Frontiers in Sports & Active Living · 2024 · Original Research

Stretch-Shortening Cycle
Fatigue in NCAA
Basketball

Investigating the SSC fatigue response to a one-week high-intensity stressful phase of training in NCAA Division-I men’s basketball players using countermovement jump (CMJ) and 10-5 hop test force-plate metrics.

16NCAA D-I Athletes
6Testing Timepoints
SSC Tests (Slow & Fast)
ES 1.44–3.16External Load Increase
01 Study Design & Timeline
Study timeline schematic
Figure 1

Study timeline: 3-week baseline period (Weeks 1–3) for reliability & workload quantification, followed by the 5-day overreaching phase (Days 19–23, workload sum 934 AU vs. 423 AU baseline), then follow-up testing at P72h, P1W and P2W. CMJ and 10-5 hop tests were performed at all timepoints.

Weeks 1–2 Baseline Reliability CMJ & 10-5 performed on separate days. ICC calculated over 3-week period.
Week 3 Baseline + Load Reliability & external load data collected. 423 AU weekly sum.
Days 19–23 Overreaching Phase 5-day HI training. 934 AU sum. Tests on Days 20 & 22 (6h post).
Day 26 P72h 72h post-phase. Following 2 days of rest.
Day 30 Post 1 Week End of first normal NCAA 20-h training week post-fatigue.
Day 37 Post 2 Weeks End of second normal training week. Most metrics approaching baseline.
02 External Load — Overreaching vs. Baseline
Gardner-Altman plots of external load metrics
Figure 2

Gardner-Altman plots showing paired mean differences (N=15) for four significant external load metrics between baseline week 3 and the high-intensity training period (HI TP). Each line = one athlete. The right half of each plot shows the bootstrapped mean difference and 95% CI.

Accumulated Acceleration Load (AAL)
ES 1.77

2,099 → 3,106 AU — Very large increase. Total load across all movement planes nearly doubled during overreaching week.

Acceleration Load High (ALH)
ES 3.16

423 → 934 AU — Largest effect size observed. High-intensity accelerations (3.6–5.0 m/s²) more than doubled, reflecting the nature of repeated sprint/jump drills.

Acceleration Load Very High (ALVH)
ES 1.44

375 → 858 AU — Very large increase. Sustained accelerations >5.0 m/s² more than doubled.

Anaerobic Activity Distance (AAD)
ES 2.61

5,120 → 11,581 m — Very large increase. Distance at >4.0 m/s² threshold more than doubled. ALM not significantly different between weeks.

03 CMJ Fatigue Sensitivity (Slow SSC)
Exceeds MD threshold (negative)
Exceeds SEM but not MD
Within SEM threshold
Exceeds MD threshold (positive)
CMJ fatigue sensitivity plots
Figure 3

Individual athlete change-from-baseline scores for six key CMJ metrics. Light grey band = MD threshold; dark grey band = SEM. Points colored by performance change relative to threshold. (A) mRSI; (B) Braking Phase Duration; (C) Braking Net Impulse; (D) Avg Braking Velocity; (E) Jump Height; (F) Jump Momentum.

CMJ Metric Sensitivity Summary — Effect Sizes & % Athletes Below MD Mixed Effects Model
Metric
Acute 1
Acute 2
Post 72h
Post 1W
Post 2W
Avg Braking Velocity
0.93 · 71%
1.04 · 75%
0.47 · 24%
0.33 · 24%
0.30 · 25%
Braking Net Impulse
0.67 · 71%
0.74 · 56%
0.34 · 29%
0.16 · 24%
0.05 · 25%
Jump Height
0.64 · 57%
0.82 · 56%
0.59 · 35%
0.44 · 29%
0.15 · 13%
mRSI
0.41 · 21%
0.53 · 31%
0.47 · 24%
0.41 · 29%
0.17 · 13%
Braking Phase Duration
0.24 · 43%
0.24 · 31%
0.21 · 35%
0.20 · 25%
0.13 · 6%
Jump Momentum
0.33 · 57%
0.43 · 56%
0.26 · 29%
0.08 · 12%
0.05 · 0%
TTT / PPD
0.12 · 0%
0.02 · 0%
0.19 · 6%
0.19 · 6%
0.08 · 6%
ES = effect size · % = athletes below MD threshold · Large  Moderate  Small  Trivial
Key CMJ finding: Average braking velocity (ABV) was the most sensitive metric, with 71–75% of athletes falling below the MD threshold at Acute 1 and 2. Notably, TTT and PPD remained unchanged across all timepoints — contrasting previous literature suggesting these as fatigue-sensitive. Changes in mRSI were largely driven by decreases in jump height rather than time-to-takeoff, highlighting the need to interpret ratio metrics by their component parts.
04 10-5 Hop Test Fatigue Sensitivity (Fast SSC)
10-5 hop test fatigue sensitivity plots
Figure 4

Individual athlete change-from-baseline scores for three 10-5 hop test metrics across all post-baseline timepoints. (A) Top 3 avg mRSI; (B) Top 3 peak mRSI; (C) Top 3 avg jump height. Notable secondary reduction in performance observed at P1W, consistent with the bimodal SSC recovery model.

