marques, m.c., & gonzález-badillo, j.j (2006). in-season resistance training and detraining in...

8/18/2019 Marques, M.C., & González-Badillo, J.J (2006). in-season Resistance Training and Detraining in Professional Team H…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marques-mc-gonzalez-badillo-jj-2006-in-season-resistance-training 1/9

563

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(3), 563–571 2006 National Strength & Conditioning Association

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING AND DETRAINING

IN PROFESSIONAL TEAM H ANDBALL PLAYERS

M A ´ RIO A. C ARDOSO M ARQUES1 AND JUAN JOSE GONZA ´ LEZ-B ADILLO1,2

1University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain; 2Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid Studies, Spain.

A BSTRACT. Marques, M.C., and J.J. Gonzalez-Badillo. In-seasonresistance training and detraining in professional team handballplayers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(3):563–571. 2006.—The objectof this study was to investigate the changes in physical param-eters produced during an in-season resistance training (RT) anddetraining (DT, or RT cessation) in 16 high level team handballplayers (THPs). Apart from normal practice sessions, THPs un-derwent 12 weeks of RT. Subjects performed 3 sets of 3–6 repswith a load of 70–85% concentric 1 repetition maximum benchpress (1RMBP), 3 sets of 3–6 reps with a load of 70–95% of 4repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS), plus vertical

jumps and sprints. The 1RMBP, 4RMPS, speed over 30 m (S30),

jump (countermovement jump height [CMJ]; CMJ with addi-tional weights [20kg and 40kg], and ball throw velocity (BTv)were tested before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks(T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3). Immedi-ately after these 12 weeks, THPs started a 7-week DT period,maintained normal practices. The CMJ and the BTv were theonly parameters evaluated during DT. The most important gains( p 0.001) in S30 were obtained between T1-T2 and T1-T3. TheBTv improved significantly ( p 0.001) only between T1-T2 andT1-T3. The most relevant increases ( p 0.001) in jumping per-formance took place between T1-T2 and T1-T3. The 1RMBPshowed significant increases ( p 0.001) only between T1-T2 andT1-T3. The 4RMPS increased significantly between all testing trials. After the DT, THPs showed no significant losses in CMJperformance. However, they declined significantly in BTv ( p 0.023). The results suggest that elite THPs can optimize impor-

tant physical parameters over 12 weeks in-season and that 7weeks of DT, although insufficient to produce significant de-creases in CMJ, are sufficient to induce significant decreases inBTv. It is concluded that after RT cessation THPs reduced BTvperformance.

K EY WORDS. maximal dynamic strength, jumping, sprinting,ball throwing velocity

INTRODUCTION

Team handball is an Olympic sport now playedprofessionally in Europe. However, despite in-creasing professionalization, there is a paucityof research data concerning performance. Two

reasons for this may be suggested. Most of the investi-

gation so far conducted has been published in eastern Eu-ropean countries and has not been readily accessible tothe sport science community. Most coaches, moreover,have adopted conservative attitudes towards resistancetraining for team handball.

Competitive team handball requires muscularstrength, speed, and endurance. To date, it has not beenvery clear how these parameters change during the sea-son in elite team handball players (THPs). Thus, only 2studies (11, 14) have so far attempted to evaluate the ef-fects of heavy resistance training (RT) programs on dif-ferent physical parameters in competitive THPs.

Research has focused more upon determining the in-

fluence of different speed-strength programs on throwingvelocity (5, 16, 28, 29) or the relationship between throwing velocity and isokinetic strength (6, 9) rather than on jumping ability, sprint performance, or maximal dynamicstrength. Also, there still exists limited information con-cerning training methods that increase the throwing abil-ity in THPs (28). Here most of the research was carriedout in other sports like baseball (20, 21, 23).

Athletes often experience interruptions in trainingsessions and competition programs because of illness, in jury, postseason break, or other factors, which may result

in a reduction or cessation of their normal physical activity level (15, 18, 34). The magnitude of this reduction maydepend upon the length of the detraining period (12, 1318, 34) in addition to training levels attained by the subject (15). Since, moreover, there exists only one previousstudy (28) investigating the effects of detraining (DT, orRT cessation) on THPs, the current investigation soughtadditional information on the effect of this upon jumpingand throwing abilities.

The hypothesis argued in this paper is that elite THPscan significantly increase the physical parameters omaximal dynamic strength, speed, jump, and throw performances in-season by combining normal technical andtactical sessions with an RT program over a consecutive12-week period. Additionally, a 7-week DT period mayproduce significant decreases in physical performancenamely in jump and throw performances. Therefore, theobject of this study was to investigate the changes inphysical parameters produced during an in-season RTand DT in 16 high level THPs. The data so acquired mayassist coaches in training athletes for an in-season RTprogram.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

In order to address the primary hypothesis presentedherein, we selected 16 high level healthy THPs. Subjectswere acquainted with all test procedures 2 weeks before

the measurements were applied and fully warmed-up pri-or to testing. All testing was completed at the end of pe-riodized RT and power training during the first part ofthe season to ensure that all athletes would be in a stateof good overall performance. This entailed an RT program1–2 times per week with medium to low intensity. TheRT program included 2 maximal dynamic strength exer-cises (bench press and half squat) and 3 power exercisessuch as countermovement jump, medicine ball throwingand sprinting. Consequently, all the athletes were apeak condition and were familiar with all the testing ex-ercises, which they had been performing regularly as partof training. Apart from normal technical and tactica



564 M ARQUES AND GONZA ´ LEZ-B ADILLO

T ABLE 1. Selected characteristics of the subjects.

