Effects of In-Season Explosive Strength Training on Maximal Leg Strength, Jumping, Sprinting, and Intermittent Aerobic Performance in Male Handball Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Team handball is an intense ball sport with specific requirements on technical skills, tactical understanding, and physical performance. The ability of handball players to develop explosive efforts (e. g. sprinting, jumping, changing direction) is crucial to success. Objective The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the effects of an in-season high-intensity strength training program on the physical performance of elite handball players. Materials and methods Twenty-two handball players (a single national-level Tunisian team) were randomly assigned to a control group (CG; n = 10) or a training group (TG; n = 12). At the beginning of the pilot study, all subjects performed a battery of motor tests: one repetition maximum (1-RM) half-squat test, a repeated sprint test [6 × (2 × 15 m) shuttle sprints], squat jumps, counter movement jumps (CMJ), and the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1. The TG additionally performed a maximal leg strength program twice a week for 10 weeks immediately before engaging in regular handball training. Each strength training session included half-squat exercises to strengthen the lower limbs (80 – 95 % of 1-RM, 1 – 3 repetitions, 3 – 6 sets, 3 – 4 min rest between sets). The control group underwent no additional strength training. The motor test battery was repeated at the end of the study interventions. Results In the TG, 3 parameters (maximal strength of lower limb: η² = 0.74; CMJ: η² = 0.70, and RSA best time: η² = 0.25) showed significant improvements, with large effect sizes (e. g. CMJ: d = 3.77). A reduction in performance for these same 3 parameters was observed in the CG (d = -0.24). Conclusions The results support our hypothesis that additional strength training twice a week enhances the maximal strength of the lower limbs and jumping or repeated sprinting performance. There was no evidence of shuttle sprints ahead of regular training compromising players’ speed and endurance capacities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".