Effect of Speed Threshold Approaches for Evaluation of External Load in Male Basketball Players

Arbitrary zones are commonly used to describe and monitor external load (EL) during training and competitions. However, in recent years, relative speed zones have gained interest as they allow a more detailed description of the demands of each individual player, with their benefits largely unknown. This study aimed to (i) identify differences in EL methodological approaches using arbitrary and relative running speed zones; (ii) examine the effect of the methodological approaches to identify fast and slow basketball players during competition and training; and (iii) determine the effect of the season stage on the methodological approaches. Twelve players from a Spanish fourth-division basketball team were observed for a full season of matches and training using inertial devices with ultra-wideband indoor tracking technology and micro-sensors. Relative velocity zones were based on the maximum velocity achieved during each match quarter and were retrospectively recalculated into four zones. A linear mixed model (LMM) compared fast and slow players based on speed profiles between arbitrary and relative thresholds and during each competition stage. All players surpassed peak speeds of 24 km·h^-1 during the season, exceeding typical values reported in elite basketball (20-24.5 km·h^-1). Arbitrary thresholds produced greater distances in high-speed running (Zones 3 and 4) and yielded lower values in low-speed activity (Zone 1), with differences of ~100 m and ~120-250 m, respectively (p < 0.001), particularly for fast-profile players. These discrepancies were consistent across most stages of the season, although relative zones better captured variations in Zone 1 across time. Training sessions also elicited +8.7% to +40.7% greater distances > 18 km·h^-1 compared to matches. The speed zone methodology substantially influenced EL estimates and affected how player EL was interpreted across time. Arbitrary and relative approaches offer unique applications, with coaches and sport scientists encouraged to be aware that using a one-size-fits-all approach may lead to misrepresentation of individual player demands, especially when tracking changes in performance or managing fatigue throughout a competitive season.