Background: This study compared the effects of low- and moderate-volume supplementary plyometric training in preadolescent female handball players. Methods: Thirty-nine preadolescent handball players (age: 12.9 ± 0.5 years, maturity offset: −1.50 ± 0.56 years) were randomly assigned into three groups: low-volume plyometric training group (LPT, n = 12); moderate-volume plyometric training group (MPT, n = 15); and control group (CG, n = 12). The supplementary plyometric training program was performed twice per week for 10 weeks, along with normal training (3 times/week). Each supplementary session included two upper- and three lower-body exercises performed for two sets (LPT, 36–54 foot contacts, duration 12 min) or four sets (MPT, 72–108 foot contacts, duration 24 min). The CG performed technical handball drills for 20 min. Results: Compared with the control group, both LPT and MPT resulted in similar improvements in modified T-test performance (15.1% and 18.6%, p < 0.01, respectively); linear sprint performance over 5, 10, and 20 m (between 5.1% and 8.8%, p = 0.02 to 0.001); countermovement jump (28.0% and 22.1%, p < 0.05, respectively); and standing long jump (12.6% and 12.5%, p = 0.024, respectively). Handgrip strength and overarm shot ball velocity improved similarly in all groups (CG, MPT, and LPT), by 8–11% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Very-low-volume supplementary plyometric training performed for 12 min per session for two sessions per week results in considerable improvements in running speed, change of direction ability, and leg power and is as effective as a moderate-volume program. These findings are important for pre-adolescent female team sports players, who may benefit from a minimal but effective supplementary training, resulting in large benefits in leg speed and power.

- Aim It is to compare performance indicators among World Men's Handball Championships, 2017, 2019 and 2021. Taking into consideration that the last one took place under pandemic restrictions, and thus affecting all stages of preparation and competition, we also investigated indicators that mostly affected the teams’ ranking. Methods: The sample consisted of sets of performance indicator variables specifically related to court player and goalkeeper efficacy, offense, defense, and punishment of all participant teams. We used the analysis of variance and the ordinary least square regression. Results: No significant differences in shots (p = 0.165, η2 = 0.046) and goals per game (p = 0.211, η2 = 0.040) were found in the last three successive world championships examined in our study. However, significant differences were found in court player efficacy at 6 m (p = 0.000, η2 = 0.226) and breakthrough (p = 0.047, η2 = 0.077) while for goalkeeper efficacy, differences were observed at 6 m (p = 0.000, η2 = 0.199), penalty (p = 0.049, η2 = 0.099) and fast break (p = 0.005, η2 = 0.132). From the set of variables related to offense, defense and punishment, significant differences were observed only for assists per game (p = 0.004, η2 = 0.134). Conclusion: The determinants of success of the top teams were the variables of court player efficacy and goalkeeper efficacy at 9 m followed by goalkeeper breakthrough efficacy, technical faults and 2-min suspensions per game.

Background: The repeated sprint ability (RSA) has been studied with protocols using distances longer than 20 m per sprint, whereas basketball players cover on average less than 20-meter distance per sprint during match. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to examine the physiological impact of 10 × 15 m RSA test in straight-line (RSASL) or with change of direction (RSACOD), i.e. 10 × (7.5 + 7.5 m)) in young national level basketball players. Patients and Methods: Young basketball players (n = 11, age 17.1 (1.0) years, body mass 76 (6) kg, height 184 (4) cm, body mass index 22.6 (1.8) kgm^-2, sport experience 6.9 (2.7) years, mean (standard deviation)) and a control group consisting of high-school athletes (n = 7, 16.1 (0.7) years, 67 (6) kg, 177 (6) cm, 21.5 (1.0) kgm^-2, 7.7 (1.6) years, respectively) performed RSASL and RSACOD on a counter-balanced order. Sprints started every 30 seconds (active recovery) and there was 30 minutes break between RSA protocols; time variables were total time (TT), best time (BT) and fatigue index (FI). Countermovement jump (CMJ) was tested before and after each RSA protocol. Heart rate (HR) was continuously monitored during testing procedures. Results: Compared with RSASL, TT and BT were worst in RSACOD (38.13 vs. 27.52 s and 3.67 vs. 2.66 s, P < 0.001, respectively), whereas FI did not differ (3.8 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.388). A 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA showed main effect of RSA on CMJ (pre-test vs. post-test, increase + 1.8 cm, P = 0.020, η² = 0.28); there was neither main effect of RSA protocols (RSASL vs. RSACOD +0.7 cm, P = 0.251, η² = 0.08) nor an interaction between pre-post measurements and RSA protocols (P = 0.578, η² = 0.02). Compared with RSASL, RSACOD induced higher mean and peak HR responses (175 vs 172 bpm, P < 0.001, and 185 vs 182 bpm, P = 0.002, respectively). No statistical difference was observed between basketball players and control group neither for TT (27.98 vs. 26.80 seconds, + 4.4%, P = 0.149) and BT (2.71 vs. 2.59 seconds, + 4.5%, P = 0.157) in RSASL nor for TT (38.55 vs. 37.47 seconds, + 2.9%, P = 0.169) and BT (3.70 vs. 3.63 seconds, 1.8%, P = 0.414) in RSACOD. Conclusions: In conclusion, RSASL and RSACOD differed for time variables (TT and BT) and HR responses. Despite being non-significant, the trend that adding COD reduced the percentage differences in TT and BT between the two groups highlighted the role of sport specialization. Keywords: Exercise Test; Running; Performance; Team Sport; Vertical Jump

Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego