Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Greywater as a Sustainable Source of Irrigation for Ornamental Crops in Green Walls—A Study of Plant and Soil Using Ruellia tuberosa
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Dissolved Organic Matter on Photodegradation Rates, Byproduct Formations, and Degradation Pathways for Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Simulated River Waters
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/su16031182
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction

by
Estela Orduña-Borraz
,
Elena Mainer-Pardos
*,
Luis Alberto Marco-Contreras
and
Demetrio Lozano
Health Sciences Faculty, Universidad San Jorge, Autov A23 km 299, Villanueva de Gállego, 50830 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(3), 1182; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031182
Submission received: 23 November 2023 / Revised: 11 January 2024 / Accepted: 16 January 2024 / Published: 31 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Improving women’s handball through increased performance and sustainability is crucial. Strength training, especially with Olympic movements, develops strength, power, and speed, key factors for success in team sports. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of Olympic movements on performance variables such as jumps, throws, sprints, and changes of direction, and additionally, to promote a more sustainable and holistic approach to overall health and wellbeing. Twenty-one women handball players were divided into two groups (the experimental group (EG) [n = 11; age: 15.91 ± 0.70 years; BMI: 21.37] and the control group (CG) [n = 10; age: 15.60 ± 0.52; BMI: 22.31]). All participants performed four assessment tests to determine jump height (Abalakov test), throwing speed (throw test), running speed (20 m sprint) and change of direction ability (V-cut test). Measurements were carried out before and after the intervention. For six weeks, the control group performed the strength work established by the club twice a week while the intervention group additionally performed training with Olympic movements. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between the pre and post measurement of the control group and the intervention group in jump height, throwing speed, and running speed, being higher in the intervention group. For change of direction, no significant differences were found. Between groups, significant differences were observed at the end of the intervention for jump height and running speed. The conclusion of this study is that the experimental group achieved greater improvements in jumping performance, throwing speed, and running speed in women handball players.

1. Introduction

Handball is a collective sport of collaboration–opposition, of intermittent nature and high-intensity action [1,2]. The sport stands out for the performance of repeated actions such as throws, changes of direction (COD), and jumps [3]. Success in handball is determined by a series of technical, tactical, and psychological aspects, anthropometric characteristics [4], and physiological attributes [5,6].
The throw is a crucial action for achieving success in handball [2,7], since its efficiency has a high influence on the final result [8] and discriminates between winning and losing teams [9,10]. Both high velocity and good accuracy are two of the most important determinants of a successful throw [7,11]. Throwing speed is one of the most important factors in goal scoring [12] because an increase in throwing speed decreases the visual information for the goalkeeper, thus providing an advantage for the thrower [13,14]. Furthermore, the achievement of high velocity depends on technique, coordination of different body segments, and muscle power [15].
Lower extremity power is a performance indicator for athletes performing triple extension (hip, knee, and ankle) [16]. In the case of handball, actions such as jumping, sprinting, and changing direction involve this triple extension and require applying the greatest possible force for a short period of time [17]. Regarding the relationship between general and specific throwing tests, several studies show a moderate correlation between muscular strength, power, and throwing speed [18,19] in handball players, being higher in female handball players than in male counterparts [2]. The existence of a relationship between throwing velocity and maximal strength in bench press has also been demonstrated [20] along with the relationship between throwing velocity and isokinetic upper body strength [21]. In contrast, some authors found no correlation between throwing velocity and isokinetic muscle strength in the internal and external rotators of the shoulder [22,23,24].
Running speed is mainly determinant for wingers (players who stand closer to the touchline), since most of the distance they cover is achieved by running at high speed and by sprinting, also accumulating most of the team sprints in the counterattacking phase [25]. The total distance covered during a match is 4614 m (2066 m for goalkeepers and 5251 m for outfield players), divided into 9.2% sprinting, 26.7% fast running, 28.8% slow running, and 35.5% walking [25]. In addition, significant differences were found in the type of movement when in the defense phase compared with the attack phase, both walking (20%), at a jogging intensity (29.6%), and high-intensity running (25.2%) [26].
Jumping ability is also an important performance indicator [27,28,29,30], mainly for wingers, as they usually perform more jumping throws to beat opponents [1,31]. Furthermore, lower extremity strength is strongly related to throwing velocity [4]. While there is some disagreement regarding whether jump height is a discriminant factor in professional matches, certain studies have found differences in jumping measures depending on the players’ level [1]. Other studies consider jumping ability a performance factor by allowing an increase of time in the decision making of the jump shot or jump pass [27,28].
Finally, change of direction [31] is an action that consists of chaining an acceleration with a deceleration to continue with an acceleration in a different direction [32] as the front manoeuvre, which is the most recurrent action in handball to overcome an opponent. Players need to generate a large amount of force in a short period of time to perform a quick change of direction [33], with those of larger angles requiring more force [31,34].
All these factors have one thing in common: they are directly related to one aspect of physical fitness, strength. Therefore, aspects such as jumping ability and COD are related and are sometimes used as predictors [35].
Regarding the training methods used to develop the indicated capacities, physical preparation in handball has followed the same pattern for many years, with traditional strength training as its basis. In this type of physical preparation, a routine of weights, circuit training, strength exercises with specific gestures, plyometrics, etc., is usually performed in which work is carried out with high levels of load but at low speed. Currently, it is considered necessary to include in this section of the training the performance of Olympic movements or their derivatives, since, with these, in addition to working with high levels of load, we also work with high speeds, probably more suitable for the development of strength, power, and speed in team sports [20].
On the other hand, plyometrics, sprints, swing platform, kettlebell training, and FIFA 11 + warm-up can help improve lower extremity strength and power [16,36], but there is also other research claiming that weightlifting can provide a superior training stimulus [37]. This type of training includes movements such as clean, jerk, and snatch and their derivatives. These exercises are mainly used to train lower body muscle power. Some studies claim that there is a relationship between the performance of Olympic movements and running speed, vertical jump, and change of direction [16]. According to another study conducted with female handball players, training with Olympic movements produces greater improvements in sprint performance and lower extremity strength compared with traditional strength training [37,38].
Olympic movements, in addition to favoring the development of power, have positive effects on aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, balance, and flexibility. These exercises are related to increased bone density and muscular adaptations; therefore, their use could be very useful in injury prevention, provided they are taught and supervised by a qualified professional [37]. The major drawback of training with Olympic movements is their high technical demand, as it would take a long time to teach them to athletes who do not practise weightlifting regularly. Therefore, it is considered more appropriate to work with exercises that involve less technical complexity and lower levels of mobility and stability. These derived movements can be hanging, power, or performed unilaterally, as they are also effective in improving force production per unit time [16].
In addition to the technical and physical aspects of handball, it is essential to consider sustainability in the sports context. Handball, as a sport that requires efficient coordination of physical and tactical resources, can serve as a model for understanding sustainability in human activity [39]. Efficient energy management and optimization of physical performance in handball reflect key principles of sustainability, such as resource efficiency and minimization of environmental impact [40]. At the same time, the promotion of sustainable practices in sport, such as the use of environmentally friendly materials and long-term health and wellness, aligns with global sustainable development goals [41].
The current study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of Olympic movements on the performance of handball players, specifically focusing on improvements in jumping, throwing, sprinting, and change of direction. At the same time, this research aims to explore the broader context of handball as a sports activity that not only demands physical excellence, but also aligns with sustainable practices and principles. By examining the intersection of sports training, in particular Olympic movements in handball, with aspects of health and sustainability, this study aims to provide a unique perspective on how the discipline of handball contributes to sustainability. This dual focus will provide valuable insights into both the specific physical training techniques that optimize handball performance and the broader implications of these practices in the context of sustainable sport and health. We hypothesize that strength training incorporating Olympic movements will significantly improve handball performance variables such as jumping, throwing, sprinting, and change of direction. In addition, this training will promote sustainable practices in the sport, reflecting resource-efficient principles and minimizing environmental impact. We anticipate that players using these training methods will not only improve their athletic performance but also adopt a more sustainable and holistic approach to overall health and wellness.

2. Materials and Methods

The study design was randomized controlled, with a parallel design, a control group (CG), and an experimental group (EG).

2.1. Participants

Twenty-one amateur female handball players participated in the study. The G power 3.9.6 program was used to calculate the minimal sample size needed in our study, with Z1-β = 1.07 (power = 85%) and Z α/2 = 2 = 1.97 (alpha = 5%). All the subjects played in the under-16 (n = 11) or under-18 (n = 10) teams of Balonmano La Jota, Zaragoza, Spain. Participants were divided into two groups according to the ABK test and randomized with the ABBA sequence. The groups were blinded and did not know whether they belonged to the control or the intervention group. The researchers were also blinded and conducted the tests and pretests without knowing to which group each participant belonged. The CG (n = 10) consisted of five players under 16 and five players under 18, and the experimental group (n = 11) consisted of six U-16 players and five U-18 players. The age of the subjects was 15.76 ± 0.63 years, the height was 163.05 ± 4.08 cm, and the weight was 58.05 ± 6.82 kg.
The choice of categories for conducting the study is due to the fact that adolescence is identified as the ideal time to provoke more and new stimuli [42]. The players who were part of the study had at least three years of experience playing handball, had never trained with Olympic movements, did not suffer from any injury or pathology that would prevent them from the correct development of the intervention, and were of adequate physical condition. Before the start of the study, all participants were informed of the basic characteristics of the research and of the possible risks related to the execution of the tests. All subjects signed a consent form. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by a local ethical committee of the Universidad San Jorge de Zaragoza (Spain) and CEICA committee of Aragón (Spain) nº PI23-141.

2.2. Procedures

All tests were preceded by a warm-up, which included first performing different types of movements across half of the handball court. The movements were jogging forward, jogging with shoulder mobility, skipping, lateral movement, strides, three steps and a jump, three steps and a change of direction, and 10 squats on the spot followed by a sprint. Secondly, goal shots were taken in support and then jumping.
Each of the assessment tests were carried out on different days and the players were instructed to perform them at maximum intensity. For each test they had two attempts, separated by a time of two minutes to ensure full recovery, from which the best results were taken as a reference.
ABK test: Jump height was assessed using the Abalakov test and measured in centimeters (cm). This test was performed on the ADR jumping platform. The athletes were instructed to perform a vertical jump with a knee flexion of 90° with the help of the arms, being able to use them freely and keeping the trunk as straight as possible. This test begins with the athlete standing, then the knees are flexed to 90°, and finally the extension of the lower limbs and the movement of the arms are performed [43].
Throwing to goal: To determine the throwing speed, the players were asked to throw in support from the 7-m line to an empty goal and at maximum intensity, following the rules of this throw as stated in the handball regulations [44]. A high-performance sports radar (Stalker Pro 2 Radar Gun, Applied Concepts, Inc./Stalker Radar, Richardson, TX, USA) was used to obtain the throwing speed. The radar was aimed at the player’s throwing arm and positioned on the 9-m line behind the player. To be considered valid, a throw had to go straight into the goal and not touch the ground. The speed of the throw was obtained in meters/second (m/s). Molten official handballs (Molten Corp., Hiroshima, Japan) were used, (circumference: 54–56 cm; weight: 325–375 g).
Sprint 20 m: To assess running speed, players were asked to perform a 20-m sprint in a straight line to obtain their speed in meters/second (m/s). This distance was used as it was the closest to the average during a handball match (18 ± 6.91 m) [45]. The athletes performed the sprint taking as references the finish line, the beginning of the sprint, and the center line for the end. The times were measured with double-beam photocell systems (Witty, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) placed 1 m above ground level at the above-mentioned marks. All participants stood 0.5 m behind the first photocell when ready.
V-cut test. To obtain the results for ability to change direction, the V-cut test was used, in which the players covered 25 m making four changes of direction (one every five meters) with an exit angle of 45° [46]. Using double-beam photocell systems (Witty, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy), the seconds (s) taken by each player to perform the test were obtained accurately.
Once the data for all variables had been collected, the intervention began, lasting six weeks. This specific period was selected to adjust to the current situation of amateur team sports players. The time available to adequately develop strength and power in this type of player is very limited, since training focuses on technical and tactical improvement in the sport in question. For this reason, efficient power training becomes essential in these cases. Additionally, it has been shown that six weeks of training are sufficient to significantly improve performance in team sports [47,48].
The CG carried out the strength training sessions proposed by the team on Mondays and Wednesdays, prior to the track training. A standard warm-up consisting of jogging, joint mobility, squats, lunges, push-ups with knees, and rowing with rubber bands was performed before the start of training.
Monday’s training consisted of four blocks. Each block consisted of two main exercises, one compensatory exercise, and one transfer exercise. The players performed eight repetitions of the first main exercise, eight repetitions of the second main exercise, six repetitions of the compensatory exercise, and four repetitions of the transfer exercise. This sequence was repeated twice more for a total of three sets. Once the first block was completed, we moved on to the next. The players were distributed equally in each block as there was not enough equipment for them all to perform in the same order.
Wednesday’s training was made up of five blocks, the last one being abdominal work. The first four blocks consisted of a general exercise, a targeted exercise, and a specific exercise. In the core block there were three abdominal exercises. The players performed eight repetitions of the general exercise, four repetitions of the targeted exercise, and four repetitions of the specific exercise. This sequence was repeated two more times for a total of three sets. Once the first block was completed, they moved on to the next. As in the Monday training session, the players were divided equally between the first four blocks and finally performed the core block all together.
The intensity at which the players performed the exercises at which the load could be regulated was 75% of their maximum repetition (MR). In both training sessions, if the exercise was unilateral, the repetitions indicated in the table had to be performed with each limb. Each assessment test took place on different days and the players were instructed to perform it at maximum intensity.
The players who were part of the intervention group were taught the Olympic movements that the training sessions consisted of with pikes and eight-kilogram bars in several sessions before beginning the intervention.
Once the data for all variables were collected, the intervention began, which lasted six weeks [47]. The control group carried out the strength training proposed by the club on Mondays and Wednesdays, prior to track training. These workouts are detailed in Table 1 and Table 2.
The intervention group, in addition to executing the strength training proposed by the club, performed additional Olympic movement training. For each proposed exercise, the participants had to perform three sets of eight repetitions with a rest of one minute between sets and two minutes between exercises. The intensity varied from 20% of their body weight to 30%. In the first two weeks of the intervention, corresponding to the first four sessions, an intensity of 20% of each player’s body weight was used. In the four subsequent sessions, an intensity of 25% of their body weight was used. In the last four sessions, the training was carried out with an intensity of 30% of their body weight. The players were instructed that the movements should be performed at maximum speed.
Monday’s training designed for the EG consisted of four exercises, which had to be performed in this order: hang clean (HC), shoulder press (SP), hang power clean and jerk (HPCJ), and dumbbell power snatch (DPS).
Wednesday’s training also consisted of four exercises that had to follow the order detailed below: hang power clean (HPC), unilateral shoulder press (USP), hang clean and jerk (HCJ), and DPS. These workouts are detailed in Table 3.
Once the intervention period was over, all players, both CG and EG, underwent the four assessment tests again. For each test, there were two attempts, separated by a time limit of two minutes, and the best results were used as a reference.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 28 software was used to perform the data analysis. Descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation were calculated for age, height, and weight. The same descriptive statistics were calculated for the variables of jump height, throwing speed, running speed, and change of direction ability as a function of group (control or intervention) and as a function of the time of data collection (pre-intervention or post-intervention). To calculate whether the distribution of the variables was normal or not, Shapiro–Wilk was used. To compare the evolution of the variables throughout the intervention in the same group, Student’s t test was used for related samples if the distribution was normal and the Wilcoxon test when the distribution was not normal. To compare the variables between the control group and the intervention group at the end of the intervention, Student’s t test was used for independent samples if the distribution was normal and the Mann–Whitney U test if the distribution was not normal. All tests were performed at a significance level of less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). Cohen’s d was used to assess the effect size. In this context, values lower than 0.20 show no effect, from 0.21 to 0.49 have a small effect, from 0.50 to 0.70 show a moderate effect, and values equal to or higher than 0.80 show a large effect [49].

3. Results

Table 4 shows the results obtained for all the variables analyzed.

3.1. Jump Height

Using the Wilcoxon test, significant differences were obtained between the CG at PRE and POST (p < 0.01) and the effect size was small (d = 0.29). The Student’s t-test for related samples showed significant differences between the EG at PRE and POST (p < 0.001) and the effect size was large (d = 0.82). Using Student’s t test for independent samples, no significant differences were observed between CG and EG at PRE (p > 0.05). Using the Mann–Whitney U test, significant differences were observed between CG and EG at POST (p < 0.05).

