Plyometric Training Improves Not Only Measures of Linear Speed, Power, and Change-of-Direction Speed But Also Repeated Sprint Ability in Young Female Handball Players

Abstract

Chaabene, H, Negra, Y, Moran, J, Prieske, O, Sammoud, S, Ramirez-Campillo, R, and Granacher, U. Plyometric training improves not only measures of linear speed, power, and change-of-direction speed but also repeated sprint ability in young female handball players. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2230–2235, 2021—This study examined the effects of an 8-week plyometric training (PT) program on components of physical fitness in young female handball players. Twenty-one female adolescent handball players were assigned to an experimental group (EG, n = 12; age = 15.9 ± 0.2 years) or an active control group (CG, n = 9, age = 15.9 ± 0.3 years). While EG performed plyometric exercises in replacement of some handball-specific drills, CG maintained the regular training schedule. Baseline and follow-up tests were performed for the assessment of linear speed (i.e., 5-, 10-, and 20-m time), change-of-direction (CoD) speed (i.e., T-test time), muscle power (i.e., countermovement jump [CMJ] height and reactive strength index [RSI]), and repeated sprint ability (RSA) (RSA total time [RSAtotal], RSA best time [RSAbest], and RSA fatigue index [RSAFI]). Data were analyzed using magnitude-based inferences. Within-group analyses for the EG revealed moderate-to-large improvements for the 5-m (effect size [ES] = 0.81 [0.1–1.5]), 10-m sprint time (ES = 0.84 [0.1–1.5]), RSI (ES = 0.75 [0.1–1.4]), RSAFI (ES = 0.65 [0.0–1.3]), and T-test time (ES = 1.46 [0.7–2.2]). Trivial-to-small ES was observed for RSAbest (ES = 0.18 [−0.5 to 0.9]), RSAtotal (ES = 0.45 [−0.2 to 1.1]), 20-m sprint time (ES = 0.56 [−0.1 to 1.2]), and CMJ height (ES = 0.57 [−0.1 to 1.3]). For the CG, within-group analyses showed a moderate performance decline for T-test time (ES = −0.71 [−1.5 to 0.1]), small decreases for 5-m sprint time (ES = −0.46 [−1.2 to 0.3]), and a trivial decline for 10-m (ES = −0.10 [−0.9 to 0.7]) and 20-m sprint times (ES = −0.16 [−0.9 to 0.6]), RSAtotal (ES = 0.0 [−0.8 to 0.8]), and RSAbest (ES = −0.20 [−0.9 to 0.6]). The control group achieved trivial-to-small improvements for CMJ height (ES = 0.10 [−0.68 to 0.87]) and RSI (ES = 0.30 [−0.5 to 1.1]). In conclusion, a short-term in-season PT program, in replacement of handball-specific drills, is effective in improving measures of physical fitness (i.e., linear/CoD speed, jumping, and RSA) in young female handball players.

Effects of Upper and Lower Limb Plyometric Training Program on Components of Physical Performance in Young Female Handball Players

“…The present results also showed a large effect group × time interaction in the Illinois-MT performance, matching the responses observed in the meta-analysis of Asadi et al (2016) and Chaabene et al (2019) but not Meszler and Vaczi (2019) (studies where training was limited to the lower limbs). Meszler and Vaczi (2019) explained their lack of response by fatigue, due to an incomplete recovery between sessions, but the regimen used also did not include any form of exercise where athletes had to change direction.…”

“…A recent meta-analysis and other studies (Rubley et al, 2011;Chaabene et al, 2019;Meszler and Vaczi, 2019) have demonstrated increases in the jump performance of female athletes after plyometric training (Stojanovic et al, 2017), and the present results show that this benefit can be obtained if the regimen includes lower limb training. The improvement in jump performance is due to enhancing the elastic properties of the musculotendon unit and optimizing the neural sequencing and firing rates of the motor units involved (Ignjatovic et al, 2012).…”

“…The muscular power and strength of both the upper and the lower limbs are key contributors to performance in handball (Michalsik and Aagaard, 2015;Wagner et al, 2018), and plyometric training with quick and powerful multi-joint movements like jumping, hopping, and skipping is frequently used in handball to improve these aspects of a player's physical fitness (Chaabene et al, 2019;Hammami et al, 2019;Prieske et al, 2019). The response to such training depends on subject characteristics including age, sex, and initial training level, as well as program characteristics (type of training, exercise surface, and the rest interval between sets and training sessions) (Markovic and Mikulic, 2010;Ramirez-Campillo et al, 2018;Hammami et al, 2019).…”

“…However, there is little information concerning its impact in young female handball players, especially in terms of upper limb training, although one might anticipate a particularly large response in those with minimal previous experience of plyometric training (Rubley et al, 2011). Hammami et al (2019) found increases in both upper limb (handgrip force, back extensor strength, and medicine ball throwing) and lower limb [sprinting, change of direction (CoD), and jumping] performance after 9 weeks of combined upper and lower limb plyometric training (ULLPT) in U14 female handball players, and Chaabene et al (2019) also reported increases in fitness measures after 8 weeks of plyometric training in young female handball players. On the other hand, Meszler and Vaczi (2019) found no significant changes in T agility test scores, balance, hamstring strength or H:Q ratio after 7 weeks of plyometric training in female basketball players aged less than 17 years.…”

Effects of in Season Multi-Directional Plyometric Training on Vertical Jump Performance, Change of Direction Speed and Dynamic Postural Control in U-21 Soccer Players

“…The intra-class coefficients (ICCs) for three trials before and after intervention period with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were 0.97 (95% CI = 0.95-0.99) for the SJ and 0.96 (95% CI = 0.94-0.98) for the CMJ, respectively. On the second test day, the T-test was administered as described by Semenick (1990) and recently used by Chaabene et al (2019) to assess the CODS. Participants sprinted forward 9.14 m to the first cone, touching its tip with their right hand, next shuffled 4.57 m left to the second cone, touching its tip with their left hand, then shuffled 9.14 m right to the third cone, touching its tip with their right hand, next shuffled 4.57 m left to the middle cone, touching its tip with their left hand before finally running backward to cross the starting/finishing line of 2 m wide.…”