T3 Jump Height
ES 0.98–1.01
Largest acute reductions: 31.1 → 24.2 cm at Acute 1. Moderate to large (ES 0.76) depression still present at Post 1 Week.
T3 Avg mRSI
ES 0.83–0.89
Large acute reductions: 1.40 → 1.08 at Acute 1. Driven by JH reductions, not ground contact time changes. ES 0.60 still present at P1W.
Recovery Pattern
Bimodal
A secondary dip at P1W aligns with the bimodal SSC recovery construct — immediate metabolic fatigue followed by delayed neural/structural disruption (reduced soleus pre-activation, reflex sensitivity).
Bimodal recovery & injury risk: The 10-5 hop test showed a fatigue-induced loss of tolerance to ground impact, primarily through reductions in jump height and reactive strength. The delayed secondary dip at P1W may reflect inadequate neural drive — a protective mechanism for the muscle-tendon unit. Across most timepoints, the 10-5 hop test displayed larger effect sizes than the CMJ, aligning with prior work showing acute impairments in high ground-impact SSC tasks with no impairment in low-impact tasks.
05 Individual Athlete Monitoring
Athlete-specific slope coefficients for jump height
Figure 5

Athlete-specific slope coefficients for jump height (cm) derived from random intercept and slope models across all 5 post-baseline timepoints (A1, A2, P72, P1W, P2W). Grey band = MD threshold. Red lines = athletes exceeding the MD threshold. Visualises the high degree of individuality in fatigue response and recovery timelines.

Why Individual Monitoring Matters

The figure above reveals high inter-individual variability in fatigue response — some athletes recovered by P72h while others still exceeded the MD threshold at P1W or P2W, despite the same exposure to the overreaching stimulus.

Practical application: Athlete-specific slope coefficients from random intercept & slope models allow sport scientists to generate individualised recovery timelines, enabling targeted training modifications or additional recovery interventions for athletes still below threshold.

MD threshold note: The MD approach used in this study is more conservative than CV or SWC methods — meaning athletes coloured red truly represent meaningful, real changes beyond measurement noise.

Reliability of Key Metrics (Inter-Day ICC)
CMJ Jump Height
0.95
Jump Momentum
0.98
CMJ mRSI
0.90
Braking Net Impulse
0.95
Avg Braking Velocity
0.92
10-5 T3 Avg mRSI
0.83
10-5 T3 Jump Height
0.66

Note: T3 Jump Height from 10-5 hop showed only moderate inter-day ICC (0.66) with wide CI — interpret with caution. CMJ metrics generally showed excellent reliability (ICC ≥0.90).

06 Practical Takeaways for Sport Scientists

① Monitor the eccentric phase of the CMJ. Average braking velocity and braking net impulse were the most sensitive CMJ metrics (ES up to 1.04; 75% below MD). These eccentric-phase metrics remained depressed beyond 2 weeks in some athletes — more so than traditional outcome metrics like jump height.

② Include a fast SSC test alongside the CMJ. The 10-5 hop test captured a bimodal recovery pattern not evident in the CMJ alone. High ground-impact SSC tasks appear more sensitive to the delayed, neural phase of recovery — particularly relevant during densely scheduled seasons.

③ Decompose ratio metrics before interpreting. In this study, decreases in mRSI were almost entirely driven by reductions in jump height, not increases in TTT. This matters for informing training decisions — a drop in mRSI doesn’t always mean jump strategy changed.

④ Use mixed-effects models for athlete-level insight. The random intercept & slope model approach generates athlete-specific trajectories, revealing individuals who recover slowly despite the group average improving. This enables personalised recovery interventions rather than blanket team-level decisions.

⑤ Don’t stop follow-up testing at 72h. True recovery from a high-intensity overreaching phase may take up to 2 weeks. Several athletes remained below MD thresholds at P1W and P2W. SSC fatigue presents in a bimodal fashion — both immediate metabolic effects AND delayed neural/structural disruption must be accounted for.