Parameter Mean SD

Age (y) 23.1 4.7Height (cm) 184.2 13.1Body mass (kg) 84.8 13.1

Arm span (cm) 186.6 8Training (y) 9.8 1.94

T ABLE 2a. Resistance training programs between week 1 and week 6.*

Exercises† Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6

Parallel squat‡ 70: 3 6 70: 3 6 75: 3 6 75: 3 6 75: 3 6 80: 3 6CMJ onto a box 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5Bench press§ 70: 3 6 70: 3 6 75: 3 6 75: 3 6 75: 3 6 80: 3 5Sprints 3 20 m 3 20 m 4 20 m 4 20 m 4 30 m 4 30 m


Parallel squat 80: 3 6 80: 3 6 85: 3 5 85: 3 6 85: 3 6 90: 3 4CMJ onto a box 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6Bench press 80: 3 5 80: 3 5 85: 3 3 85: 3 3 85: 3 4 85: 3 4Sprints 5 30 m 5 20 m 5 30 m 5 20 m 5 30 m 5 20 m

Exercises† Session 13 Session 14 Session 15 Session 16

Parallel squat 95: 3 3 85: 3 4 95: 3 3 85: 3 4CMJ onto a box 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6

Bench press 85: 3 3 80: 3 3 85: 3 3 80: 3 3Sprints 5 30 m 5 20 m 5 30 m 5 20 m

Principal exercises

Training summary

Sets reps Percent of MDE¶

Parallel squat 249 81.8%Bench press 203 75.9%

* CMJ countermovement jump; MDE maximal dynamic excercises.† Rest intervals of 2 minutes were permitted between sets and between categories.‡ Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).§ Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP). The total number of repetitions lifted during the first training cycle in 1RMBP and 4RMPS exercises.¶ The average percentage in MDE during the first training cycle (MDE 1RMBP and 4RMPS).

practice sessions (2–3 hours per day timed for 7:00 PM)and weekend competitions, all underwent 12 weeks of RTprogram divided into 2 cycles of 6 weeks. Upper- and low-er-body maximal dynamic strength, speed, jump, and ballthrow velocity (BTv) were tested at 3 intervals: before theexperimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and afterthe 12-week experimental period (T3). Immediately fol-lowing this, they commenced a 7-week DT period (T4),maintained alongside normal sessions.

The inclusion of a control group in the study of topathletes is unethical. This is because the withholding of potentially important training would be detrimental forthe development of the players so selected (17). To over-come this fact, the stability of the dependent variableswas established with test-retest reliability measures (in-traclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) or R (17).

Subjects

The sample comprised 16 high level male THPs (averageage 23 years, range 18–29 years; Table 1) including 4 in-ternational players. Two of the subjects had also partici-pated in European senior championships. Participantswere fully informed of all possible risks and stresses as-sociated with the project and signed consent forms priorto participation. The study was conducted according to

the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Eth-ics Committee of the department responsible. Testing tri-als were performed in January and between Februaryand June, respectively. All THPs has been trained by thesame head coach and for the same club for the previous2 years. Subjects were classified as experienced in RTprograms.

Training ProtocolThe RT program used consisted of 2–3 sessions per weekover 12 weeks (2 cycles of 6-week periods) followed by DTlasting 7 weeks (Tables 2a and 2b). The RT program wasdirectly supervised by present researchers, both of themspecialists in RT, and by the team head coach. The prin-cipal RT exercises were, respectively, the bench press andparallel squat. Subjects performed 3 sets of 3–6 reps witha load of 70–85% concentric 1 repetition maximum benchpress (1RMBP) and 3 sets of 3–6 reps with a load of 70–95% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).On completion, THPs then performed 2 explosivestrength exercises: vertical jumps onto a box, followed byvertical jumps with additional weights (3 sets of 6 reps;

loads varied between 20 and 30 kg, last 6 weeks only).The sprint exercise was consistently applied after warmup at the outset of each RT session (3–5 sets of 20–30 m).In contrast, the other exercises were performed immedi-ately after the team handball practices. Rest intervals of 2 minutes were permitted between sets and between cat-egories. The RT was conducted on Monday and Wednes-day (7:00 PM). Each RT session lasted for approximately40 minutes including a prior warm up. During DT, RTwas totally discontinued but the THPs maintained nor-mal team handball practices and competitions.



IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING 565

T ABLE 2b. Resistance training programs between week 7 and week 12.*


Parallel squat‡ 70: 3 6 70: 3 6 75: 3 6 75: 3 6 80: 3 6 80: 3 6CMJw 20 kg: 3 5 20 kg: 3 5 20 kg: 3 5 25 kg: 3 5 30 kg: 3 5 30 kg: 3 5CMJ into a box 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 3 6Bench press§ 70: 3 6 70: 3 6 75: 2 6 75: 3 6 80: 3 5 80: 3 5Sprints 3 20 m 3 20 m 4 20 m 4 20 m 5 30 m 5 20 m


Parallel squat 85: 3 6 85: 3 6 95: 3 3 85: 3 4 95: 3 3 85: 3 4CMJw 35 kg: 3 5 35 kg: 3 5 35 kg: 3 5 35 kg: 3 5 30 kg: 3 5 30 kg: 3 5CMJ into a box 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6Bench press 85: 3 3 85: 3 4 85: 3 3 80: 3 3 85: 3 3 80: 3 3Sprints 5 20 m 5 30 m 5 30 m 5 20 m 5 30 m 5 20 m

Principal exercises

Training summary

Sets reps Percent of MDE¶

Parallel squat 186 81.6%Bench press 159 79.1%

* CMJ countermovement jump; CMJw countermovement jump with additional weight; MDE maximal dynamic exercises.† Rest intervals of 2 minutes were permitted between sets and between categories.‡ Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).§ Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP).

The total number of repetitions lifted during the second training cycle in 1RMBP and 4RMPS exercises.¶ The average percentage in MDE during the second training cycle (MDE 1RMBP and 4RMPS).

Testing Procedures

Briefly, subjects were acquainted with all test procedures2 weeks before the measurements were applied and werefully warmed up prior to testing. All testing was com-pleted at the end of a periodized strength and powertraining during the first part of the regular season (be-tween October and December) to ensure that all athleteswould be in a state of good overall performance. This en-tailed weight training 1–2 times per week at medium tolow intensity levels and included 2 strength exercises(bench press exercise and a parallel squat); and anotherthree power exercises such as countermovement jump,medicine ball throwing, and sprinting. Athletes were thusat peak condition and were familiar with the testing ex-ercises, regularly performed as part of training.

Sprint testing. Subjects were required to perform 3maximum effort sprints of 30 m (S30). Times at 0–15 m(S15), 15–30 m (S15–30) and S30 were recorded using Brower equipment (Wireless Sprint System, Fairlee, VT).Subjects performed trial sprints separated by 3 minutesof rest. Only the average of the best 2 sprints was consid-ered. The S30 reported an ICC of 0.88 range (95% inter-val: 0.53–0.97), and a CV (coefficient of variation) of 1.7%.

Vertical—jump height testing. The vertical jumpheight was measured by means of the CMJ test described

by Bosco et al. (7). With a preparatory countermovement,each subject started from an erect standing position andthe end of the concentric phase corresponded to a full leg extension: 180. The protocol required the performance of 3 jumps, each followed by 2 minutes of rest. An averageof the 2 best jumps was taken. Subsequently, all per-formed trials of CMJ weighted with 20 and 40 kg (CMJ20kg and CMJ40kg) on a shoulder bar. The CMJshowed an ICC of 0.91 range (95% interval: 0.64–0.97)and a CV of 4.7%. The CMJ with additional weightsshowed an ICC of 0.97 range (95% interval: 0.90–0.99)and 0.87 range (95% interval: 0.50–0.97) in CMJ20kg andCMJ40kg, respectively. These tests registered a CV of

2.2% and 5.4%, respectively, in CMJ20kg and inCMJ40kg. All tests were measured on a trigonometriccarpet (Ergojump Digitime 1000; Digitest, Jyvaskyla, Finland).

Throw testing. In order to assess the overarm throwing performance, a standard handball was used (mass475 g; circumference 58 cm). Each subject then executed5 trials of throws, performing a 3-step run, and thenshooting the ball at maximum velocity to the middle ofthe goal (14). A 2-minute interval separated each trial An average of the best 4 shots was taken. The throwing

velocity was determined using a Speed Check Radar (Triad Industries Inc., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada)This radar had a Doppler signal process to clock speedsThe internally located antenna, when activated, sendsout radio signals at a specific frequency. The principaspecifications are speed range 10–199 k·h1; distancerange (ball) approximately 9 m; accuracy (2/3 k·h1); frequency 10.525 Hz; signal size approximately 60 verticaby 40 horizontal. The BTv showed an ICC of 0.96 range(95% interval: 0.87–0.97) and a CV of 2.4%.

Maximal dynamic strength testing. The maximal dynamic strength tests for the upper and lower muscleswere carried out using 1RMBP and 4RMPS. In 1RMBPthe bar was positioned on the chest for a second. There-

after, each subject was instructed to perform a concentricaction from the starting position, maintaining the shoulders close to a 90-abduction position to ensure consistency of shoulder and elbow joints throughout the movementEach subject started with a weight of 30 kg, this beingincreased by increments of 10 kg until the player wasunable to reach full arm extension. The last bearable loadwas determined as 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The resttime between the actions was 3 minutes. Only 2 subjectsdid not complete the 1RMBP because of shoulder injuriein previous practice incidents. They were, however, evaluated within 5 days of the initial tests, completing thefull RT program. In the 4RMPS, the bar placed across the




T ABLE 3. Mean ( SD) results of different parameters: ball throwing velocity (BTv: kilometers per hour), time in 30 m (S30m:seconds) and in respective time in the first 15 m (S15: seconds) and second 15 m (S15-30: seconds); before the experimental period(T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3).*

Tests (n 16)

Parameter:

Testing schedule

T1 T2 T3

Significance ( p value)

T1–T2 T1–T3 T2–T3

BTv 83.3 6.6 86.8 6.1 88.4 6.6 p 0.001 p 0.001 NSS30 4.47 0.22 4.37 0.09 4.33 0.2 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.05S15 2.55 0.13 2.51 0.13 2.49 0.13 p 0.01 p 0.001 NS

S15-30 1.91 0.09 1.88 0.06 1.84 0.07 NS p 0.001 p 0.001

* NS no significant difference.

T ABLE 4. Mean ( SD) results in centimeters of different parameters: countermovement jump height (CMJ), CMJ with differentloads (CMJ20 kg and CMJ40 kg); before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period(T3).*

Tests (n 16)

Parameter:

Testing schedule

T1 T2 T3


T1–T2 T1–T3 T2–T3

CMJ 36.82 4.8 40.55 5.09 41.62 5.6 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.05CMJ20 kg 25.41 3.5 29.40 4.4 30.69 3.7 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.05CMJ40 kg 18.86 3.1 21.49 2.9 23.34 3.5 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.001

* NS no significant difference.

trapezius at a self-chosen location and the starting posi-tion knee angle was set at 180 (full leg extension). Thesquat was performed to the parallel position, which whenthe grate trochanter of the femur was lowered to the samelevel as the knee. The correct position was monitored byboth researchers. The subject then lifted the weight untilhis knees were extended. Each player started with iden-tical weights of 70 kg, performing on command a seriesof 4 complete parallel squats. Subsequently, the weightwas increased by 10-kg increments until the subject wasunable to reach full leg extension. The last bearable loadwas determined as being 4RM. Five-minute rest intervalsseparated the 1RMBP and 4RMPS tests. The 1RMBPshowed an ICC of 0.91 range (95% interval: 0.62–0.98)and a CV of 9.7%. The 4RMPS reported an ICC of 0.95range (95% interval: 0.87–0.98) and a CV of 4.2%.

