swings generally displayed a greater capacity for explosive force production, particularly within light to moderate load ranges. ConclusionResistance training has traditionally focused on maximum strength (1RM). However, evaluating and improving Maximum RFD is equally important when developing training programs for sports that demand rapid and explosive actions.
