Author(s): PAULAUSKAS, R., KAMARAUSKAS, P., FIGUEIRA, B., Institution: VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY, Country: LITHUANIA, Abstract-ID: 961

INTRODUCTION:
Basketball players frequently transition between 3×3 and 5×5 formats during competition and training. Recovery following active game intervals represents an important component of physiological adaptation and performance readiness but remains insufficiently investigated. This study examined heart rate (HR) and muscle oxygen saturation (SmO₂) recovery kinetics following 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-minute intervals of 3×3 and 5×5 basketball performed over matched total durations.
METHODS:
Twenty-two professional male players (age: 24.5 ± 6.3 years, height: 195.7 ± 5.5 cm, body mass: 91.0 ± 8.8 kg) who competed internationally in both 3×3 and 5×5 basketball during the same season participated in this study. External load was assessed using 100 Hz inertial measurement units, including total distance (TD), distance rate (DR), jump count (JC), and jump rate (JR). Internal load was quantified using training impulse (TRIMP) derived from HR and exercise duration. Recovery responses were evaluated using post-exercise relative changes (Δ%) in HR and vastus lateralis muscle oxygen saturation (SmO₂). Recovery kinetics were calculated from measurements taken at 15, 30, 45, and 60 seconds following exercise cessation relative to values recorded at the onset of recovery.
RESULTS:
Across all intervals, distance per minute was significantly higher in 5×5 than 3×3 intervals (all t = 8.55–11.63, all p < 0.001), whereas jump rate and jump count were generally higher in 3×3, reaching significance mainly at the 1-min interval (JR: t = −5.38, p < 0.001; JC: t = −2.40, p = 0.019).
Regarding internal load and recovery, TRIMP and post-exercise heart rate were consistently higher in 3×3 (TRIMP: t = −2.24 to −4.64, p ≤ 0.028; HR post: t = −3.02 to −4.87, p ≤ 0.004), while significant format differences in HR and SmO₂ recovery were mainly observed at the 1-min and 3-min intervals, with larger early recovery responses following 3×3 (t up to 5.85, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION:
Although 5×5 basketball imposes greater external locomotor demands, 3×3 basketball elicits higher physiological strain and distinct recovery kinetics. These findings highlight the differing training stimuli and recovery characteristics between basketball formats, which may inform conditioning and load management strategies in elite players.