Original Research Article

International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching
Effects of contrast strength training 1–11
© The Author(s) 2021
with elastic band program on sprint, Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
jump, strength, balance and repeated DOI: 10.1177/17479541211050724
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

change of direction in young female

handball players

Mehrez Hammami1,2, Nawel Gaamouri1,2, Yosser Cherni1,2,

Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly1,2 , Lee Hill3, and Beat Knechtle4,5

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

Reviewer: Lawrence Judge (Ball State University, USA)

1
Research Unit (UR17JS01) « Sport Performance, Health & Society», Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Saîd, University of “La
Manouba”, Tunis, Tunisia
2
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, University of “La Manouba”, Tunis, Tunisia
3
Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
4
Institute of Primary Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
5
Medbase St Gallen Am Vadianplatz, St Gallen, Switzerland

Corresponding author:
Prof. Dr Med. Beat Knechtle, Medbase St Gallen Am Vadianplatz, Vadianstrasse 26, 9001 St Gallen, Switzerland, Telephone + 41 (0) 71 226 93 00, Telefax
+ 41 (0) 71 226 93 01.
Email: beat.knechtle@hispeed.ch
Mehrez Hammami: mahrez-10@hotmail.fr
Nawel Gaamouri: nawel.gaamouri@yahoo.fr
Yosser Cherni: yossermrabet@hotmail.fr
Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly: csouhaiel@yahoo.fr
Lee Hill: hilll14@mcmaster.ca
Beat Knechtle: beat.knechtle@hispeed.ch
2 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

