Effects of contrast strength training with elastic band program on sprint,jump,strength,balance and repeated change of direction in young female handball players

Abstract

Maximal strength, power and his derivates (sprint, change of direction repeatedly and jump) are considered as major determinants of success in elite handball players. Contrast strength training with elastic band (CSTEB) program is form of resistance training, and may play an important method of training to improve this quality. This study examined the effects of 10-week contrast strength training with elastic band (CSTEB) program on physical performance in young female handball players. Thirty participants (age: 15.7 ± 0.3 years; body mass: 63.7 ± 3.7 kg; body height: 166.8 ± 3.8 cm; body fat: 26.9 ± 3.4; and Maturity-offset: 2.9 ± 0.3 years) were randomly assigned between experimental group (EG; n = 15) and control group (CG; n = 15). Two-way analyses of variance (group × time) were assessed for handgrip; back extensor; 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 arms (CMJA) and five jump test (5JT)]; static (stork) and dynamic (Y balance) balance tests; and repeated sprint T-test (RSTT). The EG enhanced all strength performance [handgrip right, handgrip left, back extensor strength and medicine ball throw (p < 0.001)] compared to CG. The EG enhanced all sprint performance. The EG also improved performance in the Illinois-MT. All jump performance improved signiﬁcantly [SJ (p = 0.007), CMJ (p = 0.001) and CMJA (p = 0.001)] except 5JT in the EG. Of the same, 3 of 4 repeated sprint T-test scores [RSTT-Best-Time, RSTT-Mean-Time and RSTT-Total-Time] increased significantly in the EG relative to the CG. Conversely, there were no significant changes in balance performance between groups. It is concluded that 10-weeks of CSTEB improved physical performance (strength, sprint, change of direction, jump, and repeated change of direction) measures in young female handball players.

Keywords

Resistance training stork test team sport

Introduction

Many studies demonstrated that handball is a complex and multifactorial game.⁽^1–5⁾ Indeed, handball players have to coordinate their movements well while running, jumping, pushing, change of direction, and team-handball specific movements of passing, catching, throwing, checking, and blocking.⁽^1–5⁾ Female handball is characterized by fast and dynamic movements consisting of accelerations, jumps, throws, change of directions, and hard body contacts that are frequently interspersed with low-intensity movements such as standing and walking.⁽^1–5⁾ Maximal strength, power and his derivates (sprint, change of direction repeatedly and jump) are considered as major determinants of success in elite handball players.⁽^1,2⁾ To respond to this increased physical demand, it becomes necessary to search for more efficient training approaches, which are able to progressively enhance neuromechanical performance in handball players from less to more specialized competitive levels.⁽⁶⁾ Coaches and scientists seem to have reached an agreement stating that the main determinants of physical performance are the strength and power of both the upper and lower limbs.⁽^1,2,7–9⁾ Hence, handball coaches should perform specific handball conditioning, including high intensity exercises such as strength training to develop these physical qualities. Strength training involves the use of wide range of resistive loads and a variety of training modalities (i.e. Olympic weight lifting, elastic band training and plyometric training) aimed at developing maximal strength and/or muscular power.⁽⁷⁾

Contrast strength training is a derivate form of strength training. It is characterized by the use of high and low loads in the same strength training session.⁽¹⁰⁾ Cometti et al.⁽¹¹⁾ defined this method by six repetitions sets with loads between 70 and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) were alternated with six repetitions sets with loads between 30% and 50% of 1-RM, executed at maximum speed. Strength training using elastic band is derivate from strength training. It has been demonstrated that this training method has been considered as a good alternative to traditional strength training equipment.⁽^{12–14,15,16}⁾ Elastic resistance bands are inexpensive, easy to use, portable, and easier to implement in regular handball training sessions than conventional resistance training equipment. Few studies have examined the effect of strength training using elastic band (i.e. strength training with elastic band; plyometric training with elastic band; resistance training with elastic band).⁽^12–14,16⁾ Andersen et al.⁽¹⁴⁾ revealed that 9 weeks elastic resistance band period (3 times per week) had greater improvement versus the control period for countermovement jump with or without arm swing; power output at lighter loads; 3 throwing velocity tests; and repeated agility run performance in young female handball players. Similarly, Mascarin et al.⁽¹⁶⁾ found increases in power [average power value for shoulder internal muscle (p = 0.05)] and ball speed [standing throw (p = 0.04); and jumping throw (p = 0.03)] after 6 week (three-times-per-week) strength training by elastic band in young female handball players. Likewise, Aloui et al.⁽¹²⁾ found increases in peak power (p < 0.001), 1RM strength measures (p < 0.01), sprint times (p < 0.001 for 5 m; p < 0.05 for 30 m), change of direction (p < 0.01), and all repeated change of direction parameters (p < 0.05) except the fatigue index after 8 weeks of biweekly lower-limb elastic band training (knee and hip extension) into the in-season regimen of junior handball players. However, no previous studies have looked at the effects of contrast strength with elastic band on athletic performance in young female handball players. In this study, we proposed a contrast strength training program with elastic band (CSTEB), including eight repetitions of high load followed by eight repetitions of low load.

This study aimed at examining the effects of a 10 weeks CSTEB intervention on measures of physical performance (i.e. sprinting, jumping, CoD, strength, balance and CoD repeatedly) in young female handball players. With reference to the previous literature,⁽^17,18⁾ we hypothesized that CSTEB intervention improves all fitness physical fitness measures in young female handball players.

Methods

Participants

Thirty young female handball players from the same club participated in this study. They had 8 years of handball experience. All the players had some experience with resistance training, but not performed weekly resistance training. They were examined by the team physician, with a particular focus on conditions that might preclude elastic band training, and all were found to be in good health. Players were divided by playing position, and players from each position were then randomly assigned between experimental (EG; n = 15) and control (CG; n = 15) groups. Anthropometrics characteristics of experimental group and control group are mentioned in Table 1. Both groups had already been training for 5 months, and were 4 months into the competitive season before the intervention. All subjects had achieved a good overall physical preparation at the beginning of the season (6 training sessions per week for 6 weeks). During the first 3 weeks of this phase, a resistance training program aimed at improving muscle endurance by light loads (30–50% 1 repetition maximum [RM]). The second 3 weeks were devoted to improving muscular power with light loads (40–70% 1RM), supplemented by participation in friendly matches each weekend. All participants were involved in five to six training sessions per week (90-to-120 min each session) and one competitive match per week, with training focused upon handball-specific tactical and technical skills, strength dynamic training (30 to 50% 1RM), and aerobic training (on- and off-court exercises). Each Tuesday and Thursday for eight weeks, the experimental group replaced a part of their standard regimen with the elastic band training program. The EG performed the CSTEB program in replacement of some handball-specific drills so that overall training time was similar between groups. Athletes who missed more than 10% of the total training sessions and/or more than two consecutive sessions were excluded from the study. All procedures were approved by the Institute's Committee on Research for the Medical Sciences (Manouba University Ethics Committee: UR17JS01). The study was conducted in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed parental consent (for those < 18 years) and participants’ assent were obtained prior to the start of the study. All participants and their parents/legal representatives were fully informed about the experimental protocol and its potential risks and benefits.

Table 1.

Anthropometrics characteristics of experimental group and control group.

	Age (years)	Body mass (kg)	Body height (cm)	Body fat	Maturity-offset (years)
Experimental group (n = 15)	15.7 ± 0.3	64.1 ± 3.6	166.5 ± 3.5	27.3 ± 3.6	3.0 ± 0.3
Control group (n = 15)	15.7 ± 0.2	63.3 ± 3.9	167 ± 4.1	26.5 ± 3.3	2.9 ± 0.4

Experimental Approach to the Problem

The study was conducted to examine the effect of 10-week CSTEB program on physical performance in young female handball players. The training intervention was conducted during the in-season period of the year 2018–2019. In the week before the intervention, two 80- to 90-min sessions familiarized players with all test procedures. Initial and final test measurements were made at the same time of day (17:00– 19:00 PM), under approximately the same environmental conditions (temperature: 16–198 C), at least 3 days after the most recent competition, and 5–9 days after the last CSTEB session. Measurements were made in a ﬁxed order over four days, immediately before and four days after the last strength training session. Participants did not participate in any exhausting exercise for 24 h before testing, and no food or caffeine-containing drinks were taken for 2 h before testing. A standardized warm-up (10–20 min of low- to moderate intensity aerobic exercise and dynamic stretching) preceded all the tests.

Testing procedures

The warm-up program for all tests included 5 min of submaximal running with a CoD, 10 min of plyometrics (2 submaximal jump exercises of 20 vertical and 10 horizontal jumps), dynamic stretching exercises, and 5 min of a sprint-specific warm-up. All tests were separated by a 5- to 10-minute break. Each player participated in a familiarization trial and 2 test trials. The best out of 2 trials was registered for further analyses. All tests were performed on a wooden surface at the same time of day.

Day 1

30 m Sprint performance

Sprint performance was assessed at 5-, 10-, 20- and 30-m intervals using a single-beam electronic timing system (Microgate, SARL, Bolzano, Italy). Participants started in a standing position 0.3 m before the first infrared photoelectric gate, which was placed 0.75 m above the ground to ensure it captured trunk movement and avoided false signals through limb motion. In total, 4 single-beam photoelectric gates were used. The best time of 2 trials were recorded for statistical analyses.

Modiﬁed Illinois change-of-direction test (Illinois-Mt)

Four cones formed the change-of-direction area for the modiﬁed Illinois test On command, players sprinted 5 m, turned and ran back to the starting line, then swerving in and out of the four markers, completed two 5-m sprints.⁽¹⁹⁾ No advice was given as to the most effective technique, but players were instructed to complete the test as quickly as possible without cutting over markers. If they did so, the trial was repeated after an appropriate recovery period or if he knocked over a cone. Participants were allowed 2 maximal trials, with 3 min of rest between efforts, and the best performance was used for analyses.

Day 2

Vertical jump

Jump height was assessed using an infrared photocell mat connected to a digital computer (Optojump System; Microgate SARL) that measured contact and ﬂight times and the height of jump with a precision of 1/1000 s. Participants began the squat jump (SJ) at a knee angle of∼90° (self-controlled, using a mirror), avoiding any downward movement, and pushed upward, keeping their legs straight throughout. The countermovement jump (CMJ) began from an upright position; a rapid downward movement to a knee angle of ∼90° (again self-controlled, using a mirror) accompanied the beginning of the push-off. During the countermovement jump with arms (CMJA), the hands were used freely while jumping. One minute of rest was allowed between 2 trials of each test, and the highest jump of each type was used in subsequent analyses.

Five jump test (5jt)

The test was performed as previously described.⁽²⁰⁾ From an upright standing position with both feet ﬂat on the ground, participants tried to cover as much distance as possible with five forward jumps, alternating left- and right-leg ground contacts. Performance is expressed in distance. Participants were allowed 2 maximal trials, with 3 min of rest between efforts, and the best performance was used for analyses.

Handgrip strength test

The hand dynamometer (Takei, Tokyo, Japan) was held with the arm at right angles and the elbows at the side of the body. The arm is extended and forms an angle of 30 ° at the level of the shoulder joint. The instrument was adjusted so that its base rested on the ﬁrst metacarpal and the handle rested on middle of the four ﬁngers. A maximal isometric effort was maintained for five seconds, without ancillary body movements. Two trials were made with each hand, with one minute of rest between trials, and the highest readings were used in subsequent analyses.

Day 3

Anthropometry

Anthropometric measurements included height and sitting height (accuracy of 0.1 cm; HoltainQ 3, United Kingdom) and body mass (0.1 kg; Tanita BF683W scales, Munich, Germany). The overall percentage of body fat was estimated from the triceps and subscapular skinfolds, using the equations of Durnin and Womersly⁽²¹⁾ for children and youth females:

% Body fat = (495 / D) - 450

where D = 1.1369–0.0598 (Log sum of 4 skinfolds)

Maturity status was calculated using the equation of Mirwald et al.,⁽²²⁾ an approved noninvasive method to predict years from peak height velocity:

Maturity offset = −9.38 + (0.000188 × leg length × sitting height) + (0.0022 × age × leg length) + (0.00584 × age × sitting height) + (0.0769 × weight/height ratio):

Back extensor strength

Maximal isometric back extensor strength was measured using a back extensor dynamometer (Takei).⁽²³⁾ Participants stood on the dynamometer, with their feet shoulder-width apart and gripped the handlebar positioned across the patellae. The chain length was adjusted so that the legs were initially held straight, and the hips was ﬂexed to 30°, as guided by wall markings. Participants then stood upright without bending their knees, pulling upward as strongly as possible. Participants were allowed two maximal trials, with 3 min of rest between efforts, and the best performance was used for analyses.

Medicine ball throw

The test was performed using a 21.5-cm diameter and 3-kg rubber medicine balls (Tigar, Pirot, Serbia) powdered with magnesium carbonate. A familiarization session included a brief description of the optimal technique.⁽²⁴⁾ The seated player grasped the medicine ball with both hands, and on signal, forcefully pushed the ball from the chest The score was measured from the front of the sitting line to the powder-marked spot where the ball landed. Participants were allowed two maximal trials, with 3 min of rest between efforts, and the best performance was used for analyses.

Day 4

Stork balance test

Static balance was assessed using the stork balance test Participants stood on their dominant leg with their opposite foot resting against the inside of the supporting knee and both hands on their hips.⁽²⁰⁾ On signal, they raised their heel; the test was terminated when the heel touched the ground, or the foot moved away from the patella. Participants stood with one foot positioned against the inside of the supporting knee and both hands on their hips. On command, they raised their heel from the floor and maintained their balance as long as possible. The trial ended if the subject moved her hands from the hips, the ball of the support leg moved from its original position, or if the heel touched the floor. Tests were carried out standing on the right and left legs, with the eyes open. Times were recorded by stopwatch. The score was the best of 3 attempts for each leg, with 2-min rest intervals.

Dynamic balance test

Dynamic balance was assessed on the both legs, using the Y-balance test.⁽²⁰⁾ Supine leg lengths were first determined from the anterior superior iliac spine to the most distal aspect of the medial malleolus. Subjects then stood barefoot and single-legged, with the tip of their big toe at the center of the grid, and reached in anterior, postero-medial, and postero-lateral directions, marked on the floor by tape. The posterior lines extended at an angle of 135° from the anterior line. Trials were repeated if the participant⁽²⁵⁾ did not touch the required line with the reaching foot while maintaining weight-bearing on the stance leg,⁽¹²⁾ lifted the stance foot from the center of the grid,⁽¹³⁾ lost balance,⁽¹⁴⁾ did not maintain start and return positions for one full second, or⁽⁷⁾ touched the reaching foot to gain support. The maximal reach was measured in each direction, and a composite score was calculated as [maximum anterior + maximum postero-medial + maximum postero-lateral reach distance]/ [leg length × 3] × 100).⁽²⁰⁾ Two trials were conducted in each direction, with two-minute rest intervals.

Repeated sprint T-test (RSTT)

This test offers a reliable and valid measurement⁽²⁶⁾ of the ability to change directions rapidly, for simulating a game with short, intense efforts, recovery periods, and multi-directional displacements. Seven executions of the agility T-test were made, with participants walking back slowly to the next start point during 25 s recovery intervals. Measures included best time (RSTT-BT), mean time (RSTT-MT), total time (RSTT-TT), and a fatigue index (RSTT-FI) calculated as:

FI = ((Total time / (Best timetimes 7)) \times 100) - 100

Training program

The design of the CSTEB intervention was based on the players’ previous training records and research results.⁽^{12–14,16,27}⁾ The training intervention consisted of a progressive 10-week CSTEB program (Table 2). Biweekly CSTEB sessions (Tuesdays and Thursdays) included eight exercises (4 upper limb and 4 lower limb); flies, row with high elbows, trunk rotation, and standing press exercises for the upper limbs; knee extension, knee flexion, half squat, and hip adduction exercises for the lower limbs. Specific exercises were selected based on the muscle groups solicited in handball. All exercise (100% of elongation, and 250% of elongation) was performed at high velocity.

Table 2.

Training program.

Exercises	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
Upper limb	Red elastic band at 250% elongation (3.2 kg)	Green elastic band at 250% elongation (4.4 kg)			Blue elastic band at 250% elongation (6 kg)			Black elastic band at 250% elongation (8 kg)
	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps
Flies	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Row with high elbows	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Trunk rotation	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Standing press	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Lower limb	Red elastic band « Folding» at 250% elongation (6.4 kg)	Green elastic band « Folding» at 250% elongation (8.8 kg)			Blue elastic band « Folding» at 250% elongation (12 kg)			Black elastic band « Folding» at 250% elongation (16 kg)
	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps	Sets × Reps
Knee extension	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Knee flexion	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Half squat	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*
Hip adduction	3 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*	3 × 12*	4 × 12*	5 × 12*

12* = 6 repetitions at 250% of the elongation of elastic band follows by 6 repetitions at 100% of the elongation of elastic band executed at maximal speed.

Flies: To do chest flies with a band, hook the band around a piece of furniture or in a doorway. Grab a handle in each hand and face away from the anchor point. Walk away from the anchor point so there is tension in the band and set up in a staggered stance. Then spread your arms out wide. Keep your elbows soft. Then, bring your arms forward and your hands together as if hugging a tree. You do not want to really bend at the elbows so much as pull your arms together. Once you’ve brought your palms close together, open your arms back, staying in control of the movement so that the band doesn’t jerk you back. Repeat, pulling your arms back together. Try not to lean forward or bend a ton at the elbows as you do the flies. The initial length of the elastic band was 60 cm.

Row with high elbows: Secure the band(s) to the door with the door anchor at chest height. Attach each end of the band(s) to a closed ankle strap and place your hands through the straps (so that they are resting on the top of your wrists.). Stand 3 to 4 feet away from the door while facing the door. Keep your feet hips width apart, chest up and head straight. Position your arms straight out in front of you (parallel with the floor), and your palms down. Pull your elbows back until your they are even with your shoulders. Return to the starting position (controlling the resistance). you pull your elbows back, keep your hands relaxed. At the end of the movement, your upper and lower arm should be at a 90-degree angle. The initial length of the elastic band was 70 cm.

Trunk rotation: Stand with your feet shoulder width apart. Fix one end of a band to a sturdy object at chest height. Grasp band with both hands and long arms. Rotate torso and guide band horizontally across the body. Control back to start position. The initial length of the elastic band was 80 cm.

Standing press: Stand with feet hip-width apart on top of the center of the resistance band. Hold one end of the band in each hand at chest level. Push both arms straight overhead. Slowly lower back to chest level. That's one rep. The initial length of the elastic band was 60 cm. The initial length of the elastic band was 70 cm. The initial length of the elastic band was 140 cm.

Knee extension: Sit on the edge of a chair or bench, feet flat and back straight. Place one end of the resistance band either under your right foot or wrapped around the rear left chair leg (not pictured). Make a loop at the opposite end and place it around your right ankle. Grasp sides of chair with your hands for support. Keep left foot flexed and thigh just slightly lifted off the chair seat. Straighten left knee until fully extended (parallel to the floor), but not locked. Bend knee to return to starting position to complete one rep. Finish all reps on one leg and then switch sides. The initial length of the elastic band was 50 cm.

Knee flexion: Lie on the stomach legs straight forward (prone position), tie one end of the TheraBand on the leg above the ankle and other end to the stable surface near the foot end. Maintain chin tuck, blades set and core set. Breathe out, bend the knee as much as possible. Breathe in, straighten the bend knee. Repeat. The initial length of the elastic band was 50 cm.

Half squat: Step on the inner part of the band with your feet about shoulder-width apart and grab the other end with an overhand grip. Bend your knees slightly and bring your butt down a bit, with the band in your hands in front of you, and position it so the band is in a pressing position. As you stand straight up press the band up and over your head so that you can place it over your traps. Now you are ready. Once you feel comfortable with the band around your back (you can make small adjustments to your feet and the band if necessary), grab the band so your hands are to the side of your chest facing inward. Squat down to parallel by bending at the knees and ankles and driving your hips back. Sit into the squat position without leaning forward too much and make sure your back does not arch. Your knees should be aligned with your feet in the bottom position. Press up from the squat, driving force from your heels. Towards the top, squeeze your glutes as you push your hips forward to a neutral position. Pause at the top, keeping maximum tension, and repeat. The initial length of the elastic band was 120 cm.

Hip adduction: Stand on your left leg with the resistance band looped around your right foot. Use the muscles on the inside of your right leg to pull your right foot in front of you until it crossed in front of your left foot. Slowly return to the starting position. The initial length of the elastic band was 50 cm.

The exercises were alternated (upper limb exercise then lower limb exercise). The elastic band (Thera-Bands; Hygenic Corporation, Akron, OH, USA) system includes 4 latex bands of differing elasticity were used, red (1.8 kg at 100% elongation and 3.2 kg at 250% elongation (week 1)), green (2.3 kg at 100% elongation and 4.4 kg at 250% elongation (week 2, 3 and 4)), blue (3.2 kg at 100% elongation and 6 kg at 250% elongation (week 5, 6 and 7)), and black (4.4 kg at 100% elongation and 8 kg at 250% elongation (week 8, 9 and 10)). The elastic band was folded to double its resistance to extension in the lower limb exercise but not double for the upper limb exercise. The CSTEB used load from the length of the elastic band. Indeed, the high load is six repetitions with load is equal to 250% of the elongation of the elastic band, follows by six repetitions with load is equal to 100% of the elongation of the elastic band executed at maximum speed for the low load. During each exercise, the needed amplitude of movement was measured individually, thus determining appropriate attachments of the elastic bands to the player's body. Players stood at a distance from the wall attachment equal to the needed elongation of the elastic band (100% or 250% elongation) minus the amplitude of motion. The initial length of the elastic band was between 50 and 120 cm for all exercises. Training sessions were preceded by a 15-min warm-up and lasted for 30 min (a total of 45 min). A standardized battery of warm-up exercises was performed. This included specific exercises such as trunk rotation, trunk side bends, trunk wood chops, internal and external rotary movements of the hip and knee, knee elevation, countermovement jumping, skipping and tapping, and sprinting with changes of direction over short distance such as 15–20 m. Push-ups with both hands on the ground and 8–10 free-ball throws were also performed.

Recovery between sets was 30 s (where it remains in passive recovery and / or drink the water). All exercises were performed with maximal effort. The CSTEB was not added to the regular handball training but was immediately performed after the warm-up program⁽^12,14⁾ replacing some low-intensity technical-tactical handball drills. The CSTEB replacement activity accounted for <10% of the total handball-training load (competitive and friendly matches not accounted for). The CG followed their regular handball training (i.e. mainly technical-tactical drills, small-sided and simulated games, and injury prevention drills). The overall handball training load was comparable between both groups. This is because they were following similar handball training routines consisting of 6 sessions per week with 90-to-120 min each.

Statistics analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out using the SPSS 23 program for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). Normality of all variables was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test procedure. Data are presented as mean (SD), and as median values for skewed variables. Independent sample t-tests were performed separately to determine changes pre-intervention and post-intervention for the experimental and control groups, with the magnitude of the changes determined via Cohen d effect sizes.⁽²⁸⁾ Training-related effects were assessed by 2-way analyses of variance (group × time). The criterion for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, whether a positive or a negative difference was seen (ie, a 2-tailed test was adopted). The reliabilities of all dependent variables were assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefﬁcients (2-way mixed).⁽²⁹⁾ Effect sizes were determined by converting partial eta-squared to Cohen d;⁽²⁸⁾ values were classiﬁed as small (0.00 ≤ d ≤ 0.49), medium(0.50 ≤ d ≤ 0.79), and large(d≥0.80).

Results

Test-retest reliability was above the established threshold and ranged from 0.722 to 0.983 according to the intra-class correlation coefficient and ranged from 1.9 to 52.1 according to the coefficient of variation (Table 3). Initial values showed no signiﬁcant intergroup differences for any of the dependent variables. With a group × time interaction, the experimental group enhanced all upper limb strength performance (Table 4). The experimental group enhanced their sprint performance over 5 m (Δ = 10%, p = 0.009, d = 0.72 (medium)), 10 m (Δ = 6.1%, p = 0.005, d = 0.79 (medium)), 20 m (Δ = 12.4%, p < 0.001, d = 2.56 (large)) and 30 m (Δ = 9.2%, p < 0.001, d = 2.25 (large)) (Table 4). The experimental group also improved performance in the Illinois-MT (Δ = 6.3%, p = 0.001, d = 0.96 (large)) (Table 5). All jump performance improved signiﬁcantly except five jump test in the experimental group, with gains in the squat jump (Δ = 17.4%, p = 0.007, d = 0.74 (medium)), countermovement jump (Δ = 19.4%, p = 0.001, d = 0.94 (large)), and countermovement jump with arms (Δ = 18.4%, p = 0.001, d = 0.98 (large)). Of the same, 3 of 4 repeated sprint T-test scores increased significantly in the EG relative to the CG, with group × time interactions at p < 0.001, d = 2.32 (large); p < 0.001, d = 2.37 (large); and p < 0.001, d = 2.37 (large), in RSTT-BT, RSTT-MT and RSTT-TT respectively (Table 4). Controversy, group × time interactions showed no significant difference in both static and dynamic balance performance between EG and CG (Table 4).

Table 3.

Reliability and variability of performance tests.

	ICC	95%CI	CV
5m	0.910	0.810–0.957	4.4
10m	0.902	0.794–0.953	2.5
20m	0.947	0.888–0.975	2.4
30m	0.922	0.835–0.963	1.9
Illinois-MT	0.910	0.810–0.957	2.8
SJ	0.892	0.774–0.949	9
CMJ	0.973	0.943–0.987	8.6
CMJA	0.977	0.953–0.989	8.3
5JT	0.983	0.964–0.992	13.9
Handgrip right	0.918	0.827–0.961	8.5
Handgrip left	0.925	0.842–0.964	10
Back extensor	0.954	0.903–0.974	10.4
Medicine ball throw	0.942	0.878–0.972	17
Stork right	0.732	0.438–0.873	52.1
Stork left	0.722	0.416–0.868	51.3
RL/L	0.924	0.841–0.964	10.1
RL/B	0.866	0.719–0.936	8.5
RL/R	0.938	0.870–0.971	16.1
LL/R	0.930	0.853–0.967	9.7
LL/B	0.861	0.708–0.934	7.8
LL/L	0.844	0.672–0.926	12.8

CI = confidence intervals; CV = coefficient of variation; CMJ = counter-movement jump; CMJA = counter-movement jump; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; Illinois-MT = Illinois modified test; SJ = squat jump; B = back round; L = left; R = right; LL = left leg; RL = right leg.

Table 4.

Upper-limb performance in experimental and control groups before and after the 10-week intervention.

	Experimental group (n = 15)					Control group (n = 15)					ANOVA group × time interaction
				Paired t test					Paired t test
	Pre	Post	%Δ change	p	Cohen's d	Pre	Post	%Δ change	P	Cohen's d	p	Cohen's d
Handgrip right (N)	232 ± 19	307 ± 21	32 ± 6	p < 0.001	−3.88	231 ± 21	239 ± 20	4 ± 2	p < 0.001	−0.40	p < 0.001	1.69
Handgrip left (N)	217 ± 28	296 ± 26	37 ± 8	p < 0.001	−3.03	225 ± 15	238 ± 14	6 ± 3	p < 0.001	−0.93	p < 0.001	1.55
Back extensor(N)	759 ± 97	1171 ± 97	55 ± 7	p < 0.001	−4.40	789 ± 59	862 ± 75	9 ± 6	p < 0.001	−1.12	p < 0.001	2.09
Medicine ball throw (m)	3.0 ± 0.4	4.8 ± 0.4	61 ± 13	p < 0.001	−4.66	3.2 ± 0.6	3.4 ± 0.6	7.4 ± 7.5	p = 0.001	−0.35	p < 0.001	1.53
n = number

Table 5.

Lower-limb performance in experimental and control groups before and after the 10-week intervention.