Detrain testing. After 12 weeks of RT, THPs under-went a 7-week DT period, although keeping to scheduledteam handball activities. Upon completion, all were mea-sured on 2 dependent variables: CMJ and BTv. The pro-tocols were identical to those previously described. Eachsubject was tested at weekly practice sessions in CMJ andBTv. These tests were applied every Thursday (at 7:00PM) in order to assess the trajectory of jump and throwing performances.

Training efficiency. To quantify the effort to benefitratio, training efficiency was defined as the average per-centage gain in bench press and squat performances dur-ing the 12-week training period divided by the total num-ber of repetitions lifted at loads greater than 80% of 1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.

Statistical Analyses

Ordinary statistical methods were used for the calcula-tion of average and standard deviations. A repeated-mea-sures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustmentwas used to assess gains or losses. Measurement reli-ability was assessed in 2 trials separated by 5 days among 10 THPs. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calcu-lated and the level accepted for statistical significancewas p 0.05.

RESULTS

The sprint and throw results are presented in Table 3.THPs experienced significant improvements in S30macross the whole range of measurements. The most im-portant gains were obtained between T1-T2 (2.24%) andT1-T3 (3.13%). Similar results were achieved in S15mwith significant performance gains between T1-T2(1.57%) and T1-T3 (2.35%), except between T2-T3. Sub- jects also increased sprint performance in S15–30, be-tween T1-T3 (3.66%) and T2-T3 (2.12%), except between

T1-T2. Finally, THPs experienced increases in BTv butthese were significant on only 2 occasions: T1-T2 (4%) andT1-T3 (6%).

The results also showed significant gains in attainedvertical jump height calculated in CMJ and in CMJ withadditional weights during the course of the research (Ta-ble 4). The most important gains took place between T1-T3 (CMJ20kg: 20.8%) and in CMJ40kg (25.8%). However,the increase observed in CMJ was only 12.98%.

The maximal dynamic strength results are presentedin Table 5. After 6 weeks of RT, an increase of 1RMBPand 4RMPS was observed, corresponding to 16% and30.7%, respectively. The 1RMBP increased significantlybetween T1-T3 and between T2-T3, corresponding to

27.7% and 10%, respectively. An increase in 4RMPS be-tween T1-T3 and T2-T3 training periods was also ob-served, corresponding to 43% and 9.7%, respectively.

After the 7-week DT period, THPs showed no statis-tically measurable losses in CMJ performance (Table 6and Figure 1). However, they experienced significant de-creases (Table 6 and Figure 2) in BTv (2.7%).

The BTv and CMJ showed a high correlation (r 0.87; p 0.001) during the 12 weeks of weekly control training (Figure 3).

During the experimental period (Table 7), averagetraining efficiency in 1RMBP and 4RMPS was0.14%·lift1 and 0.16%·lift1, respectively. No differenceswere observed in training efficiency between the first half (1–6 weeks) and the second half (7–12 weeks) of the train-

ing period.




T ABLE 5. Mean ( SD) results in kilograms of different parameters: concentric 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP), 4repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS) before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week exper-imental period (T3).

Tests* (n 16)

Parameter:

Testing schedule

T1 T2 T3


T1–T2 T1–T3 T2–T3

1RMBP 58.5 10.64 67.9 12.8 74.7 12.0 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.0014RMPS 93.5 13.9 122.2 21.6 134.1 19.4 p 0.001 p 0.001 p 0.05

* In bench press exercise, n 14.

T ABLE 6. Mean ( SD) results in centimeters after 12 weeksthe experimental period (T3) and after 7 weeks of detraining period (T4).*

Tests†(n 13)

Variable:

Testing schedule

T3 T4

Significance( p value)

T3–T4

CMJ 42.60 5.20 41.61 4.93 NSBTv 88.19 7.28 85.85 7.56 p 0.05

* CMJ countermovement jump; BTv ball throw velocity;NS no significant difference.

† Only n

13 because 3 players were injured in the last 7weeks.

FIGURE 1. Time course effects of training and detraining oncountermovement jump (CMJ). Values are mean ( SD).

FIGURE 3. Correlation between countermovement jump(CMJ) and ball throw velocity (BTv) during the weekly controltraining.

FIGURE 2. Time course effects of training and detraining onball throw velocity (BTv). Values are mean ( SD).

The correlation results are outlined in Table 8. No cor-relation was found between 1RMBP and BTv during altesting trials. The correlations between CMJ and S30 andbetween CMJ and 4RMPS were not significant over T1-T2, T1-T3, and T2-T3. However, the present investigation

showed significant correlations between S30 and 4RMPSbetween T1-T3 (r 0.52; p 0.04). In addition, significant correlations were also observed between CMJ and4RMPS between T2-T3 (r 0.5; p 0.046).

DISCUSSION

Until recently, research has reported ambiguous resultsin the relations observed between maximal dynamicstrength and sprint ability (19, 22, 32, 33). While somestudies have claimed significant correlations betweenlower-body muscle strength measures and sprint perfor-mance (22), others have not (19). These conflicting resultsmay be due to the fact that sprinting involves multiple- joint motions (30) with precise coordination between var

ious muscle groups, which is not adequately assessed bysingle-joint tests that isolate muscles. Thus, the relativeimportance of various lower-body muscle groups to sprinting performance is not totally clear (19, 22, 30), especiallywhen short and maximum-speed sprints are consideredseparately.