Introduction strength training by elastic band in young female handball

players. Likewise, Aloui et al.(12) found increases in peak
Many studies demonstrated that handball is a complex and
power (p < 0.001), 1RM strength measures (p < 0.01), sprint
multifactorial game.(1–5) Indeed, handball players have to
times (p < 0.001 for 5 m; p < 0.05 for 30 m), change of direc-
coordinate their movements well while running, jumping,
tion (p < 0.01), and all repeated change of direction parameters
pushing, change of direction, and team-handball specific
(p < 0.05) except the fatigue index after 8 weeks of biweekly
movements of passing, catching, throwing, checking, and
lower-limb elastic band training (knee and hip extension)
blocking.(1–5) Female handball is characterized by fast and
into the in-season regimen of junior handball players.
dynamic movements consisting of accelerations, jumps,
However, no previous studies have looked at the effects of
throws, change of directions, and hard body contacts that
contrast strength with elastic band on athletic performance
are frequently interspersed with low-intensity movements
in young female handball players. In this study, we proposed
such as standing and walking.(1–5) Maximal strength, power
a contrast strength training program with elastic band
and his derivates (sprint, change of direction repeatedly and
(CSTEB), including eight repetitions of high load followed
jump) are considered as major determinants of success in
by eight repetitions of low load.
elite handball players.(1,2) To respond to this increased physi-
This study aimed at examining the effects of a 10 weeks
cal demand, it becomes necessary to search for more efficient
CSTEB intervention on measures of physical performance
training approaches, which are able to progressively enhance
(i.e. sprinting, jumping, CoD, strength, balance and CoD
neuromechanical performance in handball players from less
repeatedly) in young female handball players. With refer-
to more specialized competitive levels.(6) Coaches and scien-
ence to the previous literature,(17,18) we hypothesized that
tists seem to have reached an agreement stating that the main
CSTEB intervention improves all fitness physical fitness
determinants of physical performance are the strength and
measures in young female handball players.
power of both the upper and lower limbs.(1,2,7–9) Hence, hand-
ball coaches should perform specific handball conditioning,
including high intensity exercises such as strength training Methods
to develop these physical qualities. Strength training involves
the use of wide range of resistive loads and a variety of train- Participants
ing modalities (i.e. Olympic weight lifting, elastic band train-
Thirty young female handball players from the same club par-
ing and plyometric training) aimed at developing maximal
ticipated in this study. They had 8 years of handball experi-
strength and/or muscular power.(7)
ence. All the players had some experience with resistance
Contrast strength training is a derivate form of strength
training, but not performed weekly resistance training. They
training. It is characterized by the use of high and low loads
were examined by the team physician, with a particular
in the same strength training session.(10) Cometti et al.(11)
focus on conditions that might preclude elastic band training,
defined this method by six repetitions sets with loads
and all were found to be in good health. Players were divided
between 70 and 90% of 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) were
by playing position, and players from each position were then
alternated with six repetitions sets with loads between 30%
randomly assigned between experimental (EG; n = 15) and
and 50% of 1-RM, executed at maximum speed. Strength
control (CG; n = 15) groups. Anthropometrics characteristics
training using elastic band is derivate from strength training.
of experimental group and control group are mentioned in
It has been demonstrated that this training method has been
Table 1. Both groups had already been training for 5
considered as a good alternative to traditional strength training
months, and were 4 months into the competitive season
equipment.(12–14,15,16) Elastic resistance bands are inexpen-
before the intervention. All subjects had achieved a good
sive, easy to use, portable, and easier to implement in
overall physical preparation at the beginning of the season
regular handball training sessions than conventional resistance
(6 training sessions per week for 6 weeks). During the first
training equipment. Few studies have examined the effect of
3 weeks of this phase, a resistance training program aimed
strength training using elastic band (i.e. strength training at improving muscle endurance by light loads (30–50% 1
with elastic band; plyometric training with elastic band; resis- repetition maximum [RM]). The second 3 weeks were
tance training with elastic band).(12–14,16) Andersen et al.(14) devoted to improving muscular power with light loads (40–
revealed that 9 weeks elastic resistance band period (3 times 70% 1RM), supplemented by participation in friendly
per week) had greater improvement versus the control matches each weekend. All participants were involved in
period for countermovement jump with or without arm five to six training sessions per week (90-to-120 min each
swing; power output at lighter loads; 3 throwing velocity session) and one competitive match per week, with training
tests; and repeated agility run performance in young female focused upon handball-specific tactical and technical skills,
handball players. Similarly, Mascarin et al.(16) found increases strength dynamic training (30 to 50% 1RM), and aerobic train-
in power [average power value for shoulder internal muscle ing (on- and off-court exercises). Each Tuesday and Thursday
(p = 0.05)] and ball speed [standing throw (p = 0.04); and for eight weeks, the experimental group replaced a part of their
jumping throw (p = 0.03)] after 6 week (three-times-per-week) standard regimen with the elastic band training program. The
Hammami et al.
Table 1. Anthropometrics characteristics of experimental group and control group.
Age (years) Body mass (kg)
Experimental group (n = 15) 15.7 ± 0.3 64.1 ± 3.6
Control group (n = 15) 15.7 ± 0.2 63.3 ± 3.9
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 con-
secutive sessions were excluded from the study. All proce-
dures 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 repre-
sentatives were fully informed about the experimental protocol
and its potential risks and benefits.
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 ana-
lyses. All tests were performed on a wooden surface at the
same time of day.
3
Body height (cm) Body fat Maturity-offset (years)
166.5 ± 3.5 27.3 ± 3.6 3.0 ± 0.3
167 ± 4.1 26.5 ± 3.3 2.9 ± 0.4
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 infra-
red photocell mat connected to a digital computer
(Optojump System; Microgate SARL) that measured
contact and flight times and the height of jump with a pre-
cision of 1/1000 s. Participants began the squat jump (SJ) at
a knee angle of∼90° (self-controlled, using a mirror), avoid-
ing 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 pre-
viously 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
4 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
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 subse-
quent 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 exten-
sor strength was measured using a back extensor dynamom-
eter (Takei).(23) Participants stood on the dynamometer,
with their feet shoulder-width apart and gripped the handle-
bar 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 medi-
cine 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 per-
formance 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 sup-
porting 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 anter-
ior, 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 direc-
tions rapidly, for simulating a game with short, intense
efforts, recovery periods, and multi-directional displace-
ments. 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
Hammami et al.
(RSTT-TT), and a fatigue index (RSTT-FI) calculated as:
FI = ((Total time / (Best timetimes7))×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 con-
sisted 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 exer-
cises for the lower limbs. Specific exercises were selected
based on the muscle groups solicited in handball. All exer-
cise (100% of elongation, and 250% of elongation) was per-
formed at high velocity.
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
5
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 posi-
tion. 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 resis-
tance 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%
6 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

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

Red elastic band at Green elastic band at 250% Blue elastic band at 250% Black elastic band at 250%
250% elongation elongation (4.4 kg) elongation (6 kg) elongation (8 kg)
Upper limb (3.2 kg)
Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets ×
Sets × Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps

Flies 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
Row with 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
high
elbows
Trunk 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
rotation
Standing 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
press
Lower limb Red elastic band « Green elastic band « Blue elastic band « Folding» Black elastic band « Folding» at
Folding» at 250% Folding» at 250% elongation at 250% elongation (12 kg) 250% elongation (16 kg)
elongation (6.4 kg) (8.8 kg)
Sets × Reps Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets × Sets ×
Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps Reps
Knee 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
extension
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 3 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12* 3 × 12* 4 × 12* 5 × 12*
adduction
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.

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 resis-
tance 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 repe-
titions 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 ses-
sions 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 immedi-
ately 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 preven-
tion drills). The overall handball training load was compar-
able 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
Hammami et al. 7

determine changes pre-intervention and post-intervention Table 3. Reliability and variability of performance tests.
for the experimental and control groups, with the magnitude
ICC 95%CI CV
of the changes determined via Cohen d effect sizes.(28)
Training-related effects were assessed by 2-way analyses 5m 0.910 0.810–0.957 4.4
of variance (group × time). The criterion for statistical sig- 10m 0.902 0.794–0.953 2.5
nificance was set at p < 0.05, whether a positive or a nega- 20m 0.947 0.888–0.975 2.4
tive difference was seen (ie, a 2-tailed test was adopted). 30m 0.922 0.835–0.963 1.9
The reliabilities of all dependent variables were assessed Illinois-MT 0.910 0.810–0.957 2.8
SJ 0.892 0.774–0.949 9
by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (2-way
CMJ 0.973 0.943–0.987 8.6
mixed).(29) Effect sizes were determined by converting
CMJA 0.977 0.953–0.989 8.3
partial eta-squared to Cohen d;(28) values were classified 5JT 0.983 0.964–0.992 13.9
as small (0.00 ≤ d ≤ 0.49), medium(0.50 ≤ d ≤ 0.79), Handgrip right 0.918 0.827–0.961 8.5
and large(d≥0.80). 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
Results Stork right 0.732 0.438–0.873 52.1
Stork left 0.722 0.416–0.868 51.3
Test-retest reliability was above the established threshold RL/L 0.924 0.841–0.964 10.1
and ranged from 0.722 to 0.983 according to the intra-class RL/B 0.866 0.719–0.936 8.5
correlation coefficient and ranged from 1.9 to 52.1 accord- RL/R 0.938 0.870–0.971 16.1
ing to the coefficient of variation (Table 3). Initial values LL/R 0.930 0.853–0.967 9.7
showed no significant intergroup differences for any of LL/B 0.861 0.708–0.934 7.8
the dependent variables. With a group × time interaction, LL/L 0.844 0.672–0.926 12.8
the experimental group enhanced all upper limb strength CI = confidence intervals; CV = coefficient of variation; CMJ =
performance (Table 4). The experimental group enhanced counter-movement jump; CMJA = counter-movement jump; ICC =
their sprint performance over 5 m (Δ = 10%, p = 0.009, intraclass correlation coefficient; Illinois-MT = Illinois modified test; SJ =
d = 0.72 (medium)), 10 m (Δ = 6.1%, p = 0.005, d = 0.79 squat jump; B = back round; L = left; R = right; LL = left leg; RL = right leg.
(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 perfor-
compared to the controls in the majority of fitness
mance in the Illinois-MT (Δ = 6.3%, p = 0.001, d = 0.96
performance.
(large)) (Table 5). All jump performance improved signifi-
The findings of the present study showed large gains in
cantly except five jump test in the experimental group, with
upper limb strength performance. High levels of upper limb
gains in the squat jump (Δ = 17.4%, p = 0.007, d = 0.74
power (i.e. passing and throwing the ball) are important
(medium)), countermovement jump (Δ = 19.4%, p =
physical fitness attributes in female handball.(4) Using
0.001, d = 0.94 (large)), and countermovement jump with
similar strength training with elastic band, many studies
arms (Δ = 18.4%, p = 0.001, d = 0.98 (large)). Of the
revealed that strength training using rubber band exercises
same, 3 of 4 repeated sprint T-test scores increased signifi-
improves upper limb muscular strength in young female
cantly in the EG relative to the CG, with group × time inter-
handball players.(13,14,16) In this line, Andersen et al.(14)
actions at p < 0.001, d = 2.32 (large); p < 0.001, d = 2.37
revealed that 9 week elastic resistance band period (3
(large); and p < 0.001, d = 2.37 (large), in RSTT-BT,
times per week) had greater improvement versus the
RSTT-MT and RSTT-TT respectively (Table 4).
control period for 3 throwing velocity tests (penalty
Controversy, group × time interactions showed no signifi-
throw; running throw; and jumping throw (p < 0.05)) in
cant difference in both static and dynamic balance perfor-
young female handball players. Similarly, Mascarin
mance between EG and CG (Table 4).
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 =
Discussion 0.03)] after 6 week (three-times-per-week) strength training
The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of by elastic band in young female handball players. . Despite
CSTEB on medicine ball throw, handgrip strength, back different methods of assessing strength (handgrip test,
extensor strength sprinting, ability to change direction, 1-RM bench press, ball throwing speed, medicine ball
jumping, to make repeated changes of direction, maximal throw and isokinetic test) in the upper limb after strength
aerobic power and balance of young female handball with elastic band training program, most studies showed
players at a critical phase in their playing season. On increases in power upper limb performance. The improve-
most measures, gains were higher for experimental groups ment in performance is due to several factors such as an
8 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