3.2. Throwing Velocity

Using Student’s t test for related samples, significant differences were obtained between CG at PRE and POST (p < 0.01) and there was no effect (d = 0.05). Using the same test, significant differences were observed between the EG at PRE and POST (p < 0.001) and there was also no effect (d = 0.18). With the Student’s t test for independent samples, no significant differences were observed between the CG and the EG in the PRE (p > 0.05) nor between the CG and the EG in the POST (p > 0.05).

3.3. Running Speed

Using Student’s t test for related samples, significant differences were obtained between the CG at PRE and POST (p < 0.01) and the effect size was small (d = 0.28). Using the same test, significant differences were observed between EG at PRE and POST (p < 0.001) and the effect size was large (d = 3.19). With Student’s t test for independent samples, no significant differences were observed between CG and EG at PRE (p > 0.05) but significant differences were observed between CG and EG at POST (p < 0.001).

3.4. Ability to Change Direction

The Student’s t-test for related samples showed significant differences between CG at PRE and POST (p < 0.001) and the effect size was small (d = 0.34). Using the same test, significant differences were observed between EG at PRE and POST (p < 0.001) and the effect size was also small (d = 0.37). Using Student’s t test for independent samples, no significant differences were observed between CG and EG at PRE (p > 0.05) nor between CG and EG at POST (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The aim of the study was to determine whether training with Olympic movements produces significant improvements in jumping, throwing, sprinting, and COD performance in handball players through different assessment tests such as the Abalakov test, penalty shootout, 20-m sprint, and V-cut test. According to the results obtained, it can be observed that both in the CG and in the EG there were significant differences at the end of the six weeks of training for each of the variables. Although there were significant differences in the improvements in both groups, the EG improved more than the CG in the variables jump height (d = 0.82), throwing speed (d = 0.18), running speed (d = 3.19), and ability to change direction (d = 0.37). Regarding the significant differences between groups, these occurred for the jump height and running speed variables, with better results being obtained in the EG. The following results raise the possibility that the integration of Olympic movements into strength training had a positive and significant impact on performance variables in handball players, including notable improvements in jumping, throwing, sprinting, and COD. These results not only underscore the effectiveness of Olympic movements in improving physical skills in handball but also demonstrate their alignment with sustainable practices in sport.
In relation to our findings on jump height, the results of this study corroborate previous authors’ claims about the strong relationship between training with Olympic movements and vertical jump performance [28,50]. We found that these movements significantly improved jump height, surpassing the improvements achieved with traditional training [20], especially in jumps such as the countermovement jump and the squat jump. This effect is attributed to better recruitment and control of motor units, leading to increased force per unit time and more efficient energy transfer across different body segments [51,52]. Furthermore, our results extend this understanding by demonstrating that training with Olympic movements not only improves jump height but also significantly optimizes other handball performance variables, such as throwing speed, running speed, and COD [52]. These results emphasize the relevance of Olympic movements not only for the development of specific physical skills but also for their contribution to a more holistic and sustainable approach to sports practice [35,53].
Our findings are in line with previous studies demonstrating the efficacy of Olympic movement training in improving athletic performance. Morris et al. (2022), compared strength and power between powerlifters, Olympic lifters, and sprinters, observing that the Olympic lifters group showed significantly higher peaks in strength, power, and jump height than the other groups [37]. Other studies found that athletes with better performance in exercises such as the hang power clean, hang clean, and hang snatch achieved superior and significant results in jumping performance, exhibiting higher levels of peak strength and power (p ≤ 0.01) [54]. This aligns with findings that noted that Olympic weightlifting training alone is effective for improving sprint speed and power, potentially enhancing strength and power when combined with vertical jump training [37]. However, it is crucial to note that there are studies that found no improvements in strength and power through Olympic movement training in jumping performance (d = −0.62) [55]. This discrepancy underscores the complexity of the impact of Olympic movement training and the need to consider individual and contextual factors to assess its efficacy. In our study, significant improvements in jump height, throwing velocity, sprint velocity, and change-of-direction ability among groups trained with Olympic movements support the hypothesis that such training is effective, although there may be variations in the response to training depending on the context and individual athlete’s characteristics. Indeed, as noted by Helland et al. (2017) [56], motorized strength and power training can be equally or more effective than free weight training in improving muscle power, jump height, and sprinting capacity compared with Olympic-style weightlifting, highlighting the importance of training method diversity.
In terms of the results obtained for throwing velocity, the existing literature supports the use of Olympic movements for throwing athletes. Players who have trained in exercises such as the snatch and clean and jerk for more than two years are more likely to see improvements in strength and power in throwing activities. This could be justified by the mechanical similarity of the joints [38]. Several studies have concluded that there is a relationship between Olympic movements and increases in muscle volume, maximal upper limb strength, and throwing velocity in handball players [19,38]. Therefore, the results obtained in this study regarding running speed align with several articles in which a relationship has been observed between the strength improvement obtained in the performance of Olympic movements and running speed, both in the 10 m sprint (p < 0.05) and the 30 m sprint [38,56]. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating Olympic movements into handball training, not only to improve specific aspects of sporting performance but also to align with sustainable practices that promote athletes’ overall health and well-being [18].
