Sports Med
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0794-z
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The Activity Demands and Physiological Responses Encountered
During Basketball Match-Play: A Systematic Review
Emilija Stojanović1 • Nenad Stojiljković1 • Aaron T. Scanlan2 • Vincent J. Dalbo2,3
Daniel M. Berkelmans3 • Zoran Milanović1
Ó Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract
Background Basketball is a popular, court-based team
sport that has been extensively studied over the last decade.
Objective The purpose of this article was to provide a
systematic review regarding the activity demands and
physiological responses experienced during basketball
match-play according to playing period, playing position,
playing level, geographical location, and sex.
Methods An electronic database search of relevant articles
published prior to 30 September 2016 was performed with
PubMed, MEDLINE, ERIC, Google Scholar, SCIndex, and
& Zoran Milanović
zoooro_85@yahoo.com
1
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Niš,
Čarnojevićeva 10a, 18000 Nis, Serbia
2
Human Exercise and Training Laboratory, Central
Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia
3
School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central
Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia
•
ScienceDirect. Studies that measured activity demands
and/or physiological responses during basketball match-
play were included.
Results Following screening, 25 articles remained for
review. During live playing time across 40-min matches,
male and female basketball players travel 5–6 km at
average physiological intensities above lactate threshold
and 85% of maximal heart rate (HR). Temporal compar-
isons show a reduction in vigorous activities in the fourth
quarter, likely contributing to lower blood lactate concen-
trations and HR responses evident towards the end of
matches. Guards tend to perform a higher percentage of
live playing time sprinting and performing high-intensity
shuffling compared with forwards and centers. Guards also
perform less standing and walking during match-play
compared with forwards and centers. Variations in activity
demands likely account for the higher blood lactate con-
centrations and HR responses observed for guards com-
pared with forwards and centers. Furthermore, higher-level
players perform a greater intermittent workload than lower-
level players. Moreover, geographical differences may
exist in the activity demands (distance and frequency) and
physiological responses between Australian, African, and
European basketball players, whereby Australian players
sustain greater workloads. While activity demands and
physiological data vary across playing positions, playing
levels, and geographical locations, male and female players
competing at the same level experience similar demands.
Conclusion The current results provide a detailed
description of the specific requirements placed on basket-
ball players during match-play according to playing period,
playing level, playing position, geographical location, and
sex, which may be useful in the development of individ-
ualized basketball training drills.
123

Key Points
During live playing time across 40-min matches,
male and female basketball players travel 5–6 km at
average physiological intensities above lactate
threshold and 85% of maximal heart rate (HRmax).
Decreases in activity demands and reliance on rapid
glycolysis for energy provision are evident towards
the end of basketball matches, likely underpinned by
fatigue-related mechanisms and tactical strategies,
which increase stoppage time.
The results strongly suggest that different playing
levels and playing positions influence the activity
demands and physiological responses experienced by
basketball players during match-play, whereby
guards and higher-level players sustain greater
workloads than forwards, centers, and lower-level
players at the same positions.
Comparisons according to geographical location are
difficult to conduct given the lack of direct evidence;
however, the available data suggest that Australian
competitions might impose higher physical demands
than European and African competitions.
Although the physical and physiological
requirements for male basketball players are higher
than those for female players across a match, it
appears they experience similar demands at the same
playing level.
1 Introduction
Basketball is an intermittent, court-based team sport [1]
involving repeated transitions between offence and defence
and frequent changes in movements [2]. During basketball
match-play, periods of high-intensity activity are inter-
spersed with periods of low- to moderate-intensity activi-
ties. These activities differ in terms of movement pattern
(e.g. running, jumping, shuffling), intensity, distance, fre-
quency, and duration. Throughout a basketball match,
jumps occur approximately every minute [3, 4], which is
greater than other team sports. In addition, basketball
players undergo extensive sprinting and high-intensity
shuffling activity [3, 4], which emphasizes the need to
perform regular maximal efforts during match-play. Recent
studies [3, 5] have observed a higher activity frequency and
intensity with greater intermittent demands than originally
123
E. Stojanović et al.
reported during basketball match-play [2]. Variations
between current studies and those conducted before the
year 2000 might be partly attributed to rule changes
implemented in international basketball match-play. These
rule changes involved shortening the offensive time to
attempt a shot after gaining possession (from 30 to 24 s)
and reducing the time allotted to cross the half-court line
after gaining possession (from 10 to 8 s) [3]. It is important
to acknowledge these changes when collating evidence
from the existing research, which spans across multiple
decades. Nevertheless, many studies have quantified the
activity demands of basketball match-play to better
understand the movement patterns and external loading
placed on players [2–14], predominantly using time-motion
analysis techniques.
The original technique used for time motion analysis in
basketball was the cartographical method, where player
movements are drawn onto a coordinate map of the court
with the resultant distances traveled then being estimated
[15]. A previous narrative review by Ziv and Lidor [16]
was based on research [2, 3, 11] using the cartographical
method for estimating activity demands in basketball.
Despite providing useful information, the cartographical
method is based on a subjective visual prediction of the
intensity and load of the activities [15]. Thus, there is a
need for an updated systematic review using more objec-
tive techniques such as radio wave technology, semi-au-
tomated and automated video tracking systems, and micro-
technologies. The progress of new technologies may pro-
vide precise time motion data in ‘real time’, which may
potentially reduce analysis time and errors in comparison
to manual tracking systems reliant on video playback.
In addition to the aforementioned activity requirements,
an understanding of the physiological responses is impor-
tant to comprehend the overall stress imposed on basketball
players during match-play. Historically, blood lactate
concentration and heart rate (HR) have been frequently
measured as physiological responses in basketball players
during match-play [2, 3, 5–12, 17–22]. Elevated blood
lactate concentrations suggest rapid glycolysis makes an
important contribution to player energy requirements [2],
while HR responses provide an indirect indication of the
utilisation of aerobic energy sources.
A plethora of studies examining the activity demands
and physiological responses of basketball players during
match-play have been published since the only available
review conducted in 2009 [16]. Consequently, an updated
systematic analysis of the literature is needed for the fol-
lowing reasons. (1) The previous review [16] did not
analyze activity demands relative to playing period (match
quarter), playing position, playing level, or geographical
location due to a lack of available data. However, with an
increase in the number of available studies
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
[4–10, 13, 18, 20–29] separate analyses considering these
factors can be made that provide important practical
applications for implementation by basketball coaches,
athletic trainers, strength and conditioning practitioners,
and sport scientists. (2) Important indicators of the load
imposed on players, such as distance, have only been
measured in recent studies [4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 23, 24] and thus
warrant consideration in a systematic analysis. (3) Given
the increased research attention given to female basketball
in recent years [5, 10, 13, 23, 26, 27] an updated review is
needed to include studies performed on female players. (4)
Our review encompasses more recent research reports of
the physiological responses experienced during basketball
match-play, potentially allowing for more precise devel-
opment of optimal training approaches to achieve desired
performance in current players. In this context, the purpose
of the present study was to provide a systematic review of
evidence pertaining to the activity demands and physio-
logical responses experienced during basketball match-play
according to playing period, playing position, playing
level, geographical location, and sex.
2 Methods
2.1 Search Strategy
The electronic database searches of relevant articles pub-
lished prior to 30 September 2016 were performed with the
use of PubMed, MEDLINE, ERIC, Google Scholar,
SCIndex, and ScienceDirect. The following search terms
were used: ‘basketball’, ‘physiology of basketball’, ‘blood
lactate concentration’, ‘heart rate’, ‘time-motion analysis’,
‘physiological demands’, ‘requirements’, ‘workload during
basketball match’, ‘physical load’, ‘basketball players’
movement’, ‘activity demands’, and ‘intensity’. Reference
lists of included articles were scanned to identify additional
relevant studies. Any disagreements were resolved by
consensus between two investigators or arbitration by a
third investigator.
One investigator conducted electronic searches, identi-
fied relevant studies, and extracted data in an unblended,
standardized manner. The database search was limited to
peer-reviewed journal articles published in English. A
systematic review of the available literature was under-
taken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines [30] (Fig. 1).
2.2 Inclusion Criteria
This review included cross-sectional and longitudinal
studies written in English. Study participants included
healthy, amateur, professional, junior, senior, male, and
female basketball players. To be included in this systematic
review, player measurements were required to be taken
during official and non-official matches. Articles were
included if (1) distance, frequency, or duration of various
activities were measured; and/or (2) blood lactate con-
centration or HR were measured. All included studies were
deemed to have suitable ethical approval by a relevant
review board.
2.3 Exclusion Criteria
Studies were excluded if (1) they included wheelchair
basketball players; (2) included older individuals
([ 50 years); (3) administered simulated basketball activ-
ity; (4) involved measurements being taken during training
conditions or modified ball drills; (5) were conference
abstracts; or (6) the experimental design was inadequate
(activity categories were not defined).
2.4 Data Extraction
The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review
Group’s data extraction protocol was used to extract the
following information: participant data, including sex and
sample size; description of the competition (playing level
and geographical location); comparison groups; and study
outcomes. Positional classifications were retrieved from
previous articles whereby authors defined the following
groups: guards (point guards and shooting guards), for-
wards (small forwards and power forwards), centers
[3, 12, 17, 21, 22, 29], backcourt players (point guards and
shooting guards), and frontcourt players (small forwards,
power forwards, and centers) [4, 5, 13]. Extracted match
activity outcome measures were defined and classified into
the following categories:
1. Standing/walking Activity of no greater intensity
than walking. No distinction was made between
standing still and walking or between different
intensities of walking. Stand/walk also included
those instances when players were in a defensive
stance but not moving [2, 3, 6, 9–11, 26–29]; mul-
tidirectional movement performed at a velocity of
0–1 m
s-1, when not in a defensive stance
[4, 5, 13, 31]; \ 1.67 m
s-1 [7].
2. Jogging or low-speed running (forwards and back-
wards) at an intensity greater than walking but
without urgency [2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26, 28, 29]; multi-
directional movement performed at velocities of
1.1–3.0 m
s-1, when not in a defensive stance
[4, 5, 13]; 1–3 m
s-1 [31]; * 1.68–3.3 m
s-1
[7]; \ 1.67 m
s-1 [27].
123
 E. Stojanović et al.

