Effects of complex strength training with elastic band program on repeated change of direction in young female handball players: Randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of 10-week complex strength training with elastic band program on fitness components in young female handball players. Thirty-eight handball players aged 15.8 ± 0.2 years were randomly assigned to an experimental group or control group. The experimental group performed complex strength training with elastic band twice a week over 10 weeks, which included 8 workshops of progressing set length (number of sets) and band resistance for each specific exercise. Sessions were lasted approximately 35 min. The control group maintained regular in-season training. Tests included handgrip; back extensor; medicine ball throw; 30 m sprint times; Modified Illinois change-of-direction (Illinois-MT); four jump tests (squat jump, countermovement jump, countermovement jump with arms and five jump test; static (stork test) and dynamic (Y balance test) balance; and repeated sprint T-test. The experimental group enhanced all strength performance (handgrip right ( p < 0.001), handgrip left ( p < 0.001), back extensor strength ( p < 0.001) and medicine ball throw ( p < 0.001) compared to the controls); sprint performance (5 m ( p<0.001), 10 m ( p < 0.001), 20 m ( p < 0.001), and 30 m ( p < 0.001)); the change of direction (Illinois-MT ( p < 0.001)); jump performance (squat jump ( p < 0.001), countermovement jump ( p < 0.001), countermovement jump with arms ( p < 0.001), and five jump test ( p < 0.01)); and the repeated sprint T-test scores ( p<0.001in all scores). In contrast, no significant difference in both static and dynamic balance performance between experimental group and control group. Ten weeks of complex strength training with elastic band improve fitness components measures in young female handball players then habitual training.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".