Shuttle versus straight repeated-sprint ability tests and their relationship to anthropometrics and explosive muscular performance in elite handball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed inter-relationships between shuttle and straight repeated-sprint ability tests and the relationship of each measure to anthropometric and explosive lower limb performance data in elite handball players. METHODS: Twenty-two elite male handball players (18.9±0.2 years; body mass: 83.3±1.1 kg, height: 1.79±2.30 m, body fat: 12.8±0.2%) completed tests that included a lower limb force-velocity test of peak power (Wpeak), jumping ability (squat and counter-movement jumps; SJ, CMJ), 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) half back squat, average sprint velocity over 5 m (V-5 m), peak velocity between 25-30 m (Vmax), and Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1), and anthropometric determinations of cross-sectional areas and muscle volumes for leg and thigh muscles. Data were compared with performance on two repeated sprint tests; the straight test (6 × 30 m [RSA30]) and the intermittent test (6×[2×15 m] shuttle sprints [RSA15]). RESULTS: V-5 m, 1-RM, and thigh and leg muscle cross-sectional areas and volumes showed relevant relationships to the shuttle RSA test (r2≥0.5). The Yo-Yo IR1 explained the largest percentage of variance in RSA15 total time (60%), and V-5 m also explained 56% of the variance in RSA15 total time. RSA15% fatigue was only related to 1-RM (explained variance: 58%), and the RSA30 test showed no useful correlations with any of the investigated predictors. Multiple-regression analyses using all physical tests explained 91% of the variance in RSA15 total time (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The volume of the leg muscles seems important to power production and repeated sprints over distances of 15 m or less. RSA15 is related to muscular power, maximal strength, speed and endurance performance; however, the straight repeated sprint ability test is not, and thus does not seem relevant for the testing of 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".