Effects of In-Season Circuit Training on Physical Abilities in Male Handball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hermassi, S, Wollny, R, Schwesig, R, Shephard, RJ, and Chelly, MS. Effects of in-season circuit training on physical abilities in male handball players. J Strength Cond Res 33(4): 944-957, 2019-This study analyzed the effects of a resistance-type circuit training (RCT) program (30-35 minutes, performed twice a week for 10 weeks) on male handball players. Twenty-two male players were divided into experimental (E; age 20.3 ± 0.5 years) and control groups (C; age 20.1 ± 0.5 years). Measures before and after RCT included squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of bench press, pull-over and back half-squats, throwing velocity (a 3-step running throw [RT], and a jump throw [JT]), repeated-sprint ability (six 2 × 15-m shuttle sprints with recording of best time for a single trial), anthropometric estimates of leg- and thigh-muscle volumes and mean thigh cross-sectional area (CSA), and a test of agility. The agility T-half test showed a significant interaction effect (p = 0.001; η = 0.422), with an intergroup difference in effect size (d) of 1.27 (dTG = 1.24 vs. dCG = -0.03). The SJ displayed no interaction effect. The interaction effects for half back squat (d = 2.73, η = 0.740) and CMJ (d = 3.76, η = 0.700) were large, but that for RT was smaller (η = 0.460) than that for JT (η = 0.745). The throwing velocity of C decreased for both measures, with negative effect sizes (d = -0.18 and d = -0.93, respectively). Upper-body, leg, and thigh-muscle volumes and thigh CSA increased significantly after resistance training. However, repeated-sprint parameters showed no significant changes. During the competitive season, 10 weeks of RCT with only 2 training sessions per week improved numerous measures of athletic performance in handball players, and such conditioning can be highly recommended as part of the annual training program for elite handball players.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".