Many sports comprise sets of variable skills and random motions, the performance of which require concentration upon a few basic and technical considerations (24) As a composite of such common skills, running demandssome knowledge of its basic mechanics. According to Plisk(24), the reason that movements such as Olympic-stylelifts, plyometrics, and medicine-ball drills are so effective




T ABLE 7. Training efficiency.*

Exercise

AI per-exercise (%)

1st cycle§ 2nd cycle

Total reps†

1st cycle 2nd cycle

ATE (%·lift1)‡

1st cycle 2nd cycle

1RMBP 82.7 82.5 124 87 0.144RMPS 85.9 86.25 159 111 0.16

* 1RMBP 1 repetition maximum bench press; 4RMPS 4 repetition maximum parallel squat; AI average intensity; ATE

average training efficiency.† Total reps total number of repetitions (sets reps) lifted at loads greater than 80% of 1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.‡ The average percentage gain in bench press and squat performances during the 12-week training period divided by the total

number of repetitions lifted at loads greater than 80% of 1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.§ 1st cycle 1–6 weeks. 2nd cycle 7–12 weeks.

T ABLE 8. Correlations between strength vs. throwing veloc-ity, power and throwing velocity, jumping and sprinting, jump-ing and strength, sprinting and strength; before the experimen-tal period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week exper-imental period (T3).

Tests† (n 16)

Variable:

Testing schedule

T1–T2

r p

T1–T3

r p

T2–T3

r p

1RMBP and BTv None None NoneCMJ and S30 0.101 NS 0.22 NS 0.1 NSCMJ and 4RMPS 0.18 NS 0.35 NS 0.5 0.046S30 and 4RMPS 0.24 NS 0.52 0.04 0.14 NS

* 1RMBP 1 repetition maximum bench press; CMJ coun-termovement jump; S30 speed over 30 m; 4RMPS 4 repe-tition maximum parallel squat; NS no significant difference.

† In bench press exercise only, n 14.

in improving speed is that they cannot be performed with-out high power production, rapid force application, andacceleration. This is precisely why they correspond dy-namically with so many athletic activities and deservehigh priority in training. Moreover, inherently impulsivemovements are not the only ways to develop speed-strength. Thus, brief maximal efforts and sub-maximalaccelerative efforts are methods that can be applied tobasic strength-training exercises (such as the squat) inorder to complement reactive-ballistic actions. Thesemethods improve an athlete’s rate of force developmentand ability to accelerate heavy loads, including the ath-lete’s own body mass (24).

Despite the importance of the sprint technique forspeed enhancement (24), this was not a component of nor-mal day practices for the sample group of THPs. How-ever, sprint, acceleration, and changes in direction aremovements inherent in THPs’ daily practices and com-petitions. Recalling Plisk (24), these inherent factors may

have aided athletes (THPs) in developing short sprintability over the 12-week experimental period. Further-more, the significant increments obtained in 4RMPS, andthe strong correlations between S30 and 4RMPS (T1-T3; p 0.04), could also explain part of the improvements insprint performance. Thus, the conjunction of all cited fac-tors might well have been responsible for sprint perfor-mance increments during the 12 weeks of training.

The effect of various RT programs on vertical jumpability has been researched extensively (1, 3, 12, 13, 31).Only Gorostiaga et al. (11), however, have investigatedthe influence of an RT program on THPs jumping perfor-mance. These authors reported significant increases in

vertical jump height in a nonstrength group (only teamhandball practice: 6%; p 0.001), while observing no sig-nificant changes in an RT and control groups in CMJ. Incontrast, our study showed significant (12.98%; p 0.001) improvements in CMJ height during the T1-T3,suggesting that the addition of heavy RT programs didnot interfere with jumping development at any rate inadults. Hakkinen and Komi (12), among others (1, 33),found similar results to those obtained in the present in-vestigation (10.6%; p 0.001) but over 24 weeks. A spe-cial combination (13) of loaded squat jumps and specificplyometric jumps also resulted in significant improve-ments in CMJ height (17.5%; p 0.001). As in our re-search, these authors (13) also reported significant im-provements in the CMJ40kg (26.2%; p 0.001).

The degree of general strength gained through squattraining does not seem to affect the degree of change in jumping performance. Alen et al. (2) claimed to observeno change in jumping performance in well-trained ath-letes following 24 weeks of heavy squat training, whilenoticing a large improvement in 1RM squat strength.Baker et al. (4) add that in trained athletes the relationbetween changes in 1RM squat performance and vertical

jump consequent upon training was also nonsignificant (r 0.11). In contrast, the present investigation identifiedsignificant correlations (r 0.50; p 0.046) betweenCMJ and 4RMPS (only in T2-T3). Since the developmentof intermuscular coordination is basically a function of skill training (3), it can only be maximized by using loadsthat resemble the skill in terms of movement, speed, andpattern, so that technique is not altered drastically. A general exercise for the leg muscles (squat) using a heavyload is relatively more effective for development of intra-muscular coordination, whereas the use of loaded-squat jumps is more effective for developing intermuscular co-ordination (3, 34). This could explain part of the improve-ments noticed in the present data.

