Effects of an 8-Week In-Season Upper Limb Elastic Band Training Programme on the Peak Power, Strength, and Throwing Velocity of Junior Handball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Team handball is an intense sport with special requirements on technical and tactical skills as well as physical performance. The ability of handball players to make repeated powerful muscular contractions in pushing and throwing the ball is crucial to success. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of elastic band training on upper body peak power output, ball throwing velocity, and local muscle volume of junior handball players. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty handball players (a single national-level Tunisian team) were randomly assigned to a control group (CG; n = 15) and an experimental group (EG; n = 15). Pre- and post-interventional measurements included force-velocity tests, one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press and pull-over strength, ball throwing velocity in three types of throw (jumping shot, 3-step running throw, and standing throw), and anthropometric estimates of limb volumes. The EG additionally performed an elastic band training programme twice a week for 8 weeks immediately before engaging in regular handball training. The control group underwent no additional elastic band training. RESULTS: The EG demonstrated greater improvements in absolute and relative peak power (p < 0.001; 49.3 ± 22.9 % and 47.9 ± 24.6 %, respectively), 1RM strength (p < 0.001; 25.3 ± 2.2 % and 44.1 ± 9.0 % for 1RM bench press and pull over, respectively), and throwing velocity in all three types of ball throws (p < 0.001; 25.1-26.1 %), compared to the CG (3.9-4.4 %). Limb volumes increased significantly (p = 0.001, 8.0 ± 7.5 %) in the EG, with no significant change (p = 0.175, 2.6 ± 7.0 %) in the CG. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that additional elastic band training performed twice a week for 8 weeks improves measures relevant to game performance, particularly strength, power, and ball throwing velocity.
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 | 0.000 | 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".