	Experimental group (n = 15)					Control group (n = 15)					ANOVA group × time interaction
				Paired t test					Paired t test
	Pre	Post	%Δ change	p	Cohen's d	Pre	Post	%Δ change	p	Cohen's d	p	Cohen's d
Sprint
5 m (s)	1.27 ± 0.05	1.14 ± 0.06	10.0 ± 1.5	p < 0.001	2.44	1.29 ± 0.06	1.24 ± 0.05	3.6 ± 1.5	p < 0.001	0.94	p = 0.009	0.72
10 m (s)	2.23 ± 0.05	2.09 ± 0.06	6.1 ± 1.4	p < 0.001	2.62	2.25 ± 0.06	2.21 ± 0.07	1.8 ± 2.1	p = 0.006	0.64	p = 0.005	0.79
20 m (s)	3.84 ± 0.10	3.37 ± 0.10	12.4 ± 1.6	p < 0.001	4.86	3.75 ± 0.05	3.69 ± 0.07	1.7 ± 1.1	p < 0.001	1.02	p < 0.001	2.56
30 m (s)	5.45 ± 0.12	4.95 ± 0.14	9.2 ± 1.4	p < 0.001	3.97	5.54 ± 0.05	5.49 ± 0.07	0.9 ± 0.7	p < 0.001	0.85	p < 0.001	2.25
Change of direction
Illinois-MT (s)	13.05 ± 0.35	12.23 ± 0.41	6.3 ± 1	p < 0.001	2.23	13.10 ± 0.39	13.00 ± 0.39	0.8 ± 0.2	p < 0.001	0.27	p = 0.001	0.96
Jump
SJ (cm)	23.1 ± 2.0	27.1 ± 2.3	17.4 ± 3.8	p < 0.001	−1.92	22.8 ± 2.2	23.8 ± 1.8	4.7 ± 4.4	p < 0.001	−0.51	p = 0.007	0.74
CMJ (cm)	23.4 ± 2.0	27.9 ± 1.9	19.4 ± 2.7	p < 0.001	−2.39	24 ± 2.1	24.9 ± 1.9	3.9 ± 3.5	p < 0.001	−0.47	p = 0.001	0.94
CMJA (cm)	24.6 ± 1.9	29.1 ± 1.9	18.4 ± 1.5	p < 0.001	−2.45	25.3 ± 2.2	25.8 ± 2.2	2.2 ± 1.1	p < 0.001	−0.24	p = 0.001	0.98
5JT (m)	8.2 ± 1.5	8.8 ± 1.4	7.4 ± 2	p < 0.001	−0.43	8.2 ± 1.5	8.5 ± 1.5	4.2 ± 3.1	p < 0.001	−0.21	p = 0.390	0.22
RSTT
RSTT-BT (s)	12.65 ± 0.15	11.69 ± 0.15	7.6 ± 0.1	p < 0.001	6.62	12.60 ± 0.19	12.47 ± 0.24	1.0 ± 0.6	p < 0.001	0.62	p < 0.001	2.32
RSTT-MT (s)	12.96 ± 0.15	11.98 ± 0.15	7.6 ± 0.1	p < 0.001	6.76	12.89 ± 0.19	12.76 ± 0.24	1.0 ± 0.6	p < 0.001	0.62	p < 0.001	2.37
RSTT-TT (s)	90.70 ± 1.0	83.90 ± 1.0	7.6 ± 0.1	p < 0.001	7.04	90.2 ± 1.3	89.3 ± 1.7	1.0 ± 0.6	p < 0.001	0.62	p < 0.001	2.37
RSTT-FI (%)	2.45 ± 0.03	2.48 ± 0.03	1.2 ± 0.1	p < 0.001	−1.04	2.30 ± 0.04	2.33 ± 0.05	1.1 ± 0.7	p < 0.001	−0.69	p = 0.786	0.08
Y Balance test
Right support leg
RL/L (cm)	74 ± 7	80 ± 6	8 ± 4	p < 0.001	−0.95	75 ± 8	81 ± 8	9 ± 7	p < 0.001	−0.78	p = 0.789	0.06
RL/B (cm)	88 ± 7	94 ± 8	7 ± 3	p < 0.001	−0.83	89 ± 8	94 ± 9	6 ± 4	p < 0.001	−0.61	p = 0.859	0.06
RL/R (cm)	46 ± 7	53 ± 6	16 ± 8	p < 0.001	−1.11	49 ± 9	54 ± 7	14 ± 20	p = 0.002	−0.64	p = 0.745	0.08
Left support leg
LL/R (cm)	79 ± 7	83 ± 6	6 ± 4	p < 0.001	−0.64	79 ± 9	85 ± 7	8 ± 10	p = 0.002	−0.77	p = 0.663	0.10
LL/B (cm)	94 ± 7	99 ± 7	6 ± 2	p < 0.001	−0.74	95 ± 8	99 ± 7	4 ± 3	p < 0.001	−0.55	p = 0.630	0.12
LL/L (cm)	47 ± 3	52 ± 3	12 ± 4	p < 0.001	−1.73	45 ± 8	49 ± 7	10 ± 8	p < 0.001	−0.55	p = 0.693	0.10
Stork balance test
RL (s)	2.62 ± 1.55	3.93 ± 1.79	86 ± 148	p = 0.018	−0.81	2.66 ± 1.23	4.04 ± 2.03	59 ± 54	p = 0.005	−0.85	p = 0.938	0.000
LL (s)	2.93 ± 1.41	3.97 ± 1.50	45 ± 31	p = 0.01	−0.74	2.38 ± 1.30	3.15 ± 1.50	48 ± 68	p = 0.096	−0.57	p = 0.713	0.08

Illinois-MT = Illinois modified test; SJ = squat jump; CMJ = countermovement jump; CMJA = countermovement jump with arms; 5JT = 5 jump test; RSTT = repeated sprint T-test ; BT = best time ; MT = mean time ; TT = total time ; FI = fatigue index ; RL = right leg ; L = left ; R = right ; B = bachround ; LL = left leg.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of CSTEB on medicine ball throw, handgrip strength, back extensor strength sprinting, ability to change direction, jumping, to make repeated changes of direction, maximal aerobic power and balance of young female handball players at a critical phase in their playing season. On most measures, gains were higher for experimental groups compared to the controls in the majority of fitness performance.

The findings of the present study showed large gains in upper limb strength performance. High levels of upper limb power (i.e. passing and throwing the ball) are important physical fitness attributes in female handball.⁽⁴⁾ Using similar strength training with elastic band, many studies revealed that strength training using rubber band exercises improves upper limb muscular strength in young female handball players.⁽^13,14,16⁾ In this line, Andersen et al.⁽¹⁴⁾ revealed that 9 week elastic resistance band period (3 times per week) had greater improvement versus the control period for 3 throwing velocity tests (penalty throw; running throw; and jumping throw (p < 0.05)) in young female handball players. Similarly, Mascarin et al.⁽¹⁶⁾ found increases in power [average power value for shoulder internal muscle (p = 0.05)] and ball speed [standing throw (p = 0.04) ; and jumping throw (p = 0.03)] after 6 week (three-times-per-week) strength training by elastic band in young female handball players. . Despite different methods of assessing strength (handgrip test, 1-RM bench press, ball throwing speed, medicine ball throw and isokinetic test) in the upper limb after strength with elastic band training program, most studies showed increases in power upper limb performance. The improvement in performance is due to several factors such as an increase in the ability to recruit motor-unit firing at high frequencies,⁽^30–32⁾ which can improve the rate of force development, increased tendon stiffness⁽³³⁾ or fascicle length.⁽²⁵⁾

In terms of the sprint, findings of the present study showed that the CSTEB intervention induced a medium to large performance in sprints performance. Increases in sprint performance after CSTEB is explained by the fact that strength provided by the band's elasticity resulted in a significant increase in knee extensor and flexor power production, which was transferred effectively to running at maximal speed.⁽^10,34⁾ The mechanism responsible for this effect has been attributed mainly to neural adaptations because less muscle hypertrophy occurs after training with elastic bands than after typical heavy strength training.⁽^30–32⁾ Some studies revealed improvement in sprint performance after elastic band training. Indeed, Aloui et al.⁽¹²⁾ found an increase in 5 m (p = 0.001; ES = 0.175) and 30 m (p = 0.05; ES = 0.067) after 8 week strength with elastic band training in junior male handball players. Similarly, Janusevicius et al.⁽³⁴⁾ found improved in sprint (30 m) performance after five weeks different elastic band training methods [i.e., using concentric and eccentric actions training, concentric-only actions training, or high-velocity elastic band training] in physical activity men aged 23 years. The authors revealed a positive effect after strength training with elastic band was noticeable at maximal speed but not during the acceleration phase.⁽³⁴⁾ This may be related to the increase in peak torque and the reduction in muscle coactivation at high velocities (450°/s) for both knee flexors and knee extensors.⁽³⁴⁾

Our results showed increases in change of direction (Illinois-MT) performance in EG compared to CG. Similarly, other authors found an increase in T-half test (p = 0.007; ES = 0.124) after eight weeks (twice per week) strength with elastic band training in junior male handball players.⁽¹²⁾ Conversely, Anderson et al.⁽¹⁴⁾ found no significant change in agility performance after 6-week strength with elastic band training in young female handball players. Improvement in the change of direction performance may be explained by that the elastic resistance band program probably affected the velocity factor of the power output more than the force factor for the lower limbs.⁽³⁴⁾ This speculation is supported by the velocity data, which showed an increased between-period difference in velocity in the CoD performance.⁽^15,34⁾ Indeed, during strength work with an elastic band, greater force is generated during each repetition during the last half of the concentric action and the first half of the eccentric action, and there is an enhanced transition from the concentric phase to the eccentric phase because of the decreasing overall band length on the return to the resting position.⁽^15,34⁾ Such a training strategy effectively increased hamstring force, particularly at high velocities.⁽^15,34⁾ This may reduce the time of CoD test

All jump performance was improved signiﬁcantly except 5JT in the EG. Using similar training program protocols in handball players, the authors found increases in jump performance after strength training with elastic band.⁽¹⁴⁾ The mechanism responsible for this effect has been attributed mainly to neural adaptations such as an increased nerve conduction velocity, maximizing of the electromyogram, improved intermuscular coordination, an enhanced motor unit recruitment strategy, and an increased excitability of the Hoffman reflex (H-reflex).⁽¹⁵⁾ Also, changes in muscle size and architecture, in the mechanical characteristics of the muscle-tendon complex, and changes in single-fibre mechanics.⁽¹⁵⁾

The current results showed a significant increase in 3 of 4 repeated sprint T-test scores in the EG relative to the CG. One possible explanation for the lack of signiﬁcant change in RSTT-FI in these studies could be the poor reproducibility of this particular measure.⁽³⁵⁾ Similarly, Aloui et al.⁽¹²⁾ found increases in repeated change of direction (best time (p = 0.045; ES = 0.70); mean time (p = 0.040; ES = 0.73); and total time (p = 0.040; ES = 0.73)) performance after 8 week strength with elastic band training in junior male handball players. The capacity to repeat high-intensity runs is on both neuromuscular (e.g. neural drive and motor-unit activation) and metabolic factors (e.g. oxidative capacity, PCr recovery, and H + buffering).⁽³⁶⁾ The mechanism responsible for this improvement has been attributed mainly to neural adaptations.⁽¹⁵⁾

This is the ﬁrst investigation to have studied the effects of contrast strength with elastic band training on the balance performance in handball players. Group × time interaction showed no significant difference between groups. This may be due to poor reproducibility. Indeed, intra-class correlation coeffcient are 0.73 and 0.72 for the right leg and the leg, respectively. Similarly, no significant changes in any dynamic balance scores were observed, which may be explained by the small improvement in both groups. Similarly, Hammami et al.⁽²⁰⁾ found no significant change in both static and dynamic balance performance after eight complex strength training in junior female handball players.

This study has some limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, no direct physiological (e.g. electromyography; isokinetic strength test) or biomechanical (e.g. vertical ground reaction force) measures were conducted. The aforementioned measures have to be considered in future research. Second, the Stork balance test result should be interpreted with caution as results presented low reliability for our study population (ICC = 0.732 and ICC = 0.722 for the right and the left leg respectively). Lastly, the minimal sample size needed in our study (using the Gpower program) was not calculated.