Identification
Records identified through database Additional records identified
searching through other sources
(n =781) (n = 14)

Records total for screening

(n =795)
Screening

Records after duplicates Records excluded after

removed (n =753) abstract review (n = 694)

Full-text articles assessed Full-text studies excluded

Eligibility

for eligibility (n =34):

(n = 59) • Older participants (>50
years) (n=1)
• Simulated basketball
used (n=1)
Studies included in • Training conditions used
quantitative synthesis (n=4)
(systematic review) • Inadequate study design
(n = 25) (n=28)
Included

Included study contents:

• Activity distance (n = 8)
• Activity frequency (n = 13)
• Activity duration (n = 10)
• Blood lactate concentration (n = 9)
• Heart rate (n =17)

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram displaying the identification, screening, and selection of relevant studies in this systematic review [24]. PRISMA
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

3. Running or moderate-speed running Forwards or 5. Sprinting or maximal-speed running Forward move-

backwards movement at an intensity greater than
jogging and a moderate degree of urgency, not
approaching an intense level of movement
[2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26, 28, 29]; multidirectional running
with consecutive movements, including single sup-
port and float phases and without double support
phases [11]; multidirectional movement performed at
velocities of 3.1–7 m
s-1, when not in a defensive
stance [4, 5]; 3–5 m
s-1 [31]; * 3.4–5 m
s-1 [7];
1.67–2.5 m
s-1 [27].
4. Striding or high-speed running [ 5 m
s-1 [31];
* 5.01–6.66 m
s-1 [7].
ment at a high intensity characterized by effort and
purpose at or close to maximum [2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26,
28, 29]; multidirectional movement performed at
velocities of [ 7.0 m
s-1, when not in a defensive
stance [4, 5, 13]; [ 6.66 m
s-1 [7]; [ 2.5 m
s-1
[27].
6. Low-intensity shuffling Movement generally in a
sideways or backward direction using a shuffling
action of the feet. The movement was without
urgency and characterized by a slow rate of foot
movement and an erect posture [2, 3, 6, 9, 10,
26, 28, 29]; any multidirectional movement

123
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
performed strictly in a defensive stance position at a
velocity of B 2.0 m
s-1 [4, 5, 13]; any foot action
that differed from ordinary walking or running, such
as roll, reverse, and crossover run at veloci-
ties \ 1.67 m
s-1 [7, 27].
7. Moderate-intensity shuffling Shuffling at a medium
intensity with a moderate degree of urgency, char-
acterized by a moderate rate of foot movement and
usually an erect posture, but not approaching an
intense level of shuffling-type movement
[2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26, 28, 29]; any foot action that
differed from ordinary walking or running, such as
roll, reverse, and crossover run at velocities of
1.67–2.5 m
s-1 [27]; * 1.68–2.5 m
s-1 [7].
8. High-intensity shuffling Shuffling at a high intensity
characterized by effort and urgency with rapid foot
movement, usually while in a squat position. Ground
may not have been covered during the shuffle as the
feet may have been shuffling rapidly on the spot or
transferring weight from side to side
[2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26, 28, 29]; any multidirectional
movement performed strictly in a defensive stance
position at velocities [ 2.0 m
s-1 [4, 5, 13]; any foot
action that differed from ordinary walking or run-
ning, such as roll, reverse, and crossover run at
velocities [ 2.5 m
s-1 [7, 27].
9. Jumping movements The time from the initiation of
the jumping action to the completion of landing
[2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26–29]; any movement or activity
whereby a player initiates a jumping action and
breaks feet contact with the playing surface [4, 5, 31];
players spring into the air using one- or two-leg take-
off [11].
10. Changing direction [26, 31].
11. Dribbling Any movement in which a player is
actively in possession of and dribbling the ball in
any direction [4, 5, 13].
12. Upper body movements Any upper body action that
involves the raising of one or both arms above the
horizontal. These movements were analyzed inde-
pendently and simultaneously with other movements,
apart from shuffling and dribbling activity [4, 5, 13].
13. Sideways running [ 3.33 m
s-1 [7].
14. Passes Any pass made by a player [27].
15. Static exertion Screening/picking and positioning
[6, 26, 27].
Blood lactate concentration and HR outcome measures
were extracted into quarters, halves, and entire matches.
Data extraction was undertaken by one investigator, with
multiple investigators checking data for accuracy and
completeness. Disagreements were resolved by consensus
between investigators. The investigators were not blinded
to authors, institutions, or article journals.
3 Results
3.1 Study Selection
In total, 781 articles were retrieved from the database
search and an additional 14 articles were identified through
reference lists. We excluded 42 articles due to duplication,
694 articles after abstract review, and 34 articles after full-
text examination. At the end of the screening procedure, 25
articles remained for the systematic review (activity dis-
tance, n = 8; activity frequency, n = 13; activity duration,
n = 10; blood lactate concentration, n = 9; heart rate,
n = 17) (Fig. 1).
3.2 Study Outcomes
3.2.1 Activity Distance
The available distance data for male and female basketball
players during entire matches is shown in Table 1, with
data relative to playing period shown in Table 2. Distance
traveled during entire basketball matches ranged from 4404
to 7558 m. Despite the wide range, the mean distance in
most studies was 5–6 km across 40-min matches during
live playing time. Only two studies [7, 23] presented rel-
ative (m
min-1) and absolute (m) distance data inclusive of
stoppages in play (free-throw positioning and out-of-
bounds). In contrast, two studies [4, 13] only measured
distance data during live playing time across quarters (fe-
male: 4 9 10 min, or male: 4 9 12 min), excluding match
stoppages, while, in three other studies [5, 8, 24], total
stoppage time was not considered to prohibit calculation of
relative distance data. It is important to distinguish between
live (excluding match stoppages) and total (including
match stoppages) playing time as distance traveled has
been shown to differ between these approaches
(5215 ± 314 m vs. 7039 ± 446 m) [5]. Two of three
studies [7, 21] did not observe statistically significant
(p [ 0.05) differences in distance covered between playing
periods (Table 2).
When comparing distance data regarding playing posi-
tions, results are inconsistent. Hůlka et al. [8] reported that
point guards traveled significantly (p \ 0.001) more dis-
tance than forwards and centers, while Oba and Okuda [23]
observed that point guards and centers covered shorter
distances than shooting guards, small forwards, and power
forwards. In contrast, Scanlan et al. [4, 5, 13] reported
backcourt players (point guards and shooting guards)
covered greater distances than frontcourt players (forwards
123
 Table 1 Distance covered performing various types of activity according to playing position, playing level, geographical location, and sex during basketball match-play
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Activity category (m) Total

123
groups
Stand/walk Jog Run Sprint Sideways Low Moderate High Dribble Absolute Relative
movement shuffle shuffle shuffle (m) (m
min-1)
and stride

Janeira and National Championship/ All players 1838 ± NR 1905 ± NR 478 ± NR 734 ± NR 4955 ± NR
Maia [31] Portugal/M/30
Erčulj et al. National Championship/ All players 4404 ± 354 110.1 ± 9
[24] Slovenia/M/23
Oba and High-school Championship/ Team A 5606 ± 190 93.7 ± 3
Okuda [23] Japan/F Team B 5568 ± 170 93.1 ± 3
Collegiate Championship/Japan/ Team C 5600 ± 243 100.8 ± 4
F Team D 5553 ± 176 100.0 ± 4
National Basketball League/ Team E 6231 ± 177 95.2 ± 3
Japan/F Team F 6122 ± 344 93.3 ± 4
Ben National Championship/Tunisia/ All players 1720 ± 143 1870 ± 322 928 ± 162 763 ± 169 218 ± 117 606 ± 182 691 ± 236 169 ± 54 7558 ± 575 114.5 ± 9
Abdelkrim M/18 406 ± 109
et al. [7]
Scanlan et al. National Basketball League and PG, SG 363 ± 4a 2142 ± 70a 2845 ± 16a 70 ± 26a 81 ± 2 122 ± 1 767 ± 28a 6390 ± 48 133.1 ± 1
[4] State Basketball League/ (pro)
Australia/M/10 PG, SG 495 ± 28a 1723 ± 87 1926 ± 268a 952 ± 321 80 ± 10 189 ± 172 1004 ± 72 6369 ± 928 133.1 ± 19
(semi-pro)
SF, PF, C 435 ± 23a 2208 ± 15a 3125 ± 57 94 ± 9a 77 ± 22a 160 ± 40 131 ± 2 6230 ± 26 129.8 ± 1
(pro)
SF, PF, C 586 ± 45 1804 ± 89 2112 ± 7 1329 ± 235 52 ± 7 45 ± 10 106 ± 43 6034 ± 321 125.7 ± 7
(semi-pro)
Scanlan et al. State Basketball League/ PG, SG; SF, 410 ± 9a 1558 ± 80 1744 ± 52a 857 ± 163 75 ± 14 61 ± 8 738 ± 64a 5443 ± 238 136 ± 6
[5] Australia/F/12 PF, C 485 ± 27 1491 ± 89 1924 ± 26 970 ± 226 68 ± 34 51 ± 22 76 ± 41 5064 ± 348 126.6 ± 9
All players 456 ± 20 1517 ± 93 1850 ± 13 925 ± 184 70 ± 19 55 ± 14 342 ± 44 5215 ± 314 130.4 ± 8
Hůlka et al. National Championship U18/ PG 6635 ± 221a
[8] Czech Republic/M/32 SF 6016 ± 448
C 5225 ± 659
All players 5880 ± 831
Scanlan et al. State Basketball League/ PG, SG (M) 408 ± 24 1424 ± 68 1584 ± 152 780 ± 220 60 ± 8 176 ± 132 832 ± 100 5288 ± 400 132.2 ± 10
[13] Australia/M and F/12 and 12 PG, SG (F); 404 ± 4 1532 ± 68 1720 ± 48 844 ± 12 76 ± 12 60 ± 8 728 ± 80 5364 ± 236 134.1 ± 7
SF, PF, C 484 ± 16 1492 ± 8 1752 ± 136 1096 ± 144 40 ± 8 32 ± 8 88 ± 32 4976 ± 80 124.4 ± 2
(M)
SF, PF, C 480 ± 16 1472 ± 36 1900 ± 88 956 ± 188 68 ± 36 44 ± 16 76 ± 36 4996 ± 200 124.9 ± 5
(F)
All players 456 ± 12 1464 ± 28 1684 ± 68 968 ± 172 48 ± 8 88 ± 48 388 ± 28a 5100 ± 208 128.5 ± 5
(M)
All players 448 ± 8 1496 ± 48 1828 ± 56a 908 ± 176 72 ± 24 48 ± 12 336 ± 12 5140 ± 212 127.5 ± 5
(F)

PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, NR not reported, U under, pro professional players, semi-pro semi-professional players
a
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between comparison groups
E. Stojanović et al.
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
and centers). Moreover, playing-level comparisons reveal
professional and semi-professional players covered similar
total distances, although significant differences (p \ 0.05)
were reported for specific activity categories (professional
vs. semi-professional, backcourt: 363 vs. 495 m standing/
walking, 2142 vs. 1723 m jogging, 2845 vs. 1926 m run-
ning, 70 vs. 952 m sprinting, 767 vs. 1004 m dribbling;
frontcourt: 435 vs. 586 m standing/walking, 2208 vs.
1804 m jogging, 94 vs. 1329 m sprinting, 77 vs. 52 m low
shuffling) [4]. Similar to professional and semi-profes-
sional players, the activity demands experienced by college
and high-school players were comparable across all activ-
ity categories [23].
According to geographical location, longer relative
distances were performed by Australian professional and
semi-professional players compared with Slovenian male
players, Japanese high-school, college, and professional
female players, and elite Tunisian male junior players
(Table 1). To the contrary, when reviewing past studies
relative to player sex, there were no significant differences
in the estimation of activity distance during live playing
time across observational studies (male: 110.1–132.2
m
min-1 vs. female: 124.9–136 m
min-1) (Table 1). In
addition, no significant differences (p [ 0.05) were repor-
ted in overall distance activity between sexes at the same
level of competition, although females completed greater
running distances, while male players completed greater
dribbling distances [13].
3.2.2 Activity Frequency
The frequency of each activity type performed during male
and female basketball match-play is shown in Table 3, with
data relative to playing period shown in Table 2. Relative
activity frequencies (
min-1) varied between 21.2 and 56.9
movements
min-1 across studies. Only two studies [5, 29]
presented activity frequency relative to playing period,
while a third study [10] used a graphical presentation. No
statistically significant differences (p [ 0.05) in activity
frequency between quarters were observed [5, 10, 29].
The available data relative to playing position show that
guards (1103–1146 movements) perform a higher number
of movements than forwards and centers (907–1026
movements) [2, 3]. Furthermore, higher playing levels
impose greater intermittent workloads (international vs.
national: 1105 ± 74 vs. 1004 ± 27 movements; profes-
sional vs. semi-professional backcourt: 56.9 vs. 39.8
movements
min-1; frontcourt: 57.3 vs. 42.0 move-
ments
min-1) [4, 6]. Geographical comparisons reveal that
Australian semi-professional female players (43.7–44.1
movements
min-1) experience greater relative intermittent
demands than Italian and Spanish elite (23.4 and 24.1
movements
min-1), as well as collegiate and sub-elite
female players from the UK (19.1 and 21.2 move-
ments
min-1) [5, 13, 26–28]. Furthermore, recent investi-
gations confirmed that Australian male players
(professional backcourt: 56.9 movements
min-1; semi-
professional backcourt: 39.8 movements
min-1; profes-
sional frontcourt: 57.3 movements
min-1; semi-profes-
sional frontcourt: 42.0 movements
min-1) performed more
relative movements per match compared with elite junior
Tunisian players (all junior: 29.7 movements
min-1;
international junior players: 31.7 movements
min-1;
national junior players: 28.0 movements
min-1)
[3, 4, 6, 13]. Other studies investigated samples of Aus-
tralian players but comparable data were not reported
[2, 9]. Existing data demonstrate higher occurrence of
movement changes in male compared with female bas-
ketball players. More precisely, male and female players
have been observed to undergo 576–1764 and 758–2749
movements per match, respectively (Table 3). Although
sex differences might exist in activity frequencies during
basketball match-play, direct comparisons did not detect
significant differences in the overall intermittent demands
between sexes [11, 13]. In addition, no significant sex
differences were detected for frequencies in any types of
activities performed during match-play [11, 13].
3.2.3 Activity Duration
The proportion of live playing time spent performing dif-
ferent types of activity during male and female basketball
match-play is shown in Table 4, with data relative to
playing period shown in Table 2. Different proportions of
playing time spent performing various types of activity
during match-play were reported (standing/walking:
23.4–66.3%; jogging: 5.6–36.3%; running: 4.5–33.2%;
sprinting: 0.3–8.5%; low-intensity shuffling: 2.1–14.7%;
moderate-intensity shuffling: 6.5–19.8%; high-intensity
shuffling: 0.4–9.3%; jumping: 0.6–2.3%; dribbling:
1.2–10.6%) (Table 4). Data relative to playing periods
showed a significant decrease (p \ 0.001) in the time
involved in intense activities in the last quarter [3].
Moreover, the time spent in high-intensity activities during
the first quarter was longer than in all other quarters [6],
which led to a significant rise in duration spent performing
low-intensity activities such as standing, walking, and
jogging during the second half [7].
Positional comparisons demonstrated guards performed
more high-intensity activities than forwards and centers
(5.9 vs. 5.4% and 4.5% sprinting; 9.3 vs. 9.2% and 7.9%
high-intensity shuffling, respectively) [3]. In addition,
guards were significantly (p \ 0.05) less involved in
standing/walking (31.0 vs. 38.8%) than forwards and cen-
ters [5]. Furthermore, significant differences (p \ 0.05)
were evident between professional and semi-professional
123
 Table 2 Total activity distance, frequency, and duration relative to playing period during basketball match-play
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Playing period