Table 4. Upper-limb performance in experimental and control groups before and after the 10-week intervention.

ANOVA group ×
Experimental group (n = 15) Control group (n = 15) time interaction

Paired t test Paired t test

%Δ %Δ
Pre Post change p Cohen’s d Pre Post change P Cohen’s d p Cohen’s d

Handgrip right 232 307 ± 32 ± 6 p< −3.88 231 239 4±2 p< −0.40 p< 1.69
(N) ± 19 21 0.001 ± 21 ± 20 0.001 0.001
Handgrip left 217 296 ± 37 ± 8 p< −3.03 225 238 6±3 p< −0.93 p< 1.55
(N) ± 28 26 0.001 ± 15 ± 14 0.001 0.001
Back 759 1171 55 ± 7 p< −4.40 789 862 9±6 p< −1.12 p< 2.09
extensor(N) ± 97 ± 97 0.001 ± 59 ± 75 0.001 0.001
Medicine ball 3.0 ± 4.8 ± 61 ± p< −4.66 3.2 ± 3.4 ± 7.4 ± p= −0.35 p< 1.53
throw (m) 0.4 0.4 13 0.001 0.6 0.6 7.5 0.001 0.001
n = number

increase in the ability to recruit motor-unit firing at high fre-
quencies,(30–32) which can improve the rate of force devel-
opment, 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 pro-
duction, 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 train-
ing.(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 perfor-
mance 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 gener-
ated during each repetition during the last half of the con-
centric 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 pro-
tocols 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 reproducibil-
ity of this particular measure.(35) Similarly, Aloui et al.(12)
Hammami et al. 9

Table 5. Lower-limb performance in experimental and control groups before and after the 10-week intervention.

ANOVA group ×
Experimental group (n = 15) Control group (n = 15) time interaction

Paired t test Paired t test

%Δ %Δ
Pre Post change p Cohen’s d Pre Post change p Cohen’s d p Cohen’s d

Sprint
5 m (s) 1.27 ± 1.14 ± 10.0 ± p< 2.44 1.29 ± 1.24 ± 3.6 ± p< 0.94 p= 0.72
0.05 0.06 1.5 0.001 0.06 0.05 1.5 0.001 0.009
10 m (s) 2.23 ± 2.09 ± 6.1 ± p< 2.62 2.25 ± 2.21 ± 1.8 ± p= 0.64 p= 0.79
0.05 0.06 1.4 0.001 0.06 0.07 2.1 0.006 0.005
20 m (s) 3.84 ± 3.37 ± 12.4 ± p< 4.86 3.75 ± 3.69 ± 1.7 ± p< 1.02 p< 2.56
0.10 0.10 1.6 0.001 0.05 0.07 1.1 0.001 0.001
30 m (s) 5.45 ± 4.95 ± 9.2 ± p< 3.97 5.54 ± 5.49 ± 0.9 ± p< 0.85 p< 2.25
0.12 0.14 1.4 0.001 0.05 0.07 0.7 0.001 0.001
Change of direction
Illinois-MT 13.05 12.23 6.3 ± p< 2.23 13.10 13.00 0.8 ± p< 0.27 p= 0.96
(s) ± 0.35 ± 0.41 1 0.001 ± 0.39 ± 0.39 0.2 0.001 0.001
Jump
SJ (cm) 23.1 ± 27.1 ± 17.4 ± p< −1.92 22.8 ± 23.8 ± 4.7 ± p< −0.51 p= 0.74
2.0 2.3 3.8 0.001 2.2 1.8 4.4 0.001 0.007
CMJ (cm) 23.4 ± 27.9 ± 19.4 ± p< −2.39 24 ± 24.9 ± 3.9 ± p< −0.47 p= 0.94
2.0 1.9 2.7 0.001 2.1 1.9 3.5 0.001 0.001
CMJA (cm) 24.6 ± 29.1 ± 18.4 ± p< −2.45 25.3 ± 25.8 ± 2.2 ± p< −0.24 p= 0.98
1.9 1.9 1.5 0.001 2.2 2.2 1.1 0.001 0.001
5JT (m) 8.2 ± 8.8 ± 7.4 ± p< −0.43 8.2 ± 8.5 ± 4.2 ± p< −0.21 p= 0.22
1.5 1.4 2 0.001 1.5 1.5 3.1 0.001 0.390
RSTT
RSTT-BT 12.65 11.69 7.6 ± p< 6.62 12.60 12.47 1.0 ± p< 0.62 p< 2.32
(s) ± 0.15 ± 0.15 0.1 0.001 ± 0.19 ± 0.24 0.6 0.001 0.001
RSTT-MT 12.96 11.98 7.6 ± p< 6.76 12.89 12.76 1.0 ± p< 0.62 p< 2.37
(s) ± 0.15 ± 0.15 0.1 0.001 ± 0.19 ± 0.24 0.6 0.001 0.001
RSTT-TT 90.70 83.90 7.6 ± p< 7.04 90.2 ± 89.3 ± 1.0 ± p< 0.62 p< 2.37
(s) ± 1.0 ± 1.0 0.1 0.001 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.001 0.001
RSTT-FI (%) 2.45 ± 2.48 ± 1.2 ± p< −1.04 2.30 ± 2.33 ± 1.1 ± p< −0.69 p= 0.08
0.03 0.03 0.1 0.001 0.04 0.05 0.7 0.001 0.786
Y Balance test
Right support leg
RL/L (cm) 74 ± 7 80 ± 6 8±4 p< −0.95 75 ± 8 81 ± 8 9±7 p< −0.78 p= 0.06
0.001 0.001 0.789
RL/B (cm) 88 ± 7 94 ± 8 7±3 p< −0.83 89 ± 8 94 ± 9 6±4 p< −0.61 p= 0.06
0.001 0.001 0.859
RL/R (cm) 46 ± 7 53 ± 6 16 ± 8 p< −1.11 49 ± 9 54 ± 7 14 ± p= −0.64 p= 0.08
0.001 20 0.002 0.745
Left support leg
LL/R (cm) 79 ± 7 83 ± 6 6±4 p< −0.64 79 ± 9 85 ± 7 8 ± 10 p= −0.77 p= 0.10
0.001 0.002 0.663
LL/B (cm) 94 ± 7 99 ± 7 6±2 p< −0.74 95 ± 8 99 ± 7 4±3 p< −0.55 p= 0.12
0.001 0.001 0.630
LL/L (cm) 47 ± 3 52 ± 3 12 ± 4 p< −1.73 45 ± 8 49 ± 7 10 ± 8 p< −0.55 p= 0.10
0.001 0.001 0.693
Stork balance test
RL (s) 2.62 ± 3.93 ± 86 ± p= −0.81 2.66 ± 4.04 ± 59 ± p= −0.85 p= 0.000
1.55 1.79 148 0.018 1.23 2.03 54 0.005 0.938
(continued)
10 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

Table 5. (continued)

ANOVA group ×
Experimental group (n = 15) Control group (n = 15) time interaction

Paired t test Paired t test

%Δ %Δ
Pre Post change p Cohen’s d Pre Post change p Cohen’s d p Cohen’s d

LL (s) 2.93 ± 3.97 ± 45 ± p= −0.74 2.38 ± 3.15 ± 48 ± p= −0.57 p= 0.08

1.41 1.50 31 0.01 1.30 1.50 68 0.096 0.713
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.

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 cap-
acity, 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 signif-
icant change in both static and dynamic balance perfor-
mance after eight complex strength training in junior
female handball players.
This study has some limitations that need to be acknowl-
edged. First, no direct physiological (e.g. electromyogra-
phy; 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, porta-
ble, 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 train-
ing 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.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
ORCID iDs
Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0713-
1308
Beat Knechtle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2412-9103
References
1. Luteberget LS and Spencer M. High-Intensity events in inter-
national Women’s Team handball matches. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 56–61.
2. Luteberget LS, Trollerud HP and Spencer M. Physical
demands of game-based training drills in women’s Team
handball. J Sports Sci 2018; 36: 592–598.
3. Michalsik LB, Aagaard P and Madsen K. Technical activity
profile and influence of body anthropometry on playing per-
formance in female elite team handball. J Strength Cond
Res 2015; 29: 1126–1138.
4. Wagner H, Fuchs P, Fusco A, et al. Physical performance in
elite male and female team handball players. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2018: 1–24.
Hammami et al.
5. Wik EH, Luteberget LS and Spencer M. Activity profiles in
international Women’s Team handball using PlayerLoad. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12: 934–942.
6. Pereira LA, Cal Abad CC, Kobal R, 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.
7. Bragazzi NL, Rouissi M, Hermassi S, 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.
8. Karcher C and Buchheit M. On-court demands of elite hand-
ball, with special reference to playing positions. Sports med-
icine (Auckland, NZ) 2014; 44: 797–814.
9. Wagner H, Finkenzeller T, Wurth S, et al. Individual and team
performance in team-handball: a review. J Sports Sci Med
2014; 13: 808–816.
10. Smilios I, Pilianidis T, Sotiropoulos K, 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 G. Los métodos modernos de musculacion.
Barcelona, Spain: editorial paidotribo, 1998.
12. Aloui G, Hammami M, Fathloun M, 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 hand-
ball players. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 1804–1815.
13. Aloui G, Hermassi S, Hammami M, 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 hand-
ball players. Sportverletz Sportschaden 2019; 33: 133–141.
14. Andersen V, Fimland MS, Cumming KT, 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 AF, Micheletti JK, et al. Effects of train-
ing with elastic resistance versus conventional resistance on
muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
SAGE Open Med 2019; 7: 2050312119831116.
16. Mascarin NC, de Lira CAB and Vancini RL. de castro pochini
A, da silva AC, and Dos santos andrade M. Strength training
using elastic bands: improvement of muscle power and throw-
ing performance in young female handball players. J Sport
Rehabil 2017; 26: 245–252.
17. Hammami M, Gaamouri N, Shephard RJ, et al. Effects of con-
trast 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 M, Negra Y, Shephard RJ, et al. Effects of leg con-
trast 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 Y, Chaabene H, Ben Rajeb G, et al. Validity and
reliability of new agility test among elite and subelite under
14-soccer players. PloS one 2014; 9: e95773.
11
20. Hammami M, Gaamouri N, Aloui G, 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 JV and Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total
body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: mea-
surements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years.
Br J Nutr 1974; 32: 77–97.
22. Mirwald RL, Baxter-Jones AD, Bailey DA, et al. An assess-
ment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. Med
Sci Sports Exercise 2002; 34: 689–694.
23. Hannibal NS, Plowman SA, Looney MA, 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 J and Keenum S. 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 LM, Jimenez F, Gonzalo-Orden JM, et al. Effects of
dynamic resistance training on fascicle length and isometric
strength. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 501–508.
26. Pauole K, Madole K, Garhammer J, 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 NC and 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 hand-
ball players: a randomized and prospective study. J Bodyw
Mov Ther 2017; 21: 1017–1023.
28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
29. Vincent W. Statistics in kinesiology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1995.
30. Folland JP and Williams AG. The adaptations to strength
training : morphological and neurological contributions to
increased strength. Sports Med (Auckland, NZ) 2007; 37:
145–168.
31. Griffin L and Cafarelli E. Resistance training: cortical, spinal, and
motor unit adaptations. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30: 328–340.
32. Sommi C, Gill F, Trojan JD, et al. Strength and conditioning in
adolescent female athletes. Phys Sportsmed 2018; 46: 420–426.
33. Kubo K, Morimoto M, Komuro T, et al. Effects of plyometric
and weight training on muscle-tendon complex and jump per-
formance. Med Sci Sports Exercise 2007; 39: 1801–1810.
34. Janusevicius D, Snieckus A, Skurvydas A, et al. Effects of
high velocity elastic band versus heavy resistance training
on hamstring strength, activation, and sprint running perfor-
mance. J Sports Sci Med 2017; 16: 239–246.
35. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Castagna C, et al. Validity of a
repeated-sprint test for football. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29:
899–905.
36. Spencer M, Bishop D, Dawson B, et al. Physiological and
metabolic responses of repeated-sprint activities:specific to
field-based team sports. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ)
2005; 35: 1025–1044.