Effects of brief periods of combined plyometric exercise and high intensity running training on the fitness performance of male U17 handball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of 8-week combined plyometric exercise and high intensity running training (combined training) on the performance fitness in male U17 handball players. Participants were randomly divided between experimental (E; n = 15; age: 16.5 ± 0.4 years) and control (C; n = 13; age: 16.7 ± 0.3 years) groups. The E group performed combined training (4 workshops) twice a week over 8 weeks. Each session lasted approximately 35 min. The C maintained regular in-season training. Before and after the combined training, both groups underwent repeated sprint ability (RSA), sprint performance (5m, 10m, 20m and 30m), change of direction test (Modified change-of-direction T-test (T-half)), vertical jump (squat jump (SJ), counter-movement jump (CMJ), counter-movement jump with aimed arms (CMJA)), horizontal jump (five-jump test (5JT)), strength (1-RM half squat), and 20-meter shuttle run. Group x time interaction showed significant increases on sprint performance ( p < 0.01, 8.6%; p < 0.001, 7.3%; p < 0.05, 6.9%; and p < 0.01, 8.9% over distances of 5m, 10m, 20m and 30m respectively) in E relative to C. The T-half also showed significant gains for E ( p < 0.05, 6.8%), as did vertical jumping ( p < 0.01, 32.7%; p < 0.001, 32.6% and p < 0.001, 23% for SJ, CMJ and CMJA respectively) and horizontal jumping ( p < 0.05, 13.3%) compared to C. Moreover, there were significant improvements of RSA and 20 m shuttle run in E compared to C. However, there were no significant differences in 1-RM half squat between groups. We conclude that the allocation of short periods of a combined training is effective in enhancing performance fitness and thus can be commended to male U17 Handball participants as a potentially useful component of their 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".