Effects of strength training with elastic band programme on fitness components in young female handball players: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of a 10-week programme of strength training with elastic band (STEB) on fitness components in young female handball players. Twenty-six young female handball players (aged 15.8 ± 0.2 years) from the same club participated in this study. They were randomly assigned between experimental (EG; n = 13) and control (CG; n = 13) groups. The EG performed the STEB, replacing some handball-specific drills in the regular handball training. The CG followed the regular handball training (i.e., mainly technical-tactical drills, small sided and simulated games, and injury prevention drills). Two-way analyses of variance were used to assess: handgrip; back extensor strength; medicine ball throw; 30 m sprint times; Modified Illinois change-of-direction (Illinois-MT); four jump tests: squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), countermovement jump with arm swing (CMJA) and five-jump test (5JT); static (Stork test) and dynamic balance (Y Balance Test); and repeated sprint T-test (RSTT). Results revealed significant gains in handgrip - right (p < 0.001, d = 1.75: large), handgrip - left (p < 0.001, d = 2.52: large), back extensor (p < 0.001, d = 2.01: large), and medicine ball throw (p = 0.002, d = 0.95: large) with EG compared to the CG. The EG also demonstrated greater improvement in sprint performance over 20 m (Δ = 10.6%, p = 0.001, d = 1.07: large) and 30 m (Δ = 7.2%, p < 0.0001, d = 1.56: large) compared to the CG. The EG showed better Illinois-MT (Δ = 5.6%, p = 0.034, d = 0.62: medium) compared to the CG. Further, EG posted significant improvements in the SJ (Δ = 17.3%, p = 0.048, d = 0.58: medium), CMJ (Δ = 17.7%, p = 0.017 d = 0.71: medium), and CMJA (Δ = 16.3%, p = 0.019, d = 0.69: medium) compared to the CG. Similarly, the EG exhibited significant improvement in RSTT best time [p = 0.025, d = 0.66 (medium)], RSTT mean time [p = 0.019, d = 0.69 (medium)] and RSTT total time [p = 0.019, d = 0.69 (medium)] compared to the CG. In conclusion, the 10-week STEB improved the physical abilities in young female 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".