123
groups/type of activity
First quarter Second quarter Third quarter Fourth quarter First half Second half

Total distance covered (m)

Oba and Okuda [23] High-School Championship High-school A 1440 ± 57 1465 ± 50 1393 ± 93 1309 ± 67
Collegiate Championship High-school B 1417 ± 43 1449 ± 36 1365 ± 74 1337 ± 63
National Basketball University C 1373 ± 58 1387 ± 75 1462 ± 57 1378 ± 69
League/Japan/F University D 1367 ± 43 1384 ± 85 1433 ± 50 1369 ± 57
National E 1550 ± 72 1486 ± 61 1438 ± 90 1758 ± 28
National F 1501 ± 81 1460 ± 71 1369 ± 78 1791 ± 15
Ben Abdelkrim et al. [7] National Championship/ All players 3742 ± 304 3816 ± 299
Tunisia/M/18
Scanlan et al. [5] State Basketball League/ PG, SG 1745 ± 18a 1939 ± 237a 1715 ± 113a 1972 ± 224a 3684 ± 254 3687 ± 136
Australia/F/12 SF, PF, C 1646 ± 27 1744 ± 148 1578 ± 33 1849 ± 399 3390 ± 121 3427 ± 366
All players 1686 ± 13 1822 ± 178 1633 ± 55 1898 ± 321 3508 ± 169 3531 ± 295
Total activity frequency (n)
Scanlan et al. [5] State Basketball League/ PG, SG; SF 435 ± 30 433 ± 53 429 ± 32 453 ± 54 868 ± 78 881 ± 80
Australia/F/12 PF, C 429 ± 36 431 ± 60 433 ± 26 459 ± 96 860 ± 95 892 ± 117
All players 432 ± 30 432 ± 57 431 ± 21 455 ± 79 864 ± 85 886 ± 100
Caprino et al. [29] U17 Regional PG, SG 26 ± 11 min-1 28 ± 11 min-1 22 ± 7 min-1 24 ± 7 min-1 25 ± 6 min-1 23 ± 5 min-1
Championship/NR/M/10 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
SF, PF 21 ± 6 min 26 ± 11 min 18 ± 6 min 18 ± 6 min 22 ± 8 min 18 ± 5 min-1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
C 21 ± 6 min 24 ± 9 min 21 ± 6 min 21 ± 4 min 21 ± 6 min 21 ± 5 min-1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1b
All players 23 ± 1 min 27 ± 1 min 20 ± 1 min 21 ± 1 min 23 ± 1 min 21 ± 1 min-1
Total duration (% of live playing time)
Ben Abdelkrim et al. [3] National Championship High-intensity activities
U19/Tunisia/M/38 PG, SG 19.2c,d 17.5c 17.5c,f 14.3c
SF, PF 18.0c,d 17.1c 17.1f 14.1
C 15.6d 15.0e 15.5f 12.5
All players 17.6d 16.5 16.7f 13.6
Ben Abdelkrim et al. [7] National Championship/ Stand 31.2b 32.6
Tunisia/M/18 Walk 30.1b 31.9
Jog 5.3b 5.9
Sprint 3.5b 2.1
Stride 2.9b 1.9
b
Sideways 2.2 1.6
Jump 1.6b 1.1
E. Stojanović et al.
 Table 2 continued
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Playing period
groups/type of activity
First quarter Second quarter Third quarter Fourth quarter First half Second half

Ben Abdelkrim et al. [6] National Championship High-intensity activities NLP: 18.6d NLP: 14.4 NLP: 17.9f NLP: 13.8
U19/Tunisia/M/38 INP: 21.8 INP: 21.0 INP: 21.1f INP: 16.8
Scanlan et al. [5] State Basketball League/ Walk 34.7 34.8 37.3 36.1 34.8 36.7
Australia/F/12 Jog 35 36.3 34.8 36.1 35.7 35.4
Run 17.6 16.9 15.7 16.7 17.3 16.2
Sprint 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.0
L Shuffle 3.3 2.9 3.4 2.7 3.1 3.1
H Shuffle 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7
Dribble 4.5 4.2 4.2 3.5 4.3 3.9
g
Delextrat et al. [27] National Championship Stand 29.6 30.5 31.7 31.4
Division I/Spain/F/42 Walk 9.0 9.9 9.4 9.6
Jog 25.1 23.2 23.9 23.4
g
Run 5.3 5.0 4.9 4.3
Sprint 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4
Jump 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches

L Shuffle 18.6 17.2 16.8 17.7

g
M Shuffle 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.5
H Shuffle 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Pass 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.3
g
Static 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.2
PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, L shuffle low-intensity shuffle, M shuffle moderate-intensity shuffle, H shuffle high-
intensity shuffle, NLP national-level basketball players, INP international-level basketball players, NR not reported, U under
a
Significant difference (p \ 0.05) between comparison groups
b
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between halves
c
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from centers
d
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the second quarter
e
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the third quarter
f
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the fourth quarter
g
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the first quarter

123
123
Table 3 Activity frequencies for various types of activities according to playing position, playing level, geographical location, and sex during basketball match-play
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Activity category (n) Total
groups
Stand/walk Jog Run Sprint Low Moderate High Jump Dribble Upper Absolute (n) Relative
shuffle shuffle shuffle body (
min-1)

McInnes et al. National Basketball League/Australia/ All players 295 ± 54 99 ± 36 107 ± 27 105 ± 52 168 ± 33 114 ± 44 63 ± 33 46 ± 12 997 ± 183 27.4
[2] M/8
Ben National Championship U19/Tunis/ PG, SG 271 ± 18 113 ± 8 103 ± 11 67 ± 5a 176 ± 14 230 ± 37a,b 104 ± 19 41 ± 7 1103 ± 32a,b 31.5
Abdelkrim M/38 SF, PF 275 ± 23 110 ± 10 88 ± 5 56 ± 5b 173 ± 6 186 ± 13 94 ± 13 41 ± 6 1022 ± 45 29.1
et al. [3]
C 280 ± 3 117 ± 6 101 ± 19 43 ± 4 175 ± 11 176 ± 9 85 ± 8 49 ± 3 1026 ± 27 28.6
All players 275 ± 16 113 ± 8 97 ± 14 55 ± 11 175 ± 10 197 ± 33 94 ± 16 44 ± 7 1050 ± 51 29.7
Matthew and University Sports Association/UK/F/9 All players 151 ± 26 67 ± 17 52 ± 19 49 ± 17 117 ± 14 123 ± 45 58 ± 19 35 ± 11 652 ± 128 21.2
Delextrat
[10]
Narazaki et al. Collegiate Championship Division II/ F 23 ± 13/ 89 ± 10 16 ± 6
[11] USA/M and F/6 and 6 112 ± 5
M 23 ± 6/ 78 ± 15 17 ± 8
105 ± 12
All players 23 ± 10/ 84 ± 13 17 ± 7
109 ± 9
Ben National Championship U19/Tunisia/ International 294 ± 20 114 ± 7 78 ± 11 63 ± 17c 164 ± 12 175 ± 37 94 ± 14c 42 ± 7 1105 ± 74c 31.7
Abdelkrim M/38 c
National 255 ± 12 112 ± 10 96 ± 17 41 ± 22 163 ± 10 180 ± 12 74 ± 19 45 ± 7 1004 ± 27 28.0
et al. [6]
Man-to-man 274 ± 25 110 ± 10 84 ± 18 67 ± 13c 163 ± 13 169 ± 14 73 ± 20 46 ± 6 1053 ± 64 30.0
Zone games 276 ± 28 117 ± 5 90 ± 15 37 ± 19 164 ± 8 185 ± 35 95 ± 11 42 ± 7 1056 ± 89 29.6
Scanlan et al. National Basketball League and State PG, SG 764 ± 86c 911 ± 65c 504 ± 38c 18 ± 7c 75 ± 5c 70 ± 5 42 ± 6 60 ± 4 289 ± 15c 2733 ± 142c 56.9
[4] Basketball League/Australia/M/10 (pro)
PG, SG 462 ± 47 586 ± 77 321 ± 75 105 ± 31 45 ± 9 46 ± 29 41 ± 3 72 ± 3 233 ± 6 1911 ± 283 39.8
(semi-pro)
c c c c c
SF, PF, C 815 ± 45 955 ± 33 513 ± 26 24 ± 1 58 ± 12 59 ± 14 56 ± 2 23 ± 1 246 ± 3 2749 ± 137 57.3
(pro)
SF, PF, C 532 ± 38 664 ± 59 352 ± 25 140 ± 14 30 ± 3 17 ± 3 49 ± 3 19 ± 2 211 ± 9 2014 ± 131 42.0
(semi-pro)
Scanlan et al. State Basketball League/Australia/F/ PG, SG 412 ± 31 547 ± 49 295 ± 33 97 ± 21 48 ± 1 25 ± 4 43 ± 5 59 ± 4c 223 ± 31 1749 ± 158 43.7
[5] 12 SF, PF, C 452 ± 54 553 ± 82 297 ± 52 117 ± 22 37 ± 9 20 ± 7 41 ± 6 18 ± 5 217 ± 10 1752 ± 212 43.8
All players 436 ± 44 551 ± 67 295 ± 41 108 ± 20 41 ± 5 22 ± 5 43 ± 6 34 ± 2 220 ± 18 1750 ± 186 43.7
Caprino et al. U17 Regional Championship/NR/M/ PG, SG 26.7
[29] 10 SF, PF 24.2
C 20.3
Klusemann National Championship U19/ Season 255 ± 32 102 ± 23 90 ± 17c 33 ± 7c 94 ± 15c 193 ± 33c 26 ± 9c 19 ± 6 809 ± 80 27.0
et al. [9] Australia/M/8 Tournament 252 ± 34 99 ± 28 82 ± 15 28 ± 8 80 ± 24 175 ± 41 24 ± 9 19 ± 5 758 ± 106 25.3
Delextrat et al. National Championship Division II/ All players 228 ± 14 77 ± 27 66 ± 15 71 ± 20 131 ± 31 (low, moderate and high) 52 ± 14 19.1
[28] English/M/9
E. Stojanović et al.
 Table 3 continued
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Activity category (n) Total
groups
Stand/walk Jog Run Sprint Low Moderate High Jump Dribble Upper Absolute (n) Relative
shuffle shuffle shuffle body (
min-1)

Scanlan et al. State Basketball League/Australia/M PG, SG (M) 380 ± 24 480 ± 36 264 ± 48 84 ± 20 36 ± 4c 36 ± 20 32 ± 4c 60 ± 4 192 ± 12 1580 ± 124 39.5
[13] and F/12 and 12 PG, SG (F) 404 ± 32 540 ± 48 292 ± 32 96 ± 20 48 ± 0 24 ± 4 44 ± 4 60 ± 4 220 ± 36 1748 ± 19 43.7
SF, PF,C 440 ± 20 548 ± 28 292 ± 8 116 ± 8 24 ± 4 12 ± 4 40 ± 4 16 ± 0 176 ± 12c 1680 ± 72 42.0
(M)
SF, PF, C 444 ± 36 544 ± 60 292 ± 40 116 ± 16 36 ± 12 20 ± 8 40 ± 4 16 ± 4 216 ± 16 1776 ± 232 44.4
(F)
All players 416 ± 20 520 ± 28 280 ± 24 104 ± 12 32 ± 4 24 ± 8 36 ± 4 32 ± 4 184 ± 12 1628 ± 68 40.7
(M)
All 428 ± 36 544 ± 52 292 ± 36 108 ± 20 40 ± 8 20 ± 4 40 ± 4 32 ± 0 216 ± 24 1764 ± 212 44.1
players(F)
Conte et al. National Championship Division All players 205 ± 42 73 ± 20 63 ± 16 44 ± 15 91 ± 23 56 ± 20 25 ± 10 19 ± 10 576 ± 110 23.4
[26] I/Italy/F/12
Delextrat et al. National Championship Division PG 195/78 126 39 11 120 61 22 20 753
[27] I/Spain/F/42 SG 161/47b 114 39 6 122 33 8 28 626
SF 172/46 97 38 5 118 38 10 26 614
PF 198/60 115 20d 3e 155 20e 3 34e 698
C 166/65 115 25 3e 121 20e 3 42e,f,d 663
All players 24.1
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches

PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, pro professional players, semi-pro semi-professional players, NR not reported, U under
a
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from forwards
b
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from centers
c
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between comparison groups
d
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from SF
e
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from PG
f
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from SG

123

backcourt players in total duration spent standing/walking
(23.4 vs. 33.7%), jogging (39.1 vs. 33.0%), running (22.8
vs. 15.0%), sprinting (0.3 vs. 3.3%), and dribbling (9.0 vs.
10.6%) [4]. Similarly, significant differences (p \ 0.05)
were also observed between professional and semi-pro-
fessional frontcourt players in total duration spent standing/
walking (28.4 vs. 39.6%), jogging (40.9 vs. 35.8%), run-
ning (25.0 vs. 16.1%), and sprinting (0.4 vs. 4.7%) [4]. In
contrast, Ben Abdelkrim et al. [6] observed international
players spent significantly (p \ 0.05) more live time
engaged in standing/walking (28.1 vs. 24.9%), sprinting
(6.0 vs. 4.9%) and high-intensity shuffling (9.3 vs. 8.1%),
and less time running (10.2 vs. 11.2%) and undergoing
moderate-intensity shuffling (14.2 vs. 19.8%) than national
players. Geographical comparisons indicate the number of
differences between the proportions of playing time spent
performing low-, moderate-, and high-intensity activity for
Australian, Tunisian and Italian basketball players
(Table 4). Analyses relative to sex reveal male basketball
players spend more time performing dribbling activity than
female players [13]. Furthermore, professional female
backcourt basketball players have been reported to spend
significantly (p \ 0.05) longer durations jogging compared
with semi-professional male backcourt players [13]. This
finding is in accordance with recent data provided by
Delextrat et al. [27] who observed female players spend
high proportions of playing time performing jogging and
low-intensity specific movements. In contrast, other activ-
ity duration data were comparable across sexes [11, 13].
3.2.4 Blood Lactate Concentration
The blood lactate concentration responses to male and
female basketball match-play are given in Table 5. Mean
blood lactate values ranged from 2.7 to 6.8 mmol
L-1, with
a lower value observed in the second half than the first half
of matches [3, 10, 12].
According to playing positions, blood lactate concen-
tration has been shown to be higher in guards than forwards
and centers (5.7 vs. 4.2 and 3.9 mmol
L-1; 6.4 vs. 5.5 and
4.9 mmol
L-1, respectively) [3, 12]. In addition, a higher
blood lactate concentration was reported in international
players than national players (6.1 vs. 5.0 mmol
L-1) during
basketball match-play [6]. Likewise, elite players [2, 3, 7]
reached higher blood lactate concentrations than sub-elite
players [5, 11].
Australian male players have demonstrated greater
blood lactate concentrations during match-play compared
with Tunisian male players, as well as Spanish and British
female players [3, 6, 7, 10]. Similar blood lactate responses
were reported between sexes (male: 3.2–6.8 mmol
L-1;
female: 2.7–5.7 mmol
L-1) (Table 5), which was con-
firmed by a direct comparison in collegiate players [11].
123
E. Stojanović et al.
3.2.5 Heart Rate
The absolute and relative HR responses to male and female
basketball match-play are presented in Table 6. The mean
absolute HR results varied between 132 and 165 b
min-1
during total time, and between 161 and 186 b
min-1 during
live playing time in male and female players. These values
corresponded to relative responses as a percentage of
maximum HR (% HRmax) between 66.7 and 89.1% HRmax
during total playing time, and between 81.8 and 94.6%
HRmax during live playing time. Furthermore, the propor-
tion of total and live playing time spent working at a rel-
ative HR above 85% HRmax during match-play is shown in
Table 7. Most studies [2, 6, 7, 21, 22] observed approxi-
mately 75% of live time was spent with an HR
response [ 85% HRmax. Temporal comparisons showed
HR response relative to playing period significantly
(p \ 0.05) decreased in the second half compared with the
first half [17, 31], and in the last quarter compared with
other quarters [3].
Significant differences (p \ 0.05) according to playing
positions were observed between guards, forwards and
centers (185 vs. 175 and 167 b
min-1; 174 vs. 172 and 169
b
min-1; 186 vs. 176 and 177 b
min-1; 177 vs. 175 and
173 b
min-1, respectively) [3, 12, 17, 18]. Similarly, HR
responses analyzed according to playing level revealed
significant differences (p \ 0.05), whereby higher skilled
players experienced greater demands (international vs.
national: 94.6 vs. 90.8% HRmax, 94.4 vs. 91.8% HRmax)
[6, 12]. Likewise, slightly higher values were reported in
elite (90.8–94.6% HRmax, 91.8–94.4% HRmax, 91, 93%
HRmax) [3, 6, 12, 17] than sub-elite (82.4, 87.5, 88.8%
HRmax) [5, 20, 21] players. Geographical comparisons in
elite competition revealed Spanish [12] (94.6% HRmax) and
Tunisian [3, 6, 17] (93, 94, 91% HRmax) players experi-
enced similar HR responses, while Australian [9] and
Czech [8] players encountered less cardiovascular stress
(84.3 and 85.0% HRmax). According to sex, similar results
were observed between male and female basketball players
(Table 6). The range of HR data recorded across sexes
corresponded to 83.9–94.4% of HRmax in male players and
82.4–94.6% HRmax in female players.
4 Discussion
Identifying the activity demands and physiological
responses of basketball players according to playing per-
iod, playing position, playing level, geographical location,
and sex during match-play is essential to develop appro-
priate training programs to optimize physical preparedness
for competition. However, different studies have provided
a broad spectrum of conclusions regarding the most
 Table 4 Duration (%) spent performing various types of activity according to playing position, playing level, geographical location, and sex during basketball match-play
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Activity category (% of live playing time)
groups
Stand/ Jog Run Sprint Sideways/ Low Moderate High Jump Dribble Static
walk stride shuffle shuffle shuffle actions

McInnes et al. [2] National Basketball League/ All players 35.2 11.8 11.7 8.5 14.4 10.3 6.0 2.0
Australia/M/8
Ben Abdelkrim National Championship U19/ PG, SG 28.4a 11.0a 10.2 5.9a 13.4a 19.8a 9.3b 2.0
et al. [3] Tunisia/M/38 a a a a
SF, PF 29.6 11.4 10.1 5.4 14.4 17.9 9.2 2.0
C 31.8 12.4 10.8 4.5 14.7 15.5 7.9 2.3
All players 29.9 11.6 10.4 5.3 14.2 17.7 8.8 2.1
Narazaki et al. [11] Collegiate Championship F 65.3 33.2 1.6
Division II/USA/M and F/6 M 66.3 32.0 1.7
and 6
All players 65.7 32.6 1.6
Ben Abdelkrim National Championship U19/ International 28.1c 11.3 10.2c 6.0c 13.6 14.2c 9.3c 2.0 4.1c
et al. [6] Tunisia/M/38 National 24.9 12.0 11.2 4.9 14.2 19.8 8.1 2.1 1.5
Man-to-man 24.9c 11.7 11.0 6.2c 14.3 15.8 8.1c 2.1 3.2
Zone games 28.0 11.6 10.4 4.6 13.4 18.1 9.3 2.0 2.4
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches

Ben Abdelkrim National Championship/ All players 63.3 5.6 4.5 2.8 1.9/2.4 8.5 6.5 3.1 1.3
et al. [7] Tunisia/M/18
Scanlan et al. [4] National Basketball League PG, SG (pro) 23.4c 39.1c 22.8c 0.3c 3.6 1.8 9.0
and State Basketball League/ PG, SG (semi- 33.7 33.0 15.0 3.3 2.7 1.6 10.6
Australia/M/10 pro)
SF, PF, C (pro) 28.4c 40.9c 25.0c 0.4c 2.7 1.2 1.3
SF, PF, C 39.6 35.8 16.1 4.7 2.1 0.4 1.3
(semi-pro)
Scanlan et al. [5] State Basketball League/ PG, SG 31.0c 36.2 16.0c 3.7 3.6 0.9 8.6c
Australia/F/12 F, PF, C 38.8 35.1 17.2 4.3 2.8 0.7 1.1
All players 35.7 35.6 16.7 4.1 3.1 0.7 4.1
Scanlan et al. [13] State Basketball League/ PG, SG (M) 33.7 33.1 15.0 3.3 2.7 1.7 10.6
Australia/M and F/12 and 12 PG, SG (F) 30.9 36.3c 16.0 3.7 3.7 0.8 8.7
SF, PF, C (M) 39.5 35.7 16.1 4.7 2.2 0.5 1.3
SF, PF, C (F) 38.8 34.9 17.3 4.3 2.8 0.7 1.2
All players (M) 37.3 34.6 15.6 4.2 2.3 1.0 5.0c
All players (F) 35.7 35.5 16.8 4.0 3.2 0.7 4.2
Conte et al. [26] National Championship All players 50.2 11.7 13.1 5.2 10.0 6.5 2.7 0.6
Division I/Italy/F/12

123
 E. Stojanović et al.

important demands of basketball match-play, therefore a

actions
systematic summary is necessary to better bridge the gap

7.1e,f,d
Static

4.8e,f
1.7
2.1
3.4
between the existing scientific findings and practical
application.
Dribble

PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, pro professional players, semi-pro semi-professional players, U under
4.1 Activity Distance
Jump

3.1e,d
3.0e
1.1
2.0
1.9
To optimize specificity in endurance training plans, bas-
ketball practitioners must understand total distances and
subsequent activity categories encountered during match-
shuffle
High

play [16]. The wide range of reported distance data across

1.9
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.2

studies (4404–7558 m) may be due to differences in time-

motion methodology and analysis (total time vs. live
Moderate

playing time). Time-motion analysis inclusive of all match

shuffle

stoppages (except time-outs and inter-quarter breaks)

5.0
2.8
3.6
1.6
1.4

revealed the greatest total distance (7558 m), of which 23%

(1720 m) was performed undergoing low-intensity activity
shuffle

(standing/walking) [7]. Therefore, a high number of inter-

Low

15.5
19.6
15.4
19.0
14.6

ruptions during match-play can result in greater total dis-

tances covered by players, especially given walking
Sideways/

distances were considerably lower in time-motion studies

Activity category (% of live playing time)

stride

performed during live playing time [4, 5, 13]. Accordingly,

to account for differences in playing/analysis time, relative
distance can be considered a key metric for more accurate
Sprint

0.2e
0.3e

comparisons across studies. From these data, players cover

1.3
0.8
0.6

approximately 130 m
min-1 across live playing time, and

3.0d
5.4
5.7
6.4

4.1

approximately 110 m
min-1 during total playing time

Run

(Table 1), suggesting that stoppages enable recovery via

25.1
24.0
23.9
23.5
24.1

added execution of low-intensity activity.

Jog

Given the specificity of tasks performed relative to

playing position during basketball match-play, quantifying
Stand/
walk

38.8
38.2
41.6
41.2
38.1

distances according to position were also assessed across

the included investigations. However, positional analyses
indicate that the demands experienced by guards, forwards,
Comparison

and centers are equivocal. For example, Hůlka et al. [8]

reported elite male point guards traveled significantly more
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between comparison groups
groups

distance than small forwards and centers during match-

PG
SG
SF
PF
C

play. In contrast, Oba and Okuda [23] showed that female

point guards and centers covered shorter distances than
Playing level/location/sex/n

Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from forwards

shooting guards, small forwards, and power forwards. The

Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from centers

authors hypothesized shooting guards, small forwards, and

National Championship
Division I/Spain/F/42

Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from PG

Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from SG
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from SF

power forwards often traveled down the sidelines during

transitions across the court, which result in greater dis-
tances covered. Conversely, the shorter distances observed
for point guards and centers may be due to these players
transitioning across the middle line of the court [23].
Scanlan et al. [4, 5, 13] reported backcourt players (point
guards and shooting guards) covered greater distance than
Table 4 continued

frontcourt players (small forwards, power forwards and

Delextrat et al.

centers) in male and female semi-professional players.

However, the variations in positional categorization (five
[27]
Study

playing positions vs. backcourt/frontcourt groupings) make

it difficult to compare results across studies. Therefore,
b

d
a

123
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches

Table 5 Blood lactate concentration (mmol
L-1) responses to basketball match-play according to playing position, playing level, geographical
location, and sex
Study Playing level/ Comparison Playing period
location/sex/n groups
First Second Third Fourth First half Second Entire
quarter quarter quarter quarter half match

McInnes National Basketball All players 6.8 ± 2.8

et al. [2] League/Australia/
M/8
Janeira and National All players 4.5 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 0.5
Maia [31] Championship/
Portugal/M/64
Rodriguez- International and PG, SG 5.7 ± 2.1a,b
Alonso National team/ SF, PF 4.2 ± 2.1
et al. [12] Spain/F/25
C 3.9 ± 2
Rodriguez- International and International 5.1 ± 2.4 4.8 ± 2.1 5.0 ± 2.3
Alonso National team/ National 5.6 ± 1.8 4.9 ± 2.2 5.2 ± 2
et al. [12] Spain/F/25
Practice 2.8 ± 1.3c 2.7 ± 1.0c 2.7 ± 1.2c
Ben National PG, SG 6.4 ± 1.2b
Abdelkrim Championship U19/ SF, PF
et al. [3] Tunisia/M/38
C 4.9 ± 1.2
All players 6.05 ± 1.3d 4.9 ± 1.5 5.5 ± 1.2
Matthew and University Sports All players 5.4 ± 1.5 5.0 ± 1.4 5.2 ± 2.7
Delextrat Association/UK/F/9
[10]
Narazaki Collegiate M 3.2 ± 0.9
et al. [11] Championship F 4.2 ± 1.3
Division II/USA/M
All players 4.1 ± 1.9 3.6 ± 1.4 3.5 ± 1.3 3.5 ± 1.3
and F/6 and 6
Ben National All players 6.2 ± 1.4 5.3 ± 1.4 5.8 ± 1.3
Abdelkrim Championship U19/
et al. [7] Tunisia/M/18
Ben National International 6.6 ± 1.2e 5.7 ± 1.2e 6.1 ± 1.1e
Abdelkrim Championship U19/ National 5.7 ± 1.2 4.4 ± 1.4 5.0 ± 1.1
et al. [6] Tunisia/M/38
Man-to-man 5.2 ± 1.3
Zone games 5.8 ± 1.1
Scanlan et al. State Basketball PG, SG 3.6 ± 0.8 3.8 ± 0.7 3.6 ± 0.9 4.4 ± 2.1 3.7 ± 0.7 4.0 ± 1.5 3.8 ± 1.0
[5] League/Australia/F/ SF, PF, C 3.6 ± 0.5 4.9 ± 2.8 3.3 ± 0.6 3.2 ± 0.7 4.4 ± 2.3 3.2 ± 0.6 3.7 ± 1.6
12
All players 3.6 ± 0.7 4.6 ± 2.4 3.4 ± 0.6 3.5 ± 1.2 4.1 ± 1.7 3.4 ± 1 3.7 ± 1.4
PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, U under
a
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from forwards
b
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from centers
c
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from official (national and international) matches
d
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between halves
e
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between comparison groups

further matches should be analyzed with stringent posi-
tional determination to obtain more knowledge about the
characteristics of activity according to playing position in
basketball.
When analyzing the existing data relative to playing
level, there is a greater consensus between studies than
playing position analyses. Playing level comparisons (first
vs. second divisions; high school vs. university; semi-
professional vs. professional leagues) demonstrated similar
total distances irrespective of activity categorization during
match-play in male and female basketball players [4, 23].
However, when analyzed relative to the type of activity
performed, professional players ran and jogged further than
semi-professional players, while semi-professional players
sprinted more than professional players [4]. While playing
level might underpin these differences in specific activities

123
 Table 6 Absolute and relative heart rate responses to basketball match-play according to playing position, playing level, geographical location and sex
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Match quarter (b
min-1) Entire match
groups

123
First Second Third Fourth Total time Live playing Total time Live playing
absolute time absolute relative (% time relative (%
(b
min-1) (b
min-1) HRmax) HRmax)

McInnes National Basketball League/ All players 165 ± 9 168 ± 9 87.0 ± 2.0 89.0 ± 2.0
et al. [2] Australia/M/8
Janeira and National Championship/ All players 168.1 ± 5.6a 165.4 ± 4.1 168 ± 5
Maia [31] Portugal/M/23
Rodriguez- International and National team/ PG, SG 185 ± 6b,c
Alonso Spain/F/25 SF, PF 175 ± 11
et al. [12]
C 167 ± 12
Rodriguez- International and National team/ International 186 ± 6d 94.6 ± NRd
Alonso Spain/F/25 National 175 ± 13 90.8 ± NR
et al. [12]
Practice 170 ± 11 89.8 ± NR
e e e c
Ben National Championship U19/ PG, SG 176 ± 4 176 ± 5 176 ± 4 170 ± 4 174 ± 4 91.0 ± 2.0
Abdelkrim Tunisia/M/38 SF, PF 173 ± 5 173 ± 5 174 ± 4e 167 ± 4 172 ± 4
et al. [3]
C 171 ± 3 170 ± 3 171 ± 4e 165 ± 4 169 ± 3
All players 173 ± 4 173 ± 5 173 ± 4e 167 ± 4 171 ± 4
Vaquera National Basketball League/ PG 94.9% 95.7% 95.6% 96.1% 186 ± 12b,c 95.6 ± NRb,c
Jiménez Spain/M/8 HRmax HRmax HRmax HRmax
et al. [18] Forwards 92.7% 93.4% 93.5% 95.2% 176 ± 8 93.7 ± NR
HRmax HRmax HRmax HRmax
C 92.3% 93.0% 92.3% 93.0% 177 ± 8 92.7 ± NR
HRmax HRmax HRmax HRmax
Ben National Championship U19/ PG, SG 179 ± 4 179 ± 5a 179 ± 4 173 ± 4 177 ± 4c 93.0 ± 2.0
Abdelkrim Tunisia/M/38 a
SF, PF 176 ± 5 176 ± 4 176 ± 4 172 ± 4 175 ± 4
et al. [17]
C 174 ± 3 175 ± 3a 174 ± 4 170 ± 4 173 ± 3
All players 176 ± 5 176 ± 4a 176 ± 4 172 ± 4 175 ± 4
Matthew and University Sports Association/ All players 171 ± 9 171 ± 8 169 ± 8 169 ± 7 165 ± 9 170 ± 8 89.1 ± 3.9 92.5 ± 3.3
Delextrat UK/F/9
[10]
Narazaki Collegiate Championship All players 164 ± 8 170 ± 9f 170 ± 10.1f 172 ± 9
et al. [11] Division II/USA/M and F/6
and 6
g
Ben National Championship U19/ International 94.4 ± 1.7
Abdelkrim Tunisia/M/38 National 91.8 ± 2.2
et al. [6]
Man-to-man 93.3 ± 2.1
Zone games 92.8 ± 1.8
E. Stojanović et al.
 Table 6 continued
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Match quarter (b
min-1) Entire match
groups
First Second Third Fourth Total time Live playing Total time Live playing
absolute time absolute relative (% time relative (%
(b
min-1) (b
min-1) HRmax) HRmax)

Montgomery Elite Junior/Australia/M/11 All players 162 ± 7

et al. [19]
g g
Scanlan et al. State Basketball League/ PG, SG, SF 164 ± 9 163 ± 9 160 ± 7 160 ± 5 142 ± 10 161 ± 9 71.8 ± 5.1 81.8 ± 4.7
[5] Australia/F/12 PF, C 166 ± 4 162 ± 5 161 ± 8 162 ± 7 132 ± 6 163 ± 5 66.7 ± 2.7 82.7 ± 2.5
All players 165 ± 4 163 ± 5 161 ± 4 162 ± 6 136 ± 6 162 ± 3 68.6 ± 3.1 82.4 ± 1.3
Hůlka et al. National Championship U18/ PG 88.43 ± 8.0
[8] Czech Republic/M/32 SF 79.18 ± 11.3
C 83.42 ± 9.2
All players 167 ± 13 85.06 ± 6.4
Klusemann National Championship U19/ Season 67.1 ± 6.6 84.3 ± 1.8
et al. [9] Australia/M/8 Tournament 68.1 ± 5.8 83.9 ± 2.3
Vencúrik 2nd (senior) and 1st (U19) U19 87.5 ± 2.8
[20] National Championship/Czech Senior 87.9 ± 3.6
Republic/F/17
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches

Vencúrik and 2nd National Championship/ PG, SG 87.81 ± 3.8

Nykodým Czech Republic/F/8 SF, PF 87.02 ± 4.4
[21]
C 88.76 ± 3.5
All players 88 ± 4% 88 ± 4%
HRmax HRmax
Vencúrik 1st Division/Czech Republic/F/ PG, SG 86 ± 2.8
et al. [22] 10 SF, PF 88.3 ± 2.9
C 87.7 ± 3.3
PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, NR not reported, HRmax maximal heart rate, U under
a
Significant difference between halves
b
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from forwards
c
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from centers
d
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from national and practice matches
e
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the fourth quarter
f
Significantly (p \ 0.05) different from the first quarter
g
Significant (p \ 0.05) difference between comparison groups

123
 E. Stojanović et al.

Table 7 Proportion of total and live playing time of basketball match-play spent working below and above 85% HRmax according to playing
position, playing level, geographical location and sex
Study Playing level/location/sex/n Comparison Total time (%) Live time (%)
groups
\85% [85% \85% [85%
HRmax HRmax HRmax HRmax

McInnes et al. [2] National Basketball League/Australia/M/8 All players 35.0 65.0 25.0 75.0
Matthew and Delextrat University Sports Association/UK/F/9 All players 19.6 80.4 6.9 93.1
[10]
Ben Abdelkrim et al. National Championship/Tunisia/M/18 All players 24.7 75.3
[7]
Ben Abdelkrim et al. National Championship U19/Tunisia/M/38 International 23.1a 76.9a
[6] National 30.4 69.6
Man-to-man 26.7 73.3
Zone games 27.8 72.3
Hůlka et al. [8] National Championship U18/Czech All players 36.9 63.1
Republic/M/32
Vencúrik and Nykodým Second National Championship/Czech PG, SG 27.0 73.0
[21] Republic/F/8 SF, PF 27.3 72.7
C 20.5 79.5
All players 24.0 76.0
Vencúrik et al. [22] First National Championship/Czech PG, SG 29.1 70.9
Republic/F/10 SF, PF 22.8 77.2
C 25.3 74.7
All players 25.7 74.3
PG point guard, SG shooting guard, SF small forward, PF power forward, C center, M male, F female, HRmax maximal heart rate, U under
a
Significant difference between comparison groups

performed during basketball match-play, other factors may
also exert important influences, such as team tactics,
playing structure, and player conditioning [4]. Therefore,
interpretation of the existing results should be performed
cautiously.
While playing level appears to exert minimal influence
on the total distance covered during match-play, it appears
geographical location influences total distance covered by
players across a match, with differences evident between
Australian, Tunisian, Slovenian, and Japanese competi-
tions. In this context, Scanlan et al. [4, 5, 13] reported
Australian professional and semi-professional players
(126–133 m
min-1) covered more relative distance com-
pared with Slovenian male players [24] (110 m
min-1),
Japanese high-school, college, and professional female
players [23] (93–101 m
min-1), and elite Tunisian male
junior players [7] (115 m
min-1). However, an important
point to consider when interpreting these findings is that
some authors expressed relative distance data across
40-min as opposed to 48-min matches and relative to live
time [4, 5, 13, 24] compared with total playing time
[7, 8, 23]. These discernments should be acknowledged as
longer playing durations and stoppages in play likely
decrease activity velocity, which can diminish relative
distance data. Although these differences could reflect the
various playing styles across countries [27, 32], the
aforementioned disparities in data acquisition methods
limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions.
There were no marked differences in activity distance
during live playing time between male and female bas-
ketball players across the collective studies, with only one
study directly comparing data between sexes at similar
playing levels [13]. Specifically, Scanlan et al. [13] directly
compared the activity demands across male and female
players competing in an Australian semi-professional lea-
gue, reporting that players covered similar relative total
distances, with females experiencing larger running
demands; however, the longer duration of male matches
(48 min) compared with female matches (40 min) in this
instance should be considered by basketball practitioners as
these data suggest that conditioning plans for male players
might focus more on endurance-based interval training to
maintain work rates over long periods of match-play [13].
4.2 Activity Frequency
Obtaining information about activity frequencies provides
useful information regarding the intermittent nature of

123
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
basketball match-play. These data are of interest to bas-
ketball coaches, athletic trainers, strength and conditioning
practitioners, and sport scientists for precise practical
application. Basketball players frequently change move-
ment patterns during match-play (once every 1–3 s)
(Table 3). The highly intermittent nature of basketball
match-play highlights the importance of implementing
agility, power, acceleration, and deceleration training in
conditioning drills for players. The activity frequency data
suggest there is some discrepancy in the overall intermit-
tent demands of basketball match-play across studies,
potentially due to variations in activity categorization,
video capture procedures, and analytical approaches
adopted [13].
When analyzing the collective findings, differences in
activity frequency were evident relative to playing posi-
tion, with guards performing a higher number of move-
ments than forwards and centers [2–5]. When analyzed
relative to activity type, guards performed more sprinting/
striding [2] and dribbling movements than forwards and
centers [4, 5]. However, as in the case of the presented
distance data, further research is needed to identify
definitive positional differences in activity frequencies due
to the varied groupings of players meeting different posi-
tional criteria in existing studies.
Differences in activity frequency were also apparent
across playing levels, with higher playing levels perform-
ing heavier intermittent workloads (more changes in
activity type) than lower playing levels [4, 6]; however,
inconsistent findings have been reported regarding the
execution of high-intensity efforts between playing levels
across studies. Specifically, Ben Abdelkrim et al. [6]
showed Tunisian junior international players performed
more high-intensity activities (sprinting and high-intensity
shuffling) than national players, while Scanlan et al. [4]
reported professional Australian players executed fewer
maximal efforts (sprinting) and more moderate-intensity
activities (jogging and running) than semi-professional
players [4]. Match-related factors such as team tactics,
style of play, and perceived importance may explain vari-
ations in findings across investigations. For example, the
team defensive strategy adopted might have influenced the
data recorded across studies, with the frequency of sprint-
ing bouts shown to be significantly higher during man-to-
man team formations than zone formations [6]. Neverthe-
less, the greater intermittent demands observed in inter-
national and professional players compared with national
and semi-professional players stress the increased impor-
tance of implementing training practices incorporating
repeated accelerations followed by deceleration phases to
adequately prepare players transitioning to higher playing
levels [33, 34]. In addition, the numerous accelerations and
decelerations combined with the execution of various
technical skills during match-play require considerable
energy expenditure, which should be considered when
developing individualized recovery strategies following
match-play [35–37].
While comparisons across playing positions and levels
reveal distinct differences, geographical comparisons are
less clear. Scanlan et al. [4, 5, 13] observed the frequency
of movements in Australian players was higher than Italian
[26], Tunisian [3, 6], Spanish [27] and British players
[10, 28]. Furthermore, authors investigating separate sam-
ples of Australian players have recorded varying findings
[4, 5, 13], possibly due to differences in approaches to
categorize activity types across studies [4, 5, 13]. More
precisely, two additional activities, dribbling and upper-
body movements (blocking shots, rebounding, and defen-
sive help), were included in some studies [4, 5, 13] but
were absent in other investigations [2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 26]. In
addition, authors [4, 5, 13] applied velocity criteria to
classify match activities, while most studies
[2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 26] used an established descriptive criteria
set [2]. Furthermore, the analytical approach to quantify
activity demands in Australian players used a frame-by-
frame method [4, 5, 13] that might be more sensitive to
changes in speed and subsequently activity category than
other studies [2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 26]. Therefore, indirect
comparisons can have limitations, and the considerably
greater engagement of Australian players should be inter-
preted with caution. Accordingly, it is important that a
consistent approach is adopted in future time-motion
analysis studies.
Comparisons between sexes revealed lower activity
frequencies in female [10, 26] compared with male bas-
ketball players [2, 3, 6] across separate studies. However,
studies directly comparing activity frequencies between
sexes [11] reported no significant differences in any
activity category. The similar activity frequencies found
across sexes suggest considerable overlap exists between
male and female players regarding development of accel-
eration, deceleration, and change of direction abilities
during training sessions [10, 13]. Consequently, basketball
practitioners may adopt similar agility-oriented drills when
developing physical and cognitive attributes in male and
female players.
4.3 Activity Duration
Different proportions of playing time performing various
types of activity were apparent across the included studies.
These discrepancies are likely due to different method-
ological approaches, such as inclusion of additional activ-
ities (sideways movement, striding, and static actions) in
some studies [6, 7], and quantifying dribbling activity
irrespective of activity intensity in other studies [4, 5, 13].
123