The probability of increasing the BTv by this meanswas certainly less than with the other variables, sincethrowing is a natural movement in team handball (5) andis perfected in elite players by constant practice and tech-nique. However, subjects who participated in the presentinvestigation significantly increased BTv between T1-T2and T1-T3. During T2-T3, THPs continued progressing (1.8%) but not significantly. We suggest that in the last6 weeks of RT, players might well have reached their BTvceiling. With similar results, Hoff and Almasbakk (14) ob-served significant improvements in BTv after 9 weeks of heavy RT (17%; p 0.05). On the other hand, a 6-weekperiod of heavy RT also produced a significant increase




(3.1%; p 0.001) in an RT group (combined RT with teamhandball practices) but no such increase in a controlgroup nor in a further group who trained only in specificteam handball skills (11).

After 9 weeks of speed-strength programs, Barata (5)observed an increase in velocity of 11.5% when subjectstrained with heavier balls. The control group, which hadonly normal team handball throwing practice, alsoshowed a significant increase in BTv (7.8%; p 0.001). Van Muijen (29) also found a significant increase (2%; p 0.001) in this variable among competitive females whentraining with light medicine balls. Finally, Skoufas et al.(28) showed that training with 20% lighter handballscaused better ball release velocity (4.3%; p 0.05) thanusing normal balls. These findings could confirm the prin-ciple of training specificity, though some are difficult tointerpret because of the subject’s age or lack of throwing experience, and subjection to different RT programs (5,11, 14, 16, 28, 29).

A logical comparison between the present researchand the studies attempted in baseball is suggested by thesimilarity of the throwing movement. Lachowetz et al.(20) reported an increase in BTv after an RT program

(2.4%). After 10 weeks of RT, McEvoy and Newton (21)observed significant increments in throwing speed by2.0% ( p 0.05) in an experimental group (ballistic RT),although not in a power training control group. In bothstudies, results were less pronounced compared to thepresent study (4% after 6 weeks; p 0.001). In addition,Newton and McEvoy (23) showed that heavy RT for theupper body extremities helped improve BTv but thatmore specific RT, i.e., medicine ball throwing, had no sucheffect. According to the authors, medicine ball throwing was insufficiently specific with regard to movement pat-terns. On the other hand, heavy RT produces greaterforce output and rate of force development than medicineball throwing. In fact, in medicine ball throwing, thisforce output is not great enough to increase the throwing

velocity when using regular balls.In both 1RMBP and 4RMPS, THPs experienced sig-

nificant improvements, particularly between T1-T2(1RMBP: 16%; 4RMPS: 30.7%). In addition, it was ob-served that 4RMPS almost doubled increased gains whencompared with the 1RMBP. Because several subjectswere very young, we suggest that the squat exercise pro-duced important muscular adaptations sufficient to resultin significant increments in 4RMPS performance.

After 9 weeks of heavy bench press exercise, Hoff and Almasbakk (14) also found significant increases in1RMBP (32%; p 0.05) in 16 competition females, simi-lar to those observed in the present investigation after 12weeks. Furthermore, Gorostiaga et al. (11) observed that

an RT group (adolescent THPs) showed an improvementin maximal strength of the leg extensors (12.2%; p 0.01)and the upper extremity muscles (pec dec: 23%; p 0.01),while observing no changes in a non-RT group (only teamhandball practice) and in a control group. These resultsreinforce those obtained in the present data, because it ismore difficult to induce strength development in trainedathletes compared to younger and inexperienced subjects(26). However, because the maximal strength test char-acteristics differed between Gorostiaga et al. (11) and ourinvestigation, we forbear to speculate more about this is-sue.

Earlier studies demonstrate the absence of any cor-

relation between muscular strength and BTv (6). Subsequently, no correlation has been found between 1RMBPand BTv over different testing sessions (T1-T2, T1-T3and T2-T3). In contrast, Hoff and Almasbakk (14) founda significant correlation between 1RMBP and BTv ( r 0.88; p 0.05). It is possible that some of the improvements experienced in our study could be related to distinct factors. For example, after a heavy RT period, im-portant neuromuscular adaptations occur (25, 26), imply-ing a higher recruitment of motor units and an increasedfiring rate of motor neurons (26, 27, 34), especially intrained athletes (34). However, Fleck et al. (9) found significant correlations ( p 0.05) between averages BTvwith peak torque in 3 different testing speeds for shoulderhorizontal abduction. In addition, these researchers alsodemonstrated significant correlations ( p 0.05) withpeak torque of shoulder flexion (300) and elbow extension (240 and 300). They suggested that an RT programin which the main object is to improve BTv ‘‘should include exercises to increase torque capabilities, namely othe shoulders horizontal abductors to ensure that upperextremities could be decelerated in a controlled mannerduring the follow-through of the throwing motion’’ (9, p

24). This could be extremely important to avoid injuryFor this reason, the torque produced during these move-ments is related to BTv (9).

Several authors (6, 9, 16) also argued that BTv is ableto establish a strong correlation between maximumstrength developments in lower extremities. The presentinvestigation, having demonstrated great increases in4RMPS, suggests that a combination of powerful legs andefficient trunk rotation make for a better throw (9). Thistype of analysis could confirm that the main factor af-fecting BTv is effective energy transfer from the lower tothe higher limbs (6, 16). An alternative explanation mightpoint to the fact that the present data was carried outduring a competition phase, reflecting an increased num-ber of throws in training and competition.

To reiterate, athletes often experience interruptions intraining processes and competition programs (15, 18)which may result in a reduction or cessation of their normal physical activity levels (15, 18). According to Krae-mer et al. (18), research investigating changes in vertica jump ability after DT period have shown no changes after2 weeks and a 3–5% reduction after 12 weeks of DT. Pre-vious studies claimed different results. In fact, Hakkinenand Komi (12, 13) observed significant decreases in CMJheight ( p 0.05) after 24 weeks of RT followed by 12weeks of DT. This could be due to a longer period of DTIt seems that with shorter DT periods of 2 to 6–7 weeks, jumping performance could be maintained. Kraemer et al(18) observed that recreationally trained men can main

tain jump performance during short periods of DT (6weeks). The researchers (18) argued that other factorslike jumping technique may be critical for vertical jumpperformance and may have contributed to the lack ochange despite the reduction of performance.

These results tend to be borne out by those of the present investigation in THPs. Here, subjects also showed adecline in their jump ability during DT period, althoughnot a significant one. In our opinion, this could suggestthat game-specific jumping is a better means of positivelyinfluencing jump performance in THPs (i.e., training jump shot in team handball). The maintenance of athleticperformance during DT period may be also explained by




the continuation of specific team handball practices andcompetitions and, simultaneously, by the short durationof DT itself.

After 4 weeks of DT, Skoufas et al. (28) observed thatBTv increases were only maintained (an insignificant de-crease of 0.9%) by using 20% lighter balls, suggesting thatlighter weight training can be efficient in retaining per-formance gains. However, these results are contradictedby the present data, which showed that BTv was signif-icantly reduced after the DT period (2.7%; p 0.05), de-spite coinciding with a competition phase. Several au-thors have proposed that strength losses incurred during DT are related to neural changes coupled with longer-term atrophic decline (18). We suggest that such decreas-es may be due to the incapacity of subjects to stimulatetheir motor units or to recruit fast twitch fibers in bothexplosive skills, reinforcing the hypothesis that RT ab-sence induces significant neural losses in the muscles in-volved in throwing ability. It is unclear whether the in-consistency of results between different studies involving different sports is due to methodological differences, dif-ferent training backgrounds, or different population char-acteristics.

The primary limitation of this study is the absence of a control group. In practical terms, to locate a specificcontrol group (i.e., another elite team handball sample atthe same performance level of the experimental team)and to access testing conditions is not an easy task forcoaches or researchers. These difficulties are compoundedby the ethical problem already alluded to (17). However,such considerations ought not to detract from the neces-sity and importance of this type of investigation or of thepresent study, especially in the team handball field.

The present authors speculate that the overall physi-cal condition gains were probably due to the addition of the RT program because all subjects were in peak con-dition at the outset of the study. Additionally, the DT re-sults could be a sound indicator that the previous RT pro-

gram contributed to improved subject performance, es-pecially in throwing ability, because BTv declined signif-icantly during DT period, whereas THPs have maintainedpermanent throwing ability over the playoff period.

Another important finding of this study was thatshort-term RT using moderate relative intensity tendedto produce significant enhancements in THPs perfor-mance in 4RMPS and 1RMBP. In both exercises, giventhat the average intensity is practically the same betweenRT cycles (range average intensity 80% of 1RMBP and4RMPS), the changes in volume can justify the changesin the performance. However, this is only true to the ex-tent that prolonging the duration of training brings aboutprogressively diminishing performance returns. Accord-

ing to Carpinelli and Otto (8), progressive overload is nec-essary for increasing muscular strength. For adaptationsto occur, a stimulus in excess of previous stimuli needs tobe applied during an RT program. Fry et al. (10) conceivethat, once a given threshold level of strength training in-tensity has been reached in resistance trained athletes,the appropriate physiological adaptations may well be op-timized and that training beyond this limit provides nofurther benefits. This statement is supported by the pres-ent findings since average intensity was equal in both of the training cycles (1–6 weeks and 7–12 weeks).

In summary, THPs can increase both 1RMBP and4RMPS using moderate volume and medium to high in-

tensity. Therefore, the present data suggest that forhealth and safety reasons, increasing training volumedoes not always provide a better stimulus for improving adaptations during a short-term training period. In fact,trained THPs can optimize performance achieving only30% fewer lifts tolerable at loads higher than 80% thanwhat they achieve in maximal dynamic strength exercis-es.

These conclusions should be interpreted within thecontext of the study and its sample of experienced play-ers.

PRACTICAL A PPLICATIONS

The present findings suggest that RT could be an impor-tant factor in positively influencing not only maximal dy-namic strength performance but also jumping ability,speed, and throwing velocity performances in highlytrained THPs. They also demonstrate that 7 weeks of DTwere sufficient to induce significant losses in BTv but notin CMJ ability. The data support the continued use of RTprogram throughout the competition period. For practi-tioners, the investigation may be useful in suggesting

ways to optimize training whilst avoiding DT effects.

REFERENCES

1. A DAMS, K., J.P., O’SHEA , K.L., O’SHEA , AND M. CLIMLEIN. The

effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric

training on power production. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:36–41.

1992.

2. A LEN, M., K. H A ¨ KKINEN, AND P.V. K OMI. Changes in neuro-

muscular performance and muscle fiber characteristics of elite

power athletes self-administering androgenic and anabolic ste-

roids. Acta Physiol. Scand. 122:535–544. 1984.

3. B AKER, D. Improving vertical jump performance through gen-

eral, special, and specific strength training: A brief review. J.

Strength Cond. Res. 10:131–136. 1996.

4. B AKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. C ARLYON. Periodization: Theeffect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J.

Strength Cond. Res. 8:235–242. 1994.

5. B ARATA , J. Changes in ball velocity in the handball free throw,

induced by two different speed-strength training programs.

Portug. J. Hum. Perf. 28:45–55. 1992.

6. B AYIOS, I.A., E.M. A NASTASOPOULOU, D.S. SIOUDRIS, AND K.D.

BOUDOLOS. Relationship between isokinetic strength of the in-

ternal and external shoulder rotators and ball velocity in team

handball. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 1:229–235. 2001.

7. BOSCO, C. La Valoracion de la Fuerza con el Test de Bosco. Bar-

celona, Spain: Paidotribo, 1994.