When comparing training with Olympic movements and plyometric training, studies show that Olympic movements provide greater improvements in the five-meter and 20 m sprints because of their emphasis on force production per unit time [51,52]. These results align with other studies indicating that athletes with better performance in Olympic movements perform better in the 20 m sprint (p < 0.01) and over longer distances, so it is reasonable to assume that these results can be extrapolated to athletes whose disciplines require power, strength, and speed [37]. In contrast, studies such as those by Marković et al. (2007) [57] and Booth and Orr (2016) [58] did not observe significant improvements in 36 m sprints (p > 0.05) when comparing training with Olympic lifts, traditional strength training, and agility and speed training. Their results may differ from those obtained in the present study due to using a different Olympic lifting program than the one proposed, which involved very high loads, in addition to evaluating a much longer sprint distance.
Our results reinforce the idea that training with Olympic movements is especially beneficial for improving performance in short-distance sprint events, as demonstrated by improvements in sprint speed and COD ability in handball players [59]. These results suggest that although Olympic movement training may not be as effective for longer sprint distances, its impact on shorter distances and other performance variables is significant and aligns with sustainable training practices by promoting holistic and healthy physical development for athletes.
The results obtained in relation to the COD agree with those reported in the literature. According to several studies, training with Olympic movements does not produce significant differences (p > 0.05) in change of direction compared with other groups. This could be because power transfer for this type of test is very complex, and the results could also be influenced by motor control factors. Another reason could be related to decision making regarding how much and when to accelerate and decelerate. However, studies conducted by Freitas et al. (2019) [60] suggest that stronger and more powerful athletes do not necessarily show greater change-of-direction skills, indicating that current strength and power training practices may not be optimal for improving this skill. Nevertheless, our findings show an improvement in the COD ability in the EG, suggesting that although Olympic movement training may not have a significant impact compared with other training methods, it may still contribute to improvements in this area. Differences in results between this study and others could be due to variations in training protocols, participant characteristics, or the specificity of the exercises used [61]. These results underline the importance of considering a comprehensive and personalized approach when training for changes in direction in handball, considering not only strength and power but also factors such as motor control and tactical decision making [62].
Although this study provides positive results on the efficacy of training with Olympic movements in handball players, there are some limitations that should be considered, such as the lack of a control group of untrained subjects. The study compared two groups (CG and GE) that received training but did not include a control group that did not receive any training. The absence of an untrained control group makes it difficult to assess whether the observed improvements are specific to Olympic movement training or simply a result of regular physical activity. Thanks to the regular strength training conducted by the CG, we can generalize the results obtained. However, the duration of the study was six weeks. Such a short period may not be sufficient to fully observe the long-term effects of training. A longer study duration would allow a better assessment of the sustainability of the improvements and whether they persist over time. Similarly, the sustainability measures show that the results are aligned with sustainable practices in sport, but the study does not provide specific measures of sustainability, nor does it assess how long-term implementation of this type of training might affect sustainable aspects in the sports context.
Based on the results obtained in the current study, as well as the limitations identified, several future lines of research could be proposed to further explore the topic. Conducting a longer-term study to evaluate its effects would provide a better understanding of the sustainability of the observed improvements and their persistence over time. Other training methods commonly used in handball could also be compared. This could include comparisons with traditional strength training and neuromuscular or plyometric exercises. It could also be explored how the integration of different types of strength training can improve other aspects of training, such as handball-specific technique, tactical work, and general physical conditioning. Finally, the possibility of adapting the Olympic movement training protocol for different skill levels and ages could be investigated, ensuring its sustainable applicability in a variety of contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the incorporation of Olympic-derived movements into traditional strength training may significantly improve the performance of U-16 and U-18 amateur handball players, specifically in jumping, throwing, and sprinting speeds. The use of lighter weights (20–30% of body weight) twice a week from an early age has been found to be effective, producing substantial improvements in vertical jumps, throwing, and sprinting. These results show that such training strategies are not only beneficial for sports that share similar performance factors with handball but also align with sustainable sports practices that promote holistic and health-focused physical development in young athletes.