Across the available literature, it is clear that most playing
time is devoted to low- to moderate-intensity activities,
which indicate the extensive utilization of aerobic meta-
bolism. These types of activities, particularly standing/
walking [38], enable adequate recovery between high-in-
tensity bouts [39]. During passive recovery phases such as
standing or walking, a greater amount of phosphocreatine
may be resynthesized due to higher oxygen availability
[40]. In addition, passive recovery is recommended as the
most beneficial method to reload myoglobin and hae-
moglobin, resulting in improved ability to maintain high-
intensity, intermittent activities [40]. Data relative to
playing periods showed significant decreases in durations
spent performing intense activities in the fourth quarter
[3, 6]. Moreover, the time spent undergoing high-intensity
activities was longer during the first quarter than the second
quarter, as well as during the third quarter than the fourth
quarter [6]. A possible explanation for the lower durations
spent performing high-intensity activity in the second half
may be due to a reduced concentration of muscle glycogen
[31] or enhanced lipid mobilization [17]. The general
consensus is that low-intensity recovery periods throughout
match-play promote better maintenance of activity outputs,
indicating basketball coaches should strategically use
player substitutions, fouls, and time-outs to manipulate
passive recovery opportunity for players at key stages of
matches [14].
Analysis of studies reporting player activity relative to
playing position shows guards spent a higher percentage of
live playing time sprinting [3] and undergoing high-inten-
sity shuffling movements [4], and less time standing/
walking [3, 12] compared with forwards and centers. A
greater proportion of playing time performing sprinting and
shuffling movements was also evident in forwards com-
pared with centers [3]. The physical attributes (taller and
heavier) [41, 42] and reduced aerobic fitness of centers
compared with other playing positions may underpin these
positional differences [3, 43–46]. This information should
be taken into account by basketball practitioners when
planning position-specific training programs.
Differences in activity duration data across playing
levels in basketball are conflicting. Ben Abdelkrim et al.
[6] observed international basketball players spent signifi-
cantly more live time engaged in high-intensity activities
than national players. The authors attributed these differ-
ences to the superior fitness of international players;
however, a significantly longer passive recovery (standing/
walking) [international players: 28%; national players:
25%] might also be an important influencing factor
underpinning the greater high-intensity activity evident in
international players. On the other hand, very large
decreases in passive recovery (through reduced match
stoppages) in combination with physiological factors (e.g.
123
E. Stojanović et al.
muscle glycogen depletion, dehydration) create fluctua-
tions in activity demands during professional, male bas-
ketball match-play (decreases in high-intensity, shuffling
and total activity, and increases in dribbling with match
progression) [14]. Accordingly, large increases in stoppage
duration reported in semi-professional match-play were
paralleled by lesser declines in duration spent performing
high-intensity activity across match quarters than in pro-
fessional players [14]. Similarly, semi-professional players
experienced longer low-intensity periods, allowing greater
execution of maximal-intensity activities [4]. It was pos-
tulated that greater decision-making abilities in profes-
sional players led to tighter control of the ball compared
with semi-professional players, possibly promoting a
higher turnover rate with more frequent high-speed tran-
sitions across the court as well as increased stoppages (via
fouls and out-of-bounds instances) during semi-profes-
sional match-play [4]. On the contrary, higher-level players
have been reported to spend larger portions of match-play
executing shuffling movements [6], which have been sug-
gested to constitute a considerable portion of the energy
demands imposed on basketball players [2, 3, 6, 7, 26].
This finding is of specific interest to basketball practition-
ers for training prescription because sideways movements
have been shown to elicit greater metabolic stress than
forward running [47]. Additionally, improving the ability
to withstand fatigue while completing repeated high-in-
tensity activities across match-play is important when
preparing basketball players for all levels of competition
[2].
A number of differences are obvious in the proportions
of playing time spent performing low-, moderate-, and
high-intensity activity between Australian, Tunisian, and
Italian basketball players (Table 4). Disparities in
methodological procedures of the included studies make it
difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding durations
spent performing different activities during basketball
match-play relative to geographical location. Therefore,
further studies adopting the same methodological approach
and examining player samples from competitions situated
in different countries are encouraged.
Activity data reported relative to sex showed similar
durations spent performing standing/walking, running, and
jumping activity during practice matches in collegiate
players [11]. Conversely, discrepancies in dribbling activ-
ity were observed in a study directly comparing match
activity demands in male and female semi-professional,
Australian players, with male players spending a higher
percentage of time dribbling than female players (5 vs. 4%;
effect size = 1.03, moderate) [13]. More precisely, male
players tended to adopt a slower half-court offensive
approach, with lower overall mean dribbling speeds than
female players [13]. It was suggested that differences in
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
tactical approaches between sexes might influence the
volume of dribbling performed, but may not lead to overall
disparities in the activity demands imposed on male and
female players [13]. Furthermore, the greater match dura-
tions spent jogging and performing low-intensity specific
movements in female players compared with male players
might emphasize a greater need for aerobic conditioning to
execute sustained moderate-intensity activities in a multi-
directional manner [27].
4.4 Blood Lactate Concentration
While activity distance, frequency, and duration data pro-
vide useful information regarding physical demands
experienced by players, measurement of blood lactate
concentration is necessary to provide important insight into
the physiological response of players during match-play.
Blood lactate concentration has been used as an indicator
of energy production from rapid glycolysis [6, 10]. The
mean blood lactate concentrations recorded in basketball
players during match-play were slightly above 50% of
maximal responses (51.5–55.9%) [10], indicating an
important glycolytic energy contribution. Accordingly,
these findings demonstrate the need for anaerobic condi-
tioning targeting the rapid glycolytic energy pathway in
basketball players [7, 38, 48, 49]. Consequently, training
drills incorporating sustained and repeated high-intensity
efforts should be administered to basketball players in
order to promote improved tolerance of high blood lactate
concentrations and enhance lactate threshold markers to
withstand associated fatigue mechanisms. It has also been
suggested aerobic conditioning is essential to maximize
lactate clearance during recovery [50] and enhance phos-
phocreatine regeneration [51]. Thus, the development of
training stimuli that consider the interaction between
anaerobic and aerobic systems during basketball match-
play is necessary to best prepare players for the physio-
logical stress encountered. Temporal comparisons in sep-
arate studies revealed blood lactate concentrations were
lower in the second half compared with the first half
[10, 12, 31], likely due to a tendency for less vigorous
activities and an increase in stoppage time towards the end
of matches, allowing for enhanced lactate removal. Fur-
thermore, a greater execution of low-intensity activity
towards the end of matches may result in an increased rate
of lipid metabolism for energy production, which may
explain the reduction in blood lactate concentrations
reported during basketball match-play [10, 12, 31].
In contrast, prolonged periods of high-intensity activity
concomitant with recovery periods of an equal or shorter
duration result in accumulation of blood lactate. A higher
percentage of playing time spent performing high-intensity
activities in guards than forwards and centers likely
explains the greater blood lactate concentrations observed
for this position [3, 12]. Across playing levels, elite players
[2, 3, 6, 9, 11] reached higher blood lactate concentrations
than sub-elite players [5, 11]. These observations are in
accordance with the increased activity frequencies reported
in elite players during basketball match-play [6]. Further-
more, match and internal factors may account for the large
variability observed across players, including intensity of
play prior to sampling, as well as the physiological con-
ditioning of the players investigated. There are also
notable differences between elite-level players competing
in various countries. The available blood lactate concen-
tration data seem to be higher in Australian male basketball
players [2] than Tunisian male players [3, 6, 7], as well as
Spanish [12] and British [10] female players; however, the
reported data for elite Australian players were obtained
before modification of the rules in the year 2000, and
should be treated with caution [2]. Despite large variability
between playing positions, playing levels, and geographi-
cal locations, the reported data relative to sex indicate that
male and female basketball players have similar blood
lactate concentrations during match-play (Table 5). How-
ever, the existing basketball literature has relied on blood
lactate concentration measurement, which should be con-
sidered when interpreting the available findings as no sig-
nificant correlation was found between muscle and blood
lactate concentrations [52], with a higher rate of lactate
clearance evident in muscle than blood during recovery
[52, 53].
4.5 Heart Rate
In addition to blood lactate concentration, monitoring
player HR also provides objective information regarding
the physiological stress encountered during basketball
match-play. The average relative HR ranged between 66.7
and 89.1% HRmax during total time and between 81.8 and
94.6% HRmax during live playing time (Table 6), which
reflect the considerable demands imposed on the cardio-
vascular system of basketball players [2, 3, 9, 18]. It is
important to consider the amount of time spent working
above certain relative HR values that are indicative of
high-intensity efforts. Based on the majority of existing
studies, 85% HRmax was employed as an indicator of high-
intensity activity when synthesising the available data
[2, 6–8, 10, 21, 22]. Most studies [2, 6, 7, 21, 22] observed
that approximately 75% of live playing time was spent
performing at [ 85% HRmax. Despite the observation that
the majority of playing time is spent performing low- to
moderate-intensity activities, it appears that periodic bursts
of high-intensity activities may produce high HR for pro-
longed periods of time [2]. Furthermore, additional upper-
body activities (shooting, passing, and maintaining position
123

against physical resistance from an opposition player)
[2, 3] and physiological requirements associated with
acceleration, deceleration, and change of direction for
extended periods [36] could also amplify the HR response
during match activities. In contrast, reduced HR values
were recorded when analyzing the total time of basketball
match-play. Rest periods during time-outs and free-throws
likely enable extra opportunities for recovery and reduc-
tions in HR [2]. Therefore, team tactics involving time-outs
and committing fouls may be an effective method to allow
for further recovery of players at key match stages.
Research examining HR data relative to playing period
showed a significant (p \ 0.05) decrease in the second half
compared with the first half [9, 17], and in the last quarter
compared with other quarters [3]. The increased stoppage
time and decrease in high-intensity activities in latter
match periods were thought to underpin these results [3].
According to playing position, the highest HR responses
were recorded in guards [3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 18], which may be
attributed to the coaching tactics adopted, with more reg-
ular substitutions reported in frontcourt players (forwards
and centers) than backcourt players (guards), likely per-
mitting greater HR recovery [3]. In addition, two studies
[3, 18] recorded comparable HR results for forwards and
centers, which opposes activity data showing forwards
execute more high-intensity activities than centers during
match-play. These similarities in HR responses between
forwards and centers might be due to an increased static
workload performed by centers during activities such as
screening, blocking, and maintaining inside position
against opposing players. Major muscle groups involved in
these physical resistance activities via dynamic and static
work have been shown to have a noteworthy effect on the
HR response [54]. Consequently, intense static activities
should to be included in time-motion analyses because they
presumably carry additional stress on players during
match-play.
It seems that basketball players competing at higher
playing levels exhibit larger HR values than players at
lower playing levels [6, 12]. In addition, international
players have been shown to spend a significantly longer
time performing at [ 85% HRmax than national players,
possibly due to a greater intermittent workload [6]. Con-
versely, the longer time spent working at 75–85% HRmax in
national players compared with international players pos-
sibly reflects a more continuous, consistent intensity of
play at lower playing levels [6]. On the other hand, avail-
able HR data in female players are consistent with those
reported in male players, suggesting similar stress is placed
on the cardiovascular system across sexes during basketball
match-play. It should be noted that significant variations in
player HR across studies are expected due to many factors
influencing responses, including player fitness [5, 8], match
123
E. Stojanović et al.
intensity [3], playing positions [3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 18], playing
level [6, 12], and playing time [5]. Variations in match
stoppages across studies make it difficult to draw definitive
conclusions addressing the influence of geographical
location on the HR response of basketball players. In
addition, variables such as nutritional status [12, 55],
environmental conditions [12, 55], psychological arousal
[56], anxiety [56], emotional stress [57], and mental strain
[58] should also be considered when interpreting the
available HR data as they likely exert important influences
on player responses during basketball match-play.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
During live playing time across 40-min matches, male and
female basketball players travel 5–6 km at an average
physiological intensity above lactate threshold and 85%
HRmax. Despite exhibiting high physiological intensities
during matches, the majority of playing time is devoted to
low- to moderate-intensity activities. Thus, it appears that
periodic bursts of high-intensity activities and extensive
intermittent demands (changes in activity type every 1–3 s)
may exacerbate the HR response for prolonged periods.
These periods of high-intensity activity interspersed with
brief recovery increase the reliance on rapid glycolysis for
energy provision, promoting an accumulation of lactate in
the blood. However, the tendency for less vigorous activ-
ities and increased stoppage time towards the end of mat-
ches likely leads to lower physiological responses in the
latter stages of matches.
Position-specific demands should be taken into account
by basketball practitioners when planning individualized
training programs. Guards spend a higher percentage of
live playing time sprinting and undergoing high-intensity
shuffling movements compared with forwards and centers,
which likely account for the higher blood lactate concen-
trations and HR responses observed for guards compared
with other positions. Consequently, guards may require
targeted drills or games-based training that promote
extensive high-intensity and shuffling work to cope with
the demands likely encountered during match-play. Fur-
thermore, a greater proportion of playing time performing
sprinting and shuffling movements was also evident in
forwards compared with centers. However, comparable
physiological data (blood lactate concentration and HR)
across forwards and centers probably occurred due to
intense, static work centers typically complete during
match-play, such as screening, blocking, and maintaining
position against physical resistance from opponents.
Therefore, it is recommended that basketball practitioners
consider static actions during training drills for players,
particularly centers. Furthermore, future time-motion
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
studies are recommended to include traditional dynamic
activity types (e.g. walking, jogging, running, jumping) and
also static work when quantifying player demands. Further
studies are also encouraged categorizing playing positions
using the same approach (e.g. five playing positions) to
obtain a wider understanding of the precise position-
specific match activity demands.
Research examining player samples from different
playing levels suggests higher-level competition evokes a
greater intermittent workload than lower levels, resulting in
higher blood lactate concentrations and HR responses.
Accordingly, more attention should be devoted to inter-
mittent conditioning training drills, especially for players
transitioning to or competing at elite and international
levels. However, some disparities regarding match data
relative to playing level were apparent in terms of the
duration of playing time spent performing low-, moderate-,
and high-intensity activities. Therefore, future studies
examining activity durations during basketball match-play
administered across varied playing levels are warranted to
gather further insight into the proportion of playing time
dedicated to performing activities of varying intensity. The
available evidence also indicates that geographical differ-
ences might exist in the activity demands and physiological
responses between Australian, African and European bas-
ketball players. However, disparities in methodological
procedures of the included studies and the categorization of
activities make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Therefore, due to varied methodological procedures, further
studies with strictly defined and comprehensive activity
categorization, video capture procedures, and analytical
approaches are needed. Furthermore, advancements in
microtechnologies housing accelerometers, magnetometers,
and gyroscopes, as well as global positioning systems
integrated with portable satellite systems for indoor use,
should be considered in future studies. These technologies
provide additional methodologies to capture time-motion
data in ‘real time’ during basketball match-play.
Although lower values in activity distance and fre-
quency were reported in female basketball players com-
pared with male players across all studies, variations
primarily in time-motion methodology, playing level, and
geographical location may have contributed to the obtained
results. Direct comparisons between sexes suggest similar
demands in total distance covered, with female players
engaged in more running activity. In addition, a similar
activity frequency across sexes emphasizes that similar
movement patterns and loading may be necessary, target-
ing acceleration, deceleration, and change of direction
movements during training sessions in male and female
players. The implementation of such training also leads to a
reduction in the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament
injuries in female basketball players [59], who exhibit a
higher incidence of these injuries compared with male
players.
Based on the available basketball literature, it is
apparent disparities in approaches exist across investiga-
tions. Consequently, it is recommended that future time-
motion studies standardize activity categorization, classi-
fication of playing positions, and develop objective criteria
to indicate activity intensities. Although predetermined,
generic speed thresholds can allow for objective catego-
rization of activities, this approach fails to take into
account differences in absolute physical capacities between
players. Consequently, it is recommended that future
studies seek to quantify activity demands in an individu-
alized manner relative to each player’s physical capacity
(e.g. percentage of maximal sprint speed). Nevertheless, it
appears that the majority of the available time-motion
analysis approaches in the literature (manual and software)
possess acceptable reliability, with intraclass correlation
coefficients ranging between 0.68 and 1.00 and coefficient
of variation values ranging between 0.9 and 10.0% across
different activity categories. Furthermore, it is also
important to implement appropriate methodology to
quantify static actions and categorize dribbling activity
according to intensity [5]. Future studies should also seek
to quantify player demands and responses relative to live
and total playing time across basketball match-play. Cal-
culation of player demands across live playing time will
provide greater insight into the physical requirements on
players during active phases of matches, and facilitate
more precise development of physical stimuli in training
drills to optimally prepare players for competition. Fur-
thermore, examining player responses during total playing
time, inclusive of the inherent recovery opportunities
available to players across match-play, is equally important
in the development of ecologically valid training plans and
testing protocols.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation
of this review.
Conflict of interest Emilija Stojanović, Nenad Stojiljković, Aaron
Scanlan, Vincent Dalbo, Daniel Berkelmans and Zoran Milanović
declare they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this
review.
References
1. Hoffman J. Physiology of basketball. In: McKeag DB, editor.
Handbook of sports medicine and science: basketball. Malden:
Blackwell Science Ltd; 2008. p. 12–24.
2. McInnes S, Carlson J, Jones C, et al. The physiological load
imposed on basketball players during competition. J Sports Sci.
1995;13(5):387–97.
123

3. Abdelkrim NB, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. Time–motion analysis and
physiological data of elite under-19-year-old basketball players
during competition. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(2):69–75.
4. Scanlan A, Dascombe B, Reaburn P. A comparison of the activity
demands of elite and sub-elite Australian men’s basketball
competition. J Sports Sci. 2011;29(11):1153–60.
5. Scanlan AT, Dascombe BJ, Reaburn P, et al. The physiological
and activity demands experienced by Australian female basket-
ball players during competition. J Sci Med Sport.
2012;15(4):341–7.
6. Ben Abdelkrim NB, Castagna C, El Fazaa S, et al. The effect of
players’ standard and tactical strategy on game demands in men’s
basketball. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(10):2652–62.
7. Ben Abdelkrim NB, Castagna C, Jabri I, et al. Activity profile and
physiological requirements of junior elite basketball players in
relation to aerobic-anaerobic fitness. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(9):2330–42.
8. Hůlka K, Cuberek R, Bělka J. Heart rate and time–motion anal-
yses in top junior players during basketball matches. Acta
Gymnica. 2013;43(3):27–35.
9. Klusemann MJ, Pyne DB, Hopkins WG, et al. Activity profiles
and demands of seasonal and tournament basketball competition.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013;8(6):623–9.
10. Matthew D, Delextrat A. Heart rate, blood lactate concentration,
and time–motion analysis of female basketball players during
competition. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(8):813–21.
11. Narazaki K, Berg K, Stergiou N, et al. Physiological demands of
competitive basketball. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2009;19(3):425–32.
12. Rodriguez-Alonso M, Fernandez-Garcia B, Perez-Landaluce J,
et al. Blood lactate and heart rate during national and international
women’s basketball. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2003;43(4):432.
13. Scanlan AT, Dascombe BJ, Kidcaff AP, et al. Gender-specific
activity demands experienced during semiprofessional basketball
game play. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(5):618–25.
14. Scanlan AT, Tucker PS, Dascombe BJ, et al. Fluctuations in
activity demands across game quarters in professional and
semiprofessional male basketball. J Strength Cond Res.
2015;29(11):3006–15.
15. Hulka K, Cuberek R, Svoboda Z. Time–motion analysis of bas-
ketball players: a reliability assessment of Video Manual Motion
Tracker 1.0 software. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(1):53–9.
16. Ziv G, Lidor R. Physical attributes, physiological characteristics,
on-court performances and nutritional strategies of female and
male basketball players. Sports Med. 2009;39(7):547–68.
17. Ben Abdelkrim NB, Castagna C, El Fazaa S, et al. Blood
metabolites during basketball competitions. J Strength Cond Res.
2009;23(3):765–73.
18. Vaquera Jiménez A, Refoyo Román I, Villa Vicente JG, et al.
Heart rate response to game-play in professional basketball
players. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2008;3(1):1–9.
19. Montgomery PG, Pyne DB, Minahan CL. The physical and
physiological demands of basketball training and competition. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(1):75–86.
20. Vencúrik T. Differences in intensity of game load between senior
and U19 female basketball players. J Hum Sport Exerc.
2014;9(1):S422–8.
21. Vencúrik T, Nykodým J. The intensity of load experienced by
female basketball players during competitive games. Int J Med
Health Biomed Bioeng Pharm Eng. 2015;9(7):565–8.
22. Vencúrik T, Nykodým J, Struhár I. Heart rate response to game
load of U19 female basketball players. J Hum Sport Exerc.
2015;10(1):S410–7.
23. Oba W, Okuda T. A cross-sectional comparative study of
movement distances and speed of the players and a ball in bas-
ketball game. Int J Sport Health Sci. 2008;6:203–12.
123
E. Stojanović et al.
24. Erčulj F, Dežman B, Vučković G, et al. An analysis of basketball
players movements in the Slovenian basketball league play-offs
using the SAGIT tracking system. Phys Ed Sport. 2008;6(1):75–84.
25. Paul GM, David BP, Clare LM. The physical and physiological
demands of basketball training and competition. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. 2010;5(1):75–86.
26. Conte D, Favero TG, Lupo C, et al. Time–motion analysis of
Italian elite women’s basketball games: individual and team
analyses. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(1):144–50.
27. Delextrat A, Badiella A, Saavedra V, et al. Match activity
demands of elite Spanish female basketball players by playing
position. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2015;15(2):687–703.
28. Delextrat A, Baliqi F, Clarke N. Repeated sprint ability and stride
kinematics are altered following an official match in national-
level basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
2013;53(2):112–8.
29. Caprino D, Clarke ND, Delextrat A. The effect of an official
match on repeated sprint ability in junior basketball players.
J Sports Sci. 2012;30(11):1165–73.
30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA state-
ment. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.
31. Janeira M, Maia J. Game intensity in basketball. An interactionist
view linking time-motion analysis, lactate concentration and
heart rate. Coach Sport Sci J. 1998;3:26–30.
32. Sampaio J, Janeira M, Ibáñez S, et al. Discriminant analysis of
game-related statistics between basketball guards, forwards, and
centres in three professional leagues. Eur J Sport Sci.
2006;6(3):173–8.
33. MacDougall JD, Hicks AL, MacDonald JR, et al. Muscle per-
formance and enzymatic adaptations to sprint interval training.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998;84(6):2138–42.
34. Rodas G, Ventura JL, Cadefau JA, et al. A short training pro-
gramme for the rapid improvement of both aerobic and anaerobic
metabolism. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000;82(5–6):480–6.
35. Greig MP, Mc Naughton LR, Lovell RJ. Physiological and
mechanical response to soccer-specific intermittent activity and
steady-state activity. Res Sports Med. 2006;14(1):29–52.
36. Reilly T. Energetics of high-intensity exercise (soccer) with
particular reference to fatigue. J Sports Sci. 1997;15(3):257–63.
37. Bangsbo J. The physiology of intermittent activity in football. In:
Reilly T, Bangsbo J, Hughes M, editors. Science and football III.
London: Taylor and Francis Ltd; 1997. p. 43–53.
38. Castagna C, Abt G, Manzi V, et al. Effect of recovery mode on
repeated sprint ability in young basketball players. J Strength
Cond Res. 2008;22(3):923–9.
39. Piiper J, Spiller P. Repayment of O2 debt and resynthesis of high-
energy phosphates in gastrocnemius muscle of the dog. J Appl
Physiol. 1970;28(5):657–62.
40. Dupont G, Blondel N, Berthoin S. Performance for short inter-
mittent runs: active recovery vs. passive recovery. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2003;89(6):548–54.
41. Jelicić M, Sekulić D, Marinović M. Anthropometric character-
istics of high level European junior basketball players. Coll
Antropol. 2002;26:69–76.
42. Sallet P, Perrier D, Ferret J, et al. Physiological differences in
professional basketball players as a function of playing position
and level of play. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2005;45(3):291–4.
43. Cormery B, Marcil M, Bouvard M. Rule change incidence on
physiological characteristics of elite basketball players: a
10-year-period investigation. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(1):25–30.
44. Ostojic SM, Mazic S, Dikic N. Profiling in basketball: physical
and physiological characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond
Res. 2006;20(4):740.
45. Parr RB, Hoover R, Wilmore JH, et al. Professional basketball
players: athletic profiles. Phys Sportsmed. 1978;6(4):77–87.
Activity Demands and Physiological Responses in Basketball Matches
46. Vaccaro P, Wrenn J, Clarke D. Selected aspects of pulmonary
function and maximal oxygen uptake of elite college basketball
players. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1980;20(1):103.
47. Reilly T, Bowen T. Exertional costs of changes in directional
modes of running. Percept Mot Skills. 1984;58(1):149–50.
48. Castagna C, Impellizzeri F, Chaouachi A, et al. Physiological
responses to ball-drills in regional level male basketball players.
J Sports Sci. 2011;29(12):1329–36.
49. Castagna C, Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, et al. The Yo–Yo
Intermittent Recovery Test in basketball players. J Sci Med Sport.
2008;11(2):202–8.
50. Balsom P, Gaitanos G, Ekblom B, et al. Reduced oxygen avail-
ability during high intensity intermittent exercise impairs per-
formance. Acta Physiol Scand. 1994;152(3):279–85.
51. Tomlin DL, Wenger HA. The relationship between aerobic fit-
ness and recovery from high intensity intermittent exercise.
Sports Med. 2001;31(1):1–11.
52. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Steensberg A, et al. Muscle and blood
metabolites during a soccer game: implications for sprint per-
formance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(6):1165–74.
53. Bangsbo J, Mohr M, Krustrup P. Physical and metabolic demands
of training and match-play in the elite football player. J Sports
Sci. 2006;24(07):665–74.
54. Kraemer W, Noble B, Clark M, et al. Physiologic responses to
heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods. Int J Sports
Med. 1987;8(04):247–52.
55. Gilman M. The use of heart rate to monitor the intensity of
endurance training. Sports Med. 1996;21(2):73–9.
56. Tumilty D. Physiological characteristics of elite soccer players.
Sports Med. 1993;16(2):80–96.
57. Bangsbo J. The physiology of soccer—with special reference to
intense intermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl.
1993;619:1–155.
58. Bangsbo J. Energy demands in competitive soccer. J Sports Sci.
1993;12:S5–12.
59. Silvers H, Mandelbaum B. Prevention of anterior cruciate liga-
ment injury in the female athlete. Br J Sports Med.
2007;41(S1):i52–9.
123