8. C ARPINELLI, R.N., AND R.M. OTTO. Strength training: Single

versus multiple sets. Sports Med. 26:73–84. 1998.

9. FLECK , S.J., S.L. SMITH, M.W. CRAIB, T. DENAHAN, R.E. SNOW,

AND M.R. MITCHELL. Upper extremity isokinetic torque and

throwing velocity in team handball. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6:

120–124. 1992.

10. FRY , A.C., J.M. WEBBER, L.W. WEISS, M.D. FRY , AND Y. LI.

Impaired performances with excessive high intensity free

weight training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:54–61. 2000.

11. GOROSTIAGA , E., M. IZQUIERDO, P. ITURRALDE, M. RUESTA , AND

J. IBANEZ. Effects of heavy resistance training on maximal and

explosive force production, endurance and serum hormones in

adolescent handball players. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 80:485–493.

1999.

12. H A ¨ KKINEN, K., AND P.V. K OMI. Changes in electrical and me-

chanical behavior of leg extensor muscles during heavy resis-

tance strength training. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7:55–64. 1985.




13. H A ¨ KKINEN, K., AND P.V. K OMI. Effect of explosive type strengthtraining on electromyographic and force production character-istics of leg extensor muscles during concentric and variousstretch-shortening cycle exercises. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7:65–76. 1985.

14. HOFF, J., AND B. A LMASBAKK . The effects of maximum strengthtraining on throwing velocity and muscle strength in femaleteam-handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:255–258.1995.

15. HORTOBAGYI, T., J.A. HOUNARD, J.R. STEVENSON, D.D. FRASER,R.A. JOHNS, AND R.G. ISRAEL. The effects of detraining on pow-er athletes. Acta Physiol. Scand. 25:929–935. 1983.

16. JORIS, H., V. MUIJEN., G. SCHENAU, AND H. K ENPER. Force ve-locity and energy flow during the over arm throw in femalehandball players. J. Biomech. 18:409–414. 1985.

17. K RAEMER, W.J. The body of knowledge: Use and professional-ism. Strength Cond. J. 27:33–35. 2005.

18. K RAEMER, W.J., L. K OZIRIS, N.A. R ATAMESS, K . H A ¨ K KINEN,N.T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A.C. FRY , S.E. GORDON, J.S. V OLEK ,D.N. FRENCH, M.R. RUBIN, A.L. GOMEZ, M.J. SHARMAN, L.J.MICHAEL, M. IZQUIERDO, R.U. NEWTON, AND S.J. FLECK . De-training produces minimal changes in physical performanceand hormonal variables in recreationally strength-trainedmen. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:373–382. 2002.

19. K UKOLJ, M., R. ROPRET, D. UGARKOVIC, AND S. J ARIC. Anthro-pometric, strength, and power predictors of sprinting perfor-mance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 39:120–122. 1999.

20. L ACHOWETZ, T., J. E VON, AND J. P ASTIGLIONE. The effect of anupper body strength program on intercollegiate baseball throw-ing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:116–119. 1998.

21. MCE VOY , K.P., AND R.U. NEWTON. Baseball throwing speedand base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistancetraining. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:216–221. 1998.

22. NESSER, T.W., R.W. L ATIN, K. BERG, AND E. PRENTICE. Physi-ological determinants of 40-meter sprint performance in young male athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:263–67. 1996.

23. NEWTON, R.U., AND P. MCE VOY . Baseball throwing velocity: A comparison of medicine ball training and weight training. J.Strength Cond. Res. 8:198–203. 1994.

24. PLISK , S.A. Speed, agility, and speed-endurance development.In: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Bae-chle and R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,2000. pp. 471–491.

25. S ALE, D.G. Neural adaptations to strength training. InStrength and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: BlackwelScientific Publications, 1992. pp. 249–265.

26. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strength

and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell ScientificPublications, 1992. pp. 381–395.

27. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D., AND M. BUERLE. Neuronal adaptationand increase of cross-sectional area studying different strengthtraining methods. In: Biomechanics X-B (vol. 6-B). G.B. Johnson, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1987. pp. 615–620.

28. SKOUFAS, D., P. STEFANIDIS, C. MICHAILIDIS, K. H ATZIKOTOU

LAS, M. K OTZAMANIDOU, AND E. B ASSA . The effect of handbaltraining with underweighted balls on the throwing velocity onovice handball players. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 44:157–1712003.

29. V AN MUIJEN, A., H. JORIS, G. K EMPER, AND V. SCHENAU. Effects on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female handball players. Sports Training Med. Rehab. 2:103–113. 1991.

30. V ERKHOSHANSKI, Y. Componentii e struttura dell’impegno esplosivo di forza. Rivista Cultura Sport. 14:15–21. 1996.

31. WILSON G., R.U. NEWTON, A. MURPHY , AND B. HUMPHRIES. Theoptimal training load for the development of dynamic athletiperformance. Med. Sci. Sports Exer. 25:1279–1286. 1993.

32. Y OUNG, W., B. BENTON, G. DUTHIE, AND J. PRYOR. Resistancetraining for short sprints and maximum-speed sprintsStrength Cond. J. 23:7–13. 2001.

33. Y OUNG, W., B. MCLEAN, AND J. A RDAGNA . Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports

Med. Phys. Fitness 35:13–19. 1995.34. Z ATSIORSKY , V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1995.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the athletes who participated asubjects in this study, as well as their head coach, Rolando JFreitas, for allowing them to partake. The authors alsoacknowledge with thanks the editorial assistance of JohnStirling Wilks, PhD, in preparation of this article.

Address correspondence to Dr. Mario Antonio CardosoMarques, [email protected].

marques, m.c., & gonzález-badillo, j.j (2006). in-season resistance training and detraining in...

Documents