Based on these results, it is recommended that strength training with Olympic movements and/or their derivatives be an integral part of physical preparation in handball to increase athletes’ strength and power levels, thereby improving key performance factors such as jumping, throwing, and sprinting. Coaches should adapt loading intensities according to the initial competence of their athletes in Olympic movements, considering the actual demands of the sport. Incorporating training with Olympic movements and/or their derivatives using light loads twice a week from an early age is recommended. Overall, the training should adopt a holistic approach, focusing on improving strength and power while simultaneously working on essential handball skills such as jumping, throwing, sprinting, and changing direction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.O.-B., E.M.-P. and D.L.; methodology, E.O.-B., L.A.M.-C. and D.L.; validation, E.O.-B. and D.L.; formal analysis, E.O.-B. and D.L.; investigation, E.O.-B., L.A.M.-C. and D.L.; resources, E.O.-B., L.A.M.-C. and D.L.; data curation, E.O.-B., E.M.-P. and D.L.; writing—original draft preparation, E.O.-B., L.A.M.-C. and D.L.; writing—review and editing, E.O.-B., E.M.-P. and D.L.; supervision, E.O.-B., E.M.-P. and D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Government of Aragon, Research Group ValorA, under Grant No. S08_20R.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by a local ethical committee of the Universidad San Jorge de Zaragoza (Spain) and CEICA committee of Aragón (Spain) nº PI23-141.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restriction.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wagner, H.; Finkenzeller, T.; Würth, S.; Von Duvillard, S.P. Individual and Team Performance in Team-Handball: A Review. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2014, 13, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Granados, C.; Izquierdo, M.; Ibañez, J.; Bonnabau, H.; Gorostiaga, E.M. Differences in Physical Fitness and Throwing Velocity among Elite and Amateur Female Handball Players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2007, 28, 860–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yaseen, Q.B.; Petracheva, I.V.; Kotov, Y.N.; Eltibi, R.S.A. Kinematic Variables of Elite Handball Players during Throwing from Upward Jumps. S. Afr. J. Res. Sport Phys. Educ. Recreat. 2021, 43, 125–140. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ortega-Becerra, M.; Pareja-Blanco, F.; Jiménez-Reyes, P.; Cuadrado-Peñafiel, V.; González-Badillo, J.J. Determinant Factors of Physical Performance and Specific Throwing in Handball Players of Different Ages. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 1778–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Manchado, C.; Tortosa-Martínez, J.; Vila, H.; Ferragut, C.; Platen, P. Performance Factors in Women’s Team Handball: Physical and Physiological Aspects—A Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 1708–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tuquet, J.; Zapardiel, J.C.; Saavedra, J.M.; Jaén-Carrillo, D.; Lozano, D. Relationship between Anthropometric Parameters and Throwing Speed in Amateur Male Handball Players at Different Ages. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Van den Tillaar, R. The Effects of Target Location Upon Throwing Velocity and Accuracy in Experienced Female Handball Players. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ferrari, W.; Vaz, V.; Sousa, T.; Couceiro, M.; Dias, G. Comparative Analysis of the Performance of the Winning Teams of the Handball World Championship: Senior and Junior Levels. Int. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 8, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alves, A.; Marques, M.C. Throwing Velocity Predictors in Elite Team Handball Players. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2013, 8, 877–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Karastergios, A.; Skandalis, V.; Zapartidis, I.; Hatzimanouil, D. Determination of Technical Actions That Differentiate Winning from Losing Teams in Woman’s Handball. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2017, 17, 1966–1969. [Google Scholar]
  11. Saavedra, J.M.; Þorgeirsson, S.; Chang, M.; Kristjánsdóttir, H.; García-Hermoso, A. Discriminatory Power of Women’s Handball Game-Related Statistics at the Olympic Games (2004–2016). J. Hum. Kinet. 2018, 62, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van den Tillaar, R.; Ettema, G. Influence of Instruction on Velocity and Accuracy of Overarm Throwing. Percept. Mot. Skills 2003, 96, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bouagina, R.; Padulo, J.; Fray, A.; Larion, A.; Abidi, H.; Chtara, M.; Chelly, M.S.; Khalifa, R. Short-Term in-Season Ballistic Training Improves Power, Muscle Volume and Throwing Velocity in Junior Handball Players. A Randomized Control Trial. Biol. Sport 2022, 39, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Debanne, T.; Laffaye, G. Predicting the Throwing Velocity of the Ball in Handball with Anthropometric Variables and Isotonic Tests. J. Sports Sci. 2011, 29, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Rivilla-Garcia, J.; Grande, I.; Sampedro, J.; Van Den Tillaar, R. Influence of Opposition on Ball Velocity in the Handball Jump Throw. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2011, 10, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Suchomel, T.J.; Comfort, P.; Stone, M.H. Weightlifting Pulling Derivatives: Rationale for Implementation and Application. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 823–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kraemer, W.J.; Adams, K.; Cafarelli, E.; Dudley, G.A.; Dooly, C.; Feigenbaum, M.S.; Fleck, S.J.; Franklin, B.; Fry, A.C.; Hoffman, J.R.; et al. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002, 34, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Gorostiaga, E.M.; Granados, C.; Ibáñez, J.; Izquierdo, M. Differences in Physical Fitness and Throwing Velocity among Elite and Amateur Male Handball Players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2005, 26, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marques, M.C.M.C.; Van Den Tillaar, R.; Vescovi, J.D.; González-Badillo, J.J.; van den Tilaar, R.; Vescovi, J.D.; Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J. Relationship between Throwing Velocity, Muscle Power, and Bar Velocity during Bench Press in Elite Handball Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2007, 2, 414–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hoffman, J.R.; Cooper, J.; Wendell, M.; Kang, J. Comparison of Olympic vs. Traditional Power Lifting Training Programs in Football Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2004, 18, 129–135. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fleck, S.J.; Smith, S.L.; Craib, M.W.; Denahan, T.; Snow, R.E.; Mitchell, M.L. Upper Extremity Isokinetic Torque and Throwing Velocity in Team Handball. J. Strength Cond. Res. 1992, 6, 120–124. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bayios, I.A.; Anastasopoulou, D.S.; Sioudris, K.D.; Boudolos, K.D. Relationship between Isokinetic Strength Os the Internal and External Shoulder Rotators and Ball Velocity in Team Handball. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2001, 41, 229–235. [Google Scholar]
  23. Meletakos, P.; Vagenas, G.; Bayios, I. A Multivariate Assessment of Offensive Performance Indicators in Men’s Handball: Trends and Differences in the World Championships. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2011, 11, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. van den Tillaar, R. Relationship between Range of Motion Tests and Kinematics during Overarm Throwing in Elite Handball Players. Gait Posture 2017, 57 (Suppl. S1), 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Manchado, C.; Pers, J.; Navarro, F.; Han, A.; Sung, E.; Platen, P. Time-Motion Analysis in Women’s Team Handball: Importance of Aerobic Performance. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2013, 8, 376–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Manchado, C.; Tortosa Martínez, J.; Pueo, B.; Cortell Tormo, J.M.; Vila, H.; Ferragut, C.; Sánchez Sánchez, F.; Busquier, S.; Amat, S.; Chirosa Ríos, L.J. High-Performance Handball Player’s Time-Motion Analysis by Playing Positions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dello Iacono, A.; Ardigò, L.P.; Meckel, Y.; Padulo, J. Effect of Small-Sided Games and Repeated Shuffle Sprint Training on Physical Performance in Elite Handball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 830–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. McGhie, D.; Østerås, S.; Ettema, G.; Paulsen, G.; Sandbakk, Ø. Strength Determinants of Jump Height in the Jump Throw Movement in Women Handball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 2937–2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mackenzie, R.; Cushion, C. Performance Analysis in Football: A Critical Review and Implications for Future Research. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 639–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Giustino, V.; Messina, G.; Patti, A.; Padua, E.; Zangla, D.; Drid, P.; Battaglia, G.; Palma, A.; Bianco, A. Effects of a Postural Exercise Program on Vertical Jump Height in Young Female Volleyball Players with Knee Valgus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Karcher, C.; Buchheit, M. On-Court Demands of Elite Handball, with Special Reference to Playing Positions. Sports Med. 2014, 44, 797–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sheppard, J.M.; Young, W.B. Agility Literature Review: Classifications, Training and Testing. J. Sports Sci. 2006, 24, 919–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Haff, G.G.; Stone, M.H. Methods of Developing Power with Special Reference to Football Players. Strength Cond. J. 2015, 37, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Font, R.; Karcher, C.; Reche, X.; Carmona, G.; Tremps, V.; Irurtia, A. Monitoring External Load in Elite Male Handball Players Depending on Playing Positions. Biol. Sport 2021, 38, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Katsumata, K.; Aoki, K. Jumping Ability Is Related to Change of Direction Ability in Elite Handball Players. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2021, 60, 102575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Patti, A.; Giustino, V.; Cataldi, S.; Stoppa, V.; Ferrando, F.; Marvulli, R.; Farì, G.; Neşe, Ş.F.; Bianco, A.; Muscella, A. Effects of 5-Week of FIFA 11+ Warm-up Program on Explosive Strength, Speed, and Perception of Physical Exertion in Elite Female Futsal Athletes. Sports 2022, 10, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morris, S.J.; Oliver, J.L.; Pedley, J.S.; Haff, G.G.; Lloyd, R.S. Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2022, 52, 1533–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hermassi, S.; Chelly, M.S.; Bragazzi, N.L.; Shephard, R.J.; Schwesig, R. In-Season Weightlifting Training Exercise in Healthy Male Handball Players: Effects on Body Composition, Muscle Volume, Maximal Strength, and Ball-Throwing Velocity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, C.; Zhang, F.; Cao, C.; Liu, Y.; Qu, T. Organizational Coordination in Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chain: An Evolutionary Game Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Póvoas, S.C.A.; Castagna, C.; Resende, C.; Coelho, E.F.; Silva, P.; Santos, R.; Seabra, A.; Tamames, J.; Lopes, M.; Randers, M.B. Physical and Physiological Demands of Recreational Team Handball for Adult Untrained Men. Biomed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 6204603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. González-Serrano, M.H.; Añó Sanz, V.; González-García, R.J. Sustainable Sport Entrepreneurship and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis of This Emerging Field of Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Twig, G.; Yaniv, G.; Levine, H.; Leiba, A.; Goldberger, N.; Derazne, E.; Ben-Ami Shor, D.; Tzur, D.; Afek, A.; Shamiss, A. Body-Mass Index in 2.3 Million Adolescents and Cardiovascular Death in Adulthood. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 243–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. González, M.; Garrido, R.P. Test de Bosco: Evaluación de La Potencia Anaeróbica de 765 Deportistas de Alto Nivel. Lect. Educ. Física Deportes 2004, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  44. International Handball Federation. Rules of the Game. Handball; International Handball Federation: Basel, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Póvoas, S.C.A.; Ascensão, A.A.M.R.; Magalhães, J.; Seabra, A.F.; Krustrup, P.; Soares, J.M.C.; Rebelo, A.N.C. Physiological Demands of Elite Team Handball with Special Reference to Playing Position. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gonzalo-Skok, O.; Tous-Fajardo, J.; Suarez-Arrones, L.; Arjol-Serrano, J.L.; Casajús, J.A.; Mendez-Villanueva, A. Validity of the V-Cut Test for Young Basketball Players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2015, 36, 893–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Raeder, C.; Fernandez-Fernandez, J.; Ferrauti, A. Effects of Six Weeks of Medicine Ball Training on Throwing Velocity, Throwing Precision, and Isokinetic Strength of Shoulder Rotators in Female Handball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1904–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Teo, S.Y.M.; Newton, M.J.; Newton, R.U.; Dempsey, A.R.; Fairchild, T.J. Comparing the Effectiveness of a Short-Term Vertical Jump vs. Weightlifting Program on Athletic Power Development. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 2741–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Fleiss, J.L.; Cohen, J. The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1973, 33, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Erzeybek, M.S.; Gülmez, I. The Effect of Strength Exercises on Vertical Jump in Handball Players with Ages between 15 and 17. Eur. J. Phys. Educ. Sport Sci. 2020, 6, 144–146. [Google Scholar]