Conclusions

Elastic resistance bands are inexpensive, easy to use, portable, and easier to implement in regular handball training sessions than conventional resistance training equipment. Markers of handball-related performance measures such as sprint times, change-of-direction speed, vertical jumping, upper-body strength, and repeated sprint ability are enhanced by introducing 10 weeks of biweekly upper- and lower-body contrast strength training with elastic band (CSTEB) into the regular handball training schedule of young female handball players. Coaches should thus consider incorporating elements of contrast strength training with elastic band into conventional in-season handball training for young female players. It seems that significant gains of performance-related attributes can be realized safely without the need of demanding additional training time.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest

ORCID iDs

Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly

Beat Knechtle

References

Luteberget

Spencer

. High-Intensity events in international Women's Team handball matches. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 56–61.

Luteberget

Trollerud

Spencer

. Physical demands of game-based training drills in women's Team handball. J Sports Sci 2018; 36: 592–598.

Michalsik

Aagaard

Madsen

. Technical activity profile and influence of body anthropometry on playing performance in female elite team handball. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 1126–1138.

Wagner

Fuchs

Fusco

, et al. Physical performance in elite male and female team handball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018: 1–24.

Wik

Luteberget

Spencer

. Activity profiles in international Women's Team handball using PlayerLoad. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 934–942.

Pereira

Cal Abad

Kobal

, et al. Differences in speed and power capacities between female national college team and national Olympic team handball athletes. J Hum Kinet 2018; 63: 85–94.

Bragazzi

Rouissi

Hermassi

, et al. Resistance training and handball Players’ isokinetic, isometric and maximal strength, muscle power and throwing ball velocity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 1–19.

Karcher

Buchheit

. On-court demands of elite handball, with special reference to playing positions. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ) 2014; 44: 797–814.

Wagner

Finkenzeller

Wurth

, et al. Individual and team performance in team-handball: a review. J Sports Sci Med 2014; 13: 808–816.

10.

Smilios

Pilianidis

Sotiropoulos

, et al. Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in contrast training on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 135–139.

11.

Cometti

. Los métodos modernos de musculacion. Barcelona, Spain: editorial paidotribo, 1998.

12.

Aloui

Hammami

Fathloun

, et al. Effects of an 8-week In-season elastic band training program on explosive muscle performance, change of direction, and repeated changes of direction in the lower limbs of junior male handball players. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 1804–1815.

13.

Aloui

Hermassi

Hammami

, et al. 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. Sportverletz Sportschaden 2019; 33: 133–141.

14.

Andersen

Fimland

Cumming

, et al. Explosive resistance training using elastic bands in young female team handball players. Sports Med Int Open 2018; 2: E171–e178.

15.

Lopes

JSS

Machado

Micheletti

, et al. Effects of training with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. SAGE Open Med 2019; 7: 2050312119831116.

16.

Mascarin

de Lira

CAB

Vancini

. de castro pochini A, da silva AC, and Dos santos andrade M. Strength training using elastic bands: improvement of muscle power and throwing performance in young female handball players. J Sport Rehabil 2017; 26: 245–252.

17.

Hammami

Gaamouri

Shephard

, et al. Effects of contrast strength vs. Plyometric training on lower-limb explosive performance, ability to change direction and neuromuscular adaptation in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 2094–2103.

18.

Hammami

Negra

Shephard

, et al. Effects of leg contrast strength training on sprint, agility and repeated change of direction performance in male soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017; 57: 1424–1431.

19.

Hachana

Chaabene

Ben Rajeb

, et al. Validity and reliability of new agility test among elite and subelite under 14-soccer players. PloS one 2014; 9: e95773.

20.

Hammami

Gaamouri

Aloui

, et al. Effects of a Complex strength-training program on athletic performance of junior female handball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2019; 14: 163–169.

21.

Durnin

Womersley

. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974; 32: 77–97.

22.

Mirwald

Baxter-Jones

Bailey

, et al. An assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2002; 34: 689–694.

23.

Hannibal

Plowman

Looney

, et al. Reliability and validity of low back strength/muscular endurance ﬁeld tests in adolescents. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3: S78–S89.

24.

Gillespie

Keenum

. A validity and reliability analysis of the seated shot put as a test of power. J Hum Mov Stud 1987; 13: 97–105.

25.

Alegre

Jimenez

Gonzalo-Orden

, et al. Effects of dynamic resistance training on fascicle length and isometric strength. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 501–508.

26.

Pauole

Madole

Garhammer

, et al. Reliability and validity of the t-test as a measure of agility leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men and women. J Strength Cond Res 2000; 14: 443–450.

27.

Mascarin

de Lira

CAB

. Vancini RL, da silva AC, and andrade MS. The effects of preventive rubber band training on shoulder joint imbalance and throwing performance in handball players: a randomized and prospective study. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2017; 21: 1017–1023.

28.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

29.

Vincent

. Statistics in kinesiology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

30.

Folland

Williams

. The adaptations to strength training : morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports Med (Auckland, NZ) 2007; 37: 145–168.

31.

Griffin

Cafarelli

. Resistance training: cortical, spinal, and motor unit adaptations. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30: 328–340.

32.

Sommi

Gill

Trojan

, et al. Strength and conditioning in adolescent female athletes. Phys Sportsmed 2018; 46: 420–426.

33.

Kubo

Morimoto

Komuro

, et al. Effects of plyometric and weight training on muscle-tendon complex and jump performance. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2007; 39: 1801–1810.

34.

Janusevicius

Snieckus

Skurvydas

, et al. Effects of high velocity elastic band versus heavy resistance training on hamstring strength, activation, and sprint running performance. J Sports Sci Med 2017; 16: 239–246.

35.

Impellizzeri

Rampinini

Castagna

, et al. Validity of a repeated-sprint test for football. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 899–905.

36.

Spencer

Bishop

Dawson

, et al. Physiological and metabolic responses of repeated-sprint activities:specific to field-based team sports. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ) 2005; 35: 1025–1044.