  51. Behm, D.G.; Young, J.D.; Whitten, J.H.D.; Reid, J.C.; Quigley, P.J.; Low, J.; Li, Y.; Lima, C.D.; Hodgson, D.D.; Chaouachi, A. Effectiveness of Traditional Strength vs. Power Training on Muscle Strength, Power and Speed with Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hammami, R.; Sekulic, D.; Selmi, M.A.; Fadhloun, M.; Spasic, M.; Uljevic, O.; Chaouachi, A. Analysis of Maturity Status as a Determinant of the Relationships between Conditioning Capacities and Pre-Planned Agility in Young Handball Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 2302–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lohmann, J.; Breithecker, J.; Ohl, U.; Gieß-Stüber, P.; Brandl-Bredenbeck, H.P. Teachers’ Professional Action Competence in Education for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review from the Perspective of Physical Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ayers, J.L.; DeBeliso, M.; Sevene, T.G.; Adams, K.J. Hang Cleans and Hang Snatches Produce Similar Improvements in Female Collegiate Athletes. Biol. Sport 2016, 33, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hermassi, S.; Ghaith, A.; Schwesig, R.; Shephard, R.J.; Chelly, S.M. Effects of Short-Term Resistance Training and Tapering on Maximal Strength, Peak Power, Throwing Ball Velocity, and Sprint Performance in Handball Players. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0214827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Helland, C.; Hole, E.; Iversen, E.; Olsson, M.C.; Seynnes, O.R.; Solberg, P.A.; Paulsen, G. Training Strategies to Improve Muscle Power: Is Olympic-Style Weightlifting Relevant? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Markovic, G.; Jukic, I.; Milanovic, D.; Metikos, D. Effects of Sprint and Plyometric Training on Muscle Function and Athletic Performance. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007, 21, 543–549. [Google Scholar]
  58. Booth, M.A.; Orr, R. Effects of Plyometric Training on Sports Performance. Strength Cond. J. 2016, 38, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. de Villarreal, E.S.; Suarez-Arrones, L.; Requena, B.; Haff, G.G.; Ferrete, C. Effects of Plyometric and Sprint Training on Physical and Technical Skill Performance in Adolescent Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1894–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Freitas, T.T.; Pereira, L.A.; Alcaraz, P.E.; Arruda, A.F.S.; Guerriero, A.; Azevedo, P.H.S.M.; Loturco, I. Influence of Strength and Power Capacity on Change of Direction Speed and Deficit in Elite Team-Sport Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 68, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zouhal, H.; Abderrahman, A.B.; Dupont, G.; Truptin, P.; Le Bris, R.; Le Postec, E.; Sghaeir, Z.; Brughelli, M.; Granacher, U.; Bideau, B. Effects of Neuromuscular Training on Agility Performance in Elite Soccer Players. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cherni, Y.; Jlid, M.C.; Mehrez, H.; Shephard, R.J.; Paillard, T.; Chelly, M.S.; Hermassi, S. Eight Weeks of Plyometric Training Improves Ability to Change Direction and Dynamic Postural Control in Female Basketball Players. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Monday’s strength training.
Table 1. Monday’s strength training.
3 Sets
75% MR 1		Main
8 Repetitions		Compensatory
6 Repetitions		Transfer
4 Repetitions
Block 1TRX squat
Lateral lunge		Monster walksUnilateral hurdle jumps
Block 2Bench press
Pull over		Shoulder pressThrowing to goal
Block 3Hip thrust
Snatch unilateral		Isometrics adductor with a fit ballForward and backward jumps
Block 4TRX openings
Assisted pull-up		Face pull1 vs. 1
1 Maximum repetitions.
Table 2. Wednesday’s strength training.
Table 2. Wednesday’s strength training.
3 Sets
75% MR		Main
8 Repetitions		Compensatory
6 Repetitions		Transfer
4 Repetitions
Block 1Bulgarian squatJump over hurdles with feet togetherHurdle jump + sidestep + throw
Block 2LandmineChest passes with a 3 kg ball1 vs. 1
Block 3Hip thrustZigzag changes of directionWide lunges
Block 4Face pullUnilateral pull-upUnilateral pulldown
CoreDead bugLateral plank 30″Front plank 30″
MR: maximum repetitions.
Table 3. Monday’s and Wednesday’s training with Olympic movements.
Table 3. Monday’s and Wednesday’s training with Olympic movements.
DurationSets × RepsBodyweightMondayWednesday
Week 1–23 × 820%Hang cleanHang power clean
Week 3–43 × 825%Shoulder pressUnilateral shoulder press
Week 5–63 × 830%Hang power clean and jerkHang clean and jerk
Dumbbell power snatchDumbbell power snatch
Table 4. Effect size and percentage differences of all variables.
Table 4. Effect size and percentage differences of all variables.
GroupsPre-TestPost-TestES Cohen%
ABK test (cm)CG30.07 ± 4.0931.2 ± 4.04 *0.293.96%
EG32.97 ± 3.0135.3 ± 2.84 *0.827.25%
Throw (m/s)CG14.36 ± 1.7914.47 ± 1.78 *0.050.60%
EG13.99 ± 1.7814.19 ± 1.19 **0.181.49%
Sprint 20 m (s)CG4.61 ± 0.474.74 ± 0.47 *0.282.82%
EG4.72 ± 0.536.07 ± 0.28 **3.1928.6%
V-cut test (s)CG8.65 ± 0.448.50 ± 0.45 **0.341.73%
EG8.40 ± 0.468.22 ± 0.51 **0.372.14%
CG: control group; EG: experimental group; ES: effect size; %: percentage improvement; Level of significance: * = p < 0.01; ** = p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Orduña-Borraz, E.; Mainer-Pardos, E.; Marco-Contreras, L.A.; Lozano, D. Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031182

AMA Style

Orduña-Borraz E, Mainer-Pardos E, Marco-Contreras LA, Lozano D. Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction. Sustainability. 2024; 16(3):1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031182

Chicago/Turabian Style

Orduña-Borraz, Estela, Elena Mainer-Pardos, Luis Alberto Marco-Contreras, and Demetrio Lozano. 2024. "Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction" Sustainability 16, no. 3: 1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031182

APA Style

Orduña-Borraz, E., Mainer-Pardos, E., Marco-Contreras, L. A., & Lozano, D. (2024). Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction. Sustainability, 16(3), 1182. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031182

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop