Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(3), 563571

2006 National Strength & Conditioning Association

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING AND DETRAINING

IN PROFESSIONAL TEAM HANDBALL PLAYERS
MARIO A. CARDOSO MARQUES1

AND

JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ-BADILLO1,2

University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain; 2Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid Studies, Spain.

ABSTRACT. Marques, M.C., and J.J. Gonzalez-Badillo. In-season

resistance training and detraining in professional team handball
players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20(3):563571. 2006.The object
of this study was to investigate the changes in physical parameters produced during an in-season resistance training (RT) and
detraining (DT, or RT cessation) in 16 high level team handball
players (THPs). Apart from normal practice sessions, THPs underwent 12 weeks of RT. Subjects performed 3 sets of 36 reps
with a load of 7085% concentric 1 repetition maximum bench
press (1RMBP), 3 sets of 36 reps with a load of 7095% of 4
repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS), plus vertical
jumps and sprints. The 1RMBP, 4RMPS, speed over 30 m (S30),
jump (countermovement jump height [CMJ]; CMJ with additional weights [20kg and 40kg], and ball throw velocity (BTv)
were tested before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks
(T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3). Immediately after these 12 weeks, THPs started a 7-week DT period,
maintained normal practices. The CMJ and the BTv were the
only parameters evaluated during DT. The most important gains
(p 0.001) in S30 were obtained between T1-T2 and T1-T3. The
BTv improved significantly (p 0.001) only between T1-T2 and
T1-T3. The most relevant increases (p 0.001) in jumping performance took place between T1-T2 and T1-T3. The 1RMBP
showed significant increases (p 0.001) only between T1-T2 and
T1-T3. The 4RMPS increased significantly between all testing
trials. After the DT, THPs showed no significant losses in CMJ
performance. However, they declined significantly in BTv (p
0.023). The results suggest that elite THPs can optimize important physical parameters over 12 weeks in-season and that 7
weeks of DT, although insufficient to produce significant decreases in CMJ, are sufficient to induce significant decreases in
BTv. It is concluded that after RT cessation THPs reduced BTv
performance.
KEY WORDS. maximal dynamic strength, jumping, sprinting,
ball throwing velocity

INTRODUCTION
eam handball is an Olympic sport now played
professionally in Europe. However, despite increasing professionalization, there is a paucity
of research data concerning performance. Two
reasons for this may be suggested. Most of the investigation so far conducted has been published in eastern European countries and has not been readily accessible to
the sport science community. Most coaches, moreover,
have adopted conservative attitudes towards resistance
training for team handball.
Competitive team handball requires muscular
strength, speed, and endurance. To date, it has not been
very clear how these parameters change during the season in elite team handball players (THPs). Thus, only 2
studies (11, 14) have so far attempted to evaluate the effects of heavy resistance training (RT) programs on different physical parameters in competitive THPs.
Research has focused more upon determining the in-

fluence of different speed-strength programs on throwing

velocity (5, 16, 28, 29) or the relationship between throwing velocity and isokinetic strength (6, 9) rather than on
jumping ability, sprint performance, or maximal dynamic
strength. Also, there still exists limited information concerning training methods that increase the throwing ability in THPs (28). Here most of the research was carried
out in other sports like baseball (20, 21, 23).
Athletes often experience interruptions in training
sessions and competition programs because of illness, injury, postseason break, or other factors, which may result
in a reduction or cessation of their normal physical activity level (15, 18, 34). The magnitude of this reduction may
depend upon the length of the detraining period (12, 13,
18, 34) in addition to training levels attained by the subject (15). Since, moreover, there exists only one previous
study (28) investigating the effects of detraining (DT, or
RT cessation) on THPs, the current investigation sought
additional information on the effect of this upon jumping
and throwing abilities.
The hypothesis argued in this paper is that elite THPs
can significantly increase the physical parameters of
maximal dynamic strength, speed, jump, and throw performances in-season by combining normal technical and
tactical sessions with an RT program over a consecutive
12-week period. Additionally, a 7-week DT period may
produce significant decreases in physical performance,
namely in jump and throw performances. Therefore, the
object of this study was to investigate the changes in
physical parameters produced during an in-season RT
and DT in 16 high level THPs. The data so acquired may
assist coaches in training athletes for an in-season RT
program.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

In order to address the primary hypothesis presented

herein, we selected 16 high level healthy THPs. Subjects
were acquainted with all test procedures 2 weeks before
the measurements were applied and fully warmed-up prior to testing. All testing was completed at the end of periodized RT and power training during the first part of
the season to ensure that all athletes would be in a state
of good overall performance. This entailed an RT program
12 times per week with medium to low intensity. The
RT program included 2 maximal dynamic strength exercises (bench press and half squat) and 3 power exercises
such as countermovement jump, medicine ball throwing,
and sprinting. Consequently, all the athletes were at
peak condition and were familiar with all the testing exercises, which they had been performing regularly as part
of training. Apart from normal technical and tactical
563

564

MARQUES

AND

GONZALEZ-BADILLO

TABLE 1. Selected characteristics of the subjects.

the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the department responsible. Testing trials were performed in January and between February
and June, respectively. All THPs has been trained by the
same head coach and for the same club for the previous
2 years. Subjects were classified as experienced in RT
programs.

Mean SD

Parameter
Age (y)
Height (cm)
Body mass (kg)
Arm span (cm)
Training (y)

23.1
184.2
84.8
186.6
9.8

4.7
13.1
13.1
8
1.94

Training Protocol

practice sessions (23 hours per day timed for 7:00 PM)
and weekend competitions, all underwent 12 weeks of RT
program divided into 2 cycles of 6 weeks. Upper- and lower-body maximal dynamic strength, speed, jump, and ball
throw velocity (BTv) were tested at 3 intervals: before the
experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after
the 12-week experimental period (T3). Immediately following this, they commenced a 7-week DT period (T4),
maintained alongside normal sessions.
The inclusion of a control group in the study of top
athletes is unethical. This is because the withholding of
potentially important training would be detrimental for
the development of the players so selected (17). To overcome this fact, the stability of the dependent variables
was established with test-retest reliability measures (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) or R (17).
Subjects

The sample comprised 16 high level male THPs (average

age 23 years, range 1829 years; Table 1) including 4 international players. Two of the subjects had also participated in European senior championships. Participants
were fully informed of all possible risks and stresses associated with the project and signed consent forms prior
to participation. The study was conducted according to

The RT program used consisted of 23 sessions per week

over 12 weeks (2 cycles of 6-week periods) followed by DT
lasting 7 weeks (Tables 2a and 2b). The RT program was
directly supervised by present researchers, both of them
specialists in RT, and by the team head coach. The principal RT exercises were, respectively, the bench press and
parallel squat. Subjects performed 3 sets of 36 reps with
a load of 7085% concentric 1 repetition maximum bench
press (1RMBP) and 3 sets of 36 reps with a load of 70
95% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).
On completion, THPs then performed 2 explosive
strength exercises: vertical jumps onto a box, followed by
vertical jumps with additional weights (3 sets of 6 reps;
loads varied between 20 and 30 kg, last 6 weeks only).
The sprint exercise was consistently applied after warm
up at the outset of each RT session (35 sets of 2030 m).
In contrast, the other exercises were performed immediately after the team handball practices. Rest intervals of
2 minutes were permitted between sets and between categories. The RT was conducted on Monday and Wednesday (7:00 PM). Each RT session lasted for approximately
40 minutes including a prior warm up. During DT, RT
was totally discontinued but the THPs maintained normal team handball practices and competitions.

TABLE 2a. Resistance training programs between week 1 and week 6.*
Exercises

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Session 6

Parallel squat
CMJ onto a box
Bench press
Sprints

70: 3 6
35
70: 3 6
3 20 m

70: 3 6
35
70: 3 6
3 20 m

75: 3 6
35
75: 3 6
4 20 m

75: 3 6
35
75: 3 6
4 20 m

75: 3 6
35
75: 3 6
4 30 m

80: 3 6
35
80: 3 5
4 30 m

Exercises

Session 7

Session 8

Session 9

Session 10

Session 11

Session 12

Parallel squat
CMJ onto a box
Bench press
Sprints

80: 3 6
36
80: 3 5
5 30 m

80: 3 6
36
80: 3 5
5 20 m

85: 3 5
36
85: 3 3
5 30 m

85: 3 6
36
85: 3 3
5 20 m

85: 3 6
36
85: 3 4
5 30 m

90: 3 4
36
85: 3 4
5 20 m

Exercises

Session 13

Session 14

Session 15

Session 16

Parallel squat
CMJ onto a box
Bench press
Sprints

95: 3 3
36
85: 3 3
5 30 m

85: 3 4
36
80: 3 3
5 20 m

95: 3 3
36
85: 3 3
5 30 m

85: 3 4
36
80: 3 3
5 20 m

Training summary
Principal exercises
Parallel squat
Bench press

Sets reps

Percent of MDE

249
203

81.8%
75.9%

* CMJ countermovement jump; MDE maximal dynamic excercises.

Rest intervals of 2 minutes were permitted between sets and between categories.
Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).
Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP).
The total number of repetitions lifted during the first training cycle in 1RMBP and 4RMPS exercises.
The average percentage in MDE during the first training cycle (MDE 1RMBP and 4RMPS).

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING 565

TABLE 2b. Resistance training programs between week 7 and week 12.*
Exercises

Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Session 6

Parallel squat
CMJw
CMJ into a box
Bench press
Sprints

70: 3 6
20 kg: 3 5
35
70: 3 6
3 20 m

70: 3 6
20 kg: 3 5
35
70: 3 6
3 20 m

75: 3 6
20 kg: 3 5
35
75: 2 6
4 20 m

75: 3 6
25 kg: 3 5
35
75: 3 6
4 20 m

80: 3 6
30 kg: 3 5
36
80: 3 5
5 30 m

80: 3 6
30 kg: 3 5
36
80: 3 5
5 20 m

Exercises

Session 7

Session 8

Session 9

Session 10

Session 11

Session 12

Parallel squat
CMJw
CMJ into a box
Bench press
Sprints

85: 3 6
35 kg: 3 5
36
85: 3 3
5 20 m

85: 3 6
35 kg: 3 5
36
85: 3 4
5 30 m

95: 3 3
35 kg: 3 5
36
85: 3 3
5 30 m

85: 3 4
35 kg: 3 5
36
80: 3 3
5 20 m

95: 3 3
30 kg: 3 5
36
85: 3 3
5 30 m

85: 3 4
30 kg: 3 5
36
80: 3 3
5 20 m

Training summary
Principal exercises
Parallel squat
Bench press

Sets reps

Percent of MDE

186
159

81.6%
79.1%

* CMJ countermovement jump; CMJw countermovement jump with additional weight; MDE maximal dynamic exercises.
Rest intervals of 2 minutes were permitted between sets and between categories.
Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 4 repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS).
Example: 70: 3 6: 3 sets of 6 reps with 70% of 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP).
The total number of repetitions lifted during the second training cycle in 1RMBP and 4RMPS exercises.
The average percentage in MDE during the second training cycle (MDE 1RMBP and 4RMPS).

Testing Procedures

Briefly, subjects were acquainted with all test procedures

2 weeks before the measurements were applied and were
fully warmed up prior to testing. All testing was completed at the end of a periodized strength and power
training during the first part of the regular season (between October and December) to ensure that all athletes
would be in a state of good overall performance. This entailed weight training 12 times per week at medium to
low intensity levels and included 2 strength exercises
(bench press exercise and a parallel squat); and another
three power exercises such as countermovement jump,
medicine ball throwing, and sprinting. Athletes were thus
at peak condition and were familiar with the testing exercises, regularly performed as part of training.
Sprint testing. Subjects were required to perform 3
maximum effort sprints of 30 m (S30). Times at 015 m
(S15), 1530 m (S1530) and S30 were recorded using
Brower equipment (Wireless Sprint System, Fairlee, VT).
Subjects performed trial sprints separated by 3 minutes
of rest. Only the average of the best 2 sprints was considered. The S30 reported an ICC of 0.88 range (95% interval: 0.530.97), and a CV (coefficient of variation) of 1.7%.
Verticaljump height testing. The vertical jump
height was measured by means of the CMJ test described
by Bosco et al. (7). With a preparatory countermovement,
each subject started from an erect standing position and
the end of the concentric phase corresponded to a full leg
extension: 180. The protocol required the performance of
3 jumps, each followed by 2 minutes of rest. An average
of the 2 best jumps was taken. Subsequently, all performed trials of CMJ weighted with 20 and 40 kg
(CMJ20kg and CMJ40kg) on a shoulder bar. The CMJ
showed an ICC of 0.91 range (95% interval: 0.640.97)
and a CV of 4.7%. The CMJ with additional weights
showed an ICC of 0.97 range (95% interval: 0.900.99)
and 0.87 range (95% interval: 0.500.97) in CMJ20kg and
CMJ40kg, respectively. These tests registered a CV of

2.2% and 5.4%, respectively, in CMJ20kg and in

CMJ40kg. All tests were measured on a trigonometric
carpet (Ergojump Digitime 1000; Digitest, Jyvaskyla, Finland).
Throw testing. In order to assess the overarm throwing performance, a standard handball was used (mass
475 g; circumference 58 cm). Each subject then executed
5 trials of throws, performing a 3-step run, and then
shooting the ball at maximum velocity to the middle of
the goal (14). A 2-minute interval separated each trial.
An average of the best 4 shots was taken. The throwing
velocity was determined using a Speed Check Radar (Triad Industries Inc., Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada).
This radar had a Doppler signal process to clock speeds.
The internally located antenna, when activated, sends
out radio signals at a specific frequency. The principal
specifications are speed range 10199 kh 1; distance
range (ball) approximately 9 m; accuracy (2/3 kh1 ); frequency 10.525 Hz; signal size approximately 60 vertical
by 40 horizontal. The BTv showed an ICC of 0.96 range
(95% interval: 0.870.97) and a CV of 2.4%.
Maximal dynamic strength testing. The maximal dynamic strength tests for the upper and lower muscles
were carried out using 1RMBP and 4RMPS. In 1RMBP,
the bar was positioned on the chest for a second. Thereafter, each subject was instructed to perform a concentric
action from the starting position, maintaining the shoulders close to a 90-abduction position to ensure consistency of shoulder and elbow joints throughout the movement.
Each subject started with a weight of 30 kg, this being
increased by increments of 10 kg until the player was
unable to reach full arm extension. The last bearable load
was determined as 1 repetition maximum (1RM). The rest
time between the actions was 3 minutes. Only 2 subjects
did not complete the 1RMBP because of shoulder injuries
in previous practice incidents. They were, however, evaluated within 5 days of the initial tests, completing the
full RT program. In the 4RMPS, the bar placed across the

566

MARQUES

AND

GONZALEZ-BADILLO

TABLE 3. Mean ( SD) results of different parameters: ball throwing velocity (BTv: kilometers per hour), time in 30 m (S30m:
seconds) and in respective time in the first 15 m (S15: seconds) and second 15 m (S15-30: seconds); before the experimental period
(T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3).*
Tests (n 16)
T1

Parameter:
BTv
S30
S15
S15-30

Significance (p value)

Testing schedule
83.3
4.47
2.55
1.91

T2
6.6
0.22
0.13
0.09

86.8
4.37
2.51
1.88

T3
6.1
0.09
0.13
0.06

88.4
4.33
2.49
1.84

T1T2
6.6
0.2
0.13
0.07

p 0.001
p 0.001
p 0.01
NS

T1T3
p
p
p
p

0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001

T2T3
NS
p 0.05
NS
p 0.001

* NS no significant difference.

trapezius at a self-chosen location and the starting position knee angle was set at 180 (full leg extension). The
squat was performed to the parallel position, which when
the grate trochanter of the femur was lowered to the same
level as the knee. The correct position was monitored by
both researchers. The subject then lifted the weight until
his knees were extended. Each player started with identical weights of 70 kg, performing on command a series
of 4 complete parallel squats. Subsequently, the weight
was increased by 10-kg increments until the subject was
unable to reach full leg extension. The last bearable load
was determined as being 4RM. Five-minute rest intervals
separated the 1RMBP and 4RMPS tests. The 1RMBP
showed an ICC of 0.91 range (95% interval: 0.620.98)
and a CV of 9.7%. The 4RMPS reported an ICC of 0.95
range (95% interval: 0.870.98) and a CV of 4.2%.
Detrain testing. After 12 weeks of RT, THPs underwent a 7-week DT period, although keeping to scheduled
team handball activities. Upon completion, all were measured on 2 dependent variables: CMJ and BTv. The protocols were identical to those previously described. Each
subject was tested at weekly practice sessions in CMJ and
BTv. These tests were applied every Thursday (at 7:00
PM) in order to assess the trajectory of jump and throwing
performances.
Training efficiency. To quantify the effort to benefit
ratio, training efficiency was defined as the average percentage gain in bench press and squat performances during the 12-week training period divided by the total number of repetitions lifted at loads greater than 80% of
1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.
Statistical Analyses

Ordinary statistical methods were used for the calculation of average and standard deviations. A repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustment
was used to assess gains or losses. Measurement reliability was assessed in 2 trials separated by 5 days among
10 THPs. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated and the level accepted for statistical significance
was p 0.05.

RESULTS
The sprint and throw results are presented in Table 3.
THPs experienced significant improvements in S30m
across the whole range of measurements. The most important gains were obtained between T1-T2 (2.24%) and
T1-T3 (3.13%). Similar results were achieved in S15m
with significant performance gains between T1-T2
(1.57%) and T1-T3 (2.35%), except between T2-T3. Subjects also increased sprint performance in S1530, between T1-T3 (3.66%) and T2-T3 (2.12%), except between
T1-T2. Finally, THPs experienced increases in BTv but
these were significant on only 2 occasions: T1-T2 (4%) and
T1-T3 (6%).
The results also showed significant gains in attained
vertical jump height calculated in CMJ and in CMJ with
additional weights during the course of the research (Table 4). The most important gains took place between T1T3 (CMJ20kg: 20.8%) and in CMJ40kg (25.8%). However,
the increase observed in CMJ was only 12.98%.
The maximal dynamic strength results are presented
in Table 5. After 6 weeks of RT, an increase of 1RMBP
and 4RMPS was observed, corresponding to 16% and
30.7%, respectively. The 1RMBP increased significantly
between T1-T3 and between T2-T3, corresponding to
27.7% and 10%, respectively. An increase in 4RMPS between T1-T3 and T2-T3 training periods was also observed, corresponding to 43% and 9.7%, respectively.
After the 7-week DT period, THPs showed no statistically measurable losses in CMJ performance (Table 6
and Figure 1). However, they experienced significant decreases (Table 6 and Figure 2) in BTv (2.7%).
The BTv and CMJ showed a high correlation (r 0.87;
p 0.001) during the 12 weeks of weekly control training
(Figure 3).
During the experimental period (Table 7), average
training efficiency in 1RMBP and 4RMPS was
0.14%lift1 and 0.16%lift1, respectively. No differences
were observed in training efficiency between the first half
(16 weeks) and the second half (712 weeks) of the training period.

TABLE 4. Mean ( SD) results in centimeters of different parameters: countermovement jump height (CMJ), CMJ with different
loads (CMJ20 kg and CMJ40 kg); before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period
(T3).*
Tests (n 16)
Parameter:
CMJ
CMJ20 kg
CMJ40 kg

Significance (p value)

Testing schedule
T1

T2

T3

T1T2

T1T3

T2T3

36.82 4.8
25.41 3.5
18.86 3.1

40.55 5.09
29.40 4.4
21.49 2.9

41.62 5.6
30.69 3.7
23.34 3.5

p 0.001
p 0.001
p 0.001

p 0.001
p 0.001
p 0.001

p 0.05
p 0.05
p 0.001

* NS no significant difference.

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING 567

TABLE 5. Mean ( SD) results in kilograms of different parameters: concentric 1 repetition maximum bench press (1RMBP), 4
repetition maximum parallel squats (4RMPS) before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3).
Tests* (n 16)
T1

T2

T3

T1T2

T1T3

T2T3

58.5 10.64
93.5 13.9

67.9 12.8
122.2 21.6

74.7 12.0
134.1 19.4

p 0.001
p 0.001

p 0.001
p 0.001

p 0.001
p 0.05

Parameter:
1RMBP
4RMPS

Significance (p value)

Testing schedule

* In bench press exercise, n 14.

TABLE 6. Mean ( SD) results in centimeters after 12 weeks

the experimental period (T3) and after 7 weeks of detraining
period (T4).*
Tests
(n 13)
Variable:
CMJ
BTv

Testing schedule

Significance
(p value)

T3

T4

T3T4

42.60 5.20
88.19 7.28

41.61 4.93
85.85 7.56

NS
p 0.05

* CMJ countermovement jump; BTv ball throw velocity;

NS no significant difference.
Only n 13 because 3 players were injured in the last 7
weeks.

FIGURE 3. Correlation between countermovement jump

(CMJ) and ball throw velocity (BTv) during the weekly control
training.

The correlation results are outlined in Table 8. No correlation was found between 1RMBP and BTv during all
testing trials. The correlations between CMJ and S30 and
between CMJ and 4RMPS were not significant over T1T2, T1-T3, and T2-T3. However, the present investigation
showed significant correlations between S30 and 4RMPS
between T1-T3 (r 0.52; p 0.04). In addition, significant correlations were also observed between CMJ and
4RMPS between T2-T3 (r 0.5; p 0.046).
FIGURE 1. Time course effects of training and detraining on
countermovement jump (CMJ). Values are mean ( SD).

FIGURE 2. Time course effects of training and detraining on

ball throw velocity (BTv). Values are mean ( SD).

DISCUSSION
Until recently, research has reported ambiguous results
in the relations observed between maximal dynamic
strength and sprint ability (19, 22, 32, 33). While some
studies have claimed significant correlations between
lower-body muscle strength measures and sprint performance (22), others have not (19). These conflicting results
may be due to the fact that sprinting involves multiplejoint motions (30) with precise coordination between various muscle groups, which is not adequately assessed by
single-joint tests that isolate muscles. Thus, the relative
importance of various lower-body muscle groups to sprinting performance is not totally clear (19, 22, 30), especially
when short and maximum-speed sprints are considered
separately.
Many sports comprise sets of variable skills and random motions, the performance of which require concentration upon a few basic and technical considerations (24).
As a composite of such common skills, running demands
some knowledge of its basic mechanics. According to Plisk
(24), the reason that movements such as Olympic-style
lifts, plyometrics, and medicine-ball drills are so effective

568

MARQUES

AND

GONZALEZ-BADILLO

TABLE 7. Training efficiency.*

AI per-exercise (%)
Exercise
1RMBP
4RMPS

ATE (%lift1)

Total reps

1st cycle

2nd cycle

1st cycle

2nd cycle

82.7
85.9

82.5
86.25

124
159

87
111

1st cycle

2nd cycle
0.14
0.16

* 1RMBP 1 repetition maximum bench press; 4RMPS 4 repetition maximum parallel squat; AI average intensity; ATE
average training efficiency.
Total reps total number of repetitions (sets reps) lifted at loads greater than 80% of 1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.
The average percentage gain in bench press and squat performances during the 12-week training period divided by the total
number of repetitions lifted at loads greater than 80% of 1RMBP and 4RMPS, respectively.
1st cycle 16 weeks.
2nd cycle 712 weeks.
TABLE 8. Correlations between strength vs. throwing velocity, power and throwing velocity, jumping and sprinting, jumping and strength, sprinting and strength; before the experimental period (T1), after 6 weeks (T2), and after the 12-week experimental period (T3).
Testing schedule
Tests (n 16)
Variable:

T1T2
r

1RMBP and BTv

None
CMJ and S30
0.101 NS
CMJ and 4RMPS 0.18
NS
S30 and 4RMPS
0.24
NS

T1T3
r

None
0.22 NS
0.35 NS
0.52 0.04

T2T3
r

None
0.1
NS
0.5 0.046
0.14 NS

* 1RMBP 1 repetition maximum bench press; CMJ countermovement jump; S30 speed over 30 m; 4RMPS 4 repetition maximum parallel squat; NS no significant difference.
In bench press exercise only, n 14.

in improving speed is that they cannot be performed without high power production, rapid force application, and
acceleration. This is precisely why they correspond dynamically with so many athletic activities and deserve
high priority in training. Moreover, inherently impulsive
movements are not the only ways to develop speedstrength. Thus, brief maximal efforts and sub-maximal
accelerative efforts are methods that can be applied to
basic strength-training exercises (such as the squat) in
order to complement reactive-ballistic actions. These
methods improve an athletes rate of force development
and ability to accelerate heavy loads, including the athletes own body mass (24).
Despite the importance of the sprint technique for
speed enhancement (24), this was not a component of normal day practices for the sample group of THPs. However, sprint, acceleration, and changes in direction are
movements inherent in THPs daily practices and competitions. Recalling Plisk (24), these inherent factors may
have aided athletes (THPs) in developing short sprint
ability over the 12-week experimental period. Furthermore, the significant increments obtained in 4RMPS, and
the strong correlations between S30 and 4RMPS (T1-T3;
p 0.04), could also explain part of the improvements in
sprint performance. Thus, the conjunction of all cited factors might well have been responsible for sprint performance increments during the 12 weeks of training.
The effect of various RT programs on vertical jump
ability has been researched extensively (1, 3, 12, 13, 31).
Only Gorostiaga et al. (11), however, have investigated
the influence of an RT program on THPs jumping performance. These authors reported significant increases in

vertical jump height in a nonstrength group (only team

handball practice: 6%; p 0.001), while observing no significant changes in an RT and control groups in CMJ. In
contrast, our study showed significant (12.98%; p
0.001) improvements in CMJ height during the T1-T3,
suggesting that the addition of heavy RT programs did
not interfere with jumping development at any rate in
adults. Hakkinen and Komi (12), among others (1, 33),
found similar results to those obtained in the present investigation (10.6%; p 0.001) but over 24 weeks. A special combination (13) of loaded squat jumps and specific
plyometric jumps also resulted in significant improvements in CMJ height (17.5%; p 0.001). As in our research, these authors (13) also reported significant improvements in the CMJ40kg (26.2%; p 0.001).
The degree of general strength gained through squat
training does not seem to affect the degree of change in
jumping performance. Alen et al. (2) claimed to observe
no change in jumping performance in well-trained athletes following 24 weeks of heavy squat training, while
noticing a large improvement in 1RM squat strength.
Baker et al. (4) add that in trained athletes the relation
between changes in 1RM squat performance and vertical
jump consequent upon training was also nonsignificant (r
0.11). In contrast, the present investigation identified
significant correlations (r 0.50; p 0.046) between
CMJ and 4RMPS (only in T2-T3). Since the development
of intermuscular coordination is basically a function of
skill training (3), it can only be maximized by using loads
that resemble the skill in terms of movement, speed, and
pattern, so that technique is not altered drastically. A
general exercise for the leg muscles (squat) using a heavy
load is relatively more effective for development of intramuscular coordination, whereas the use of loaded-squat
jumps is more effective for developing intermuscular coordination (3, 34). This could explain part of the improvements noticed in the present data.
The probability of increasing the BTv by this means
was certainly less than with the other variables, since
throwing is a natural movement in team handball (5) and
is perfected in elite players by constant practice and technique. However, subjects who participated in the present
investigation significantly increased BTv between T1-T2
and T1-T3. During T2-T3, THPs continued progressing
(1.8%) but not significantly. We suggest that in the last
6 weeks of RT, players might well have reached their BTv
ceiling. With similar results, Hoff and Almasbakk (14) observed significant improvements in BTv after 9 weeks of
heavy RT (17%; p 0.05). On the other hand, a 6-week
period of heavy RT also produced a significant increase

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING 569

(3.1%; p 0.001) in an RT group (combined RT with team

handball practices) but no such increase in a control
group nor in a further group who trained only in specific
team handball skills (11).
After 9 weeks of speed-strength programs, Barata (5)
observed an increase in velocity of 11.5% when subjects
trained with heavier balls. The control group, which had
only normal team handball throwing practice, also
showed a significant increase in BTv (7.8%; p 0.001).
Van Muijen (29) also found a significant increase (2%; p
0.001) in this variable among competitive females when
training with light medicine balls. Finally, Skoufas et al.
(28) showed that training with 20% lighter handballs
caused better ball release velocity (4.3%; p 0.05) than
using normal balls. These findings could confirm the principle of training specificity, though some are difficult to
interpret because of the subjects age or lack of throwing
experience, and subjection to different RT programs (5,
11, 14, 16, 28, 29).
A logical comparison between the present research
and the studies attempted in baseball is suggested by the
similarity of the throwing movement. Lachowetz et al.
(20) reported an increase in BTv after an RT program
(2.4%). After 10 weeks of RT, McEvoy and Newton (21)
observed significant increments in throwing speed by
2.0% (p 0.05) in an experimental group (ballistic RT),
although not in a power training control group. In both
studies, results were less pronounced compared to the
present study (4% after 6 weeks; p 0.001). In addition,
Newton and McEvoy (23) showed that heavy RT for the
upper body extremities helped improve BTv but that
more specific RT, i.e., medicine ball throwing, had no such
effect. According to the authors, medicine ball throwing
was insufficiently specific with regard to movement patterns. On the other hand, heavy RT produces greater
force output and rate of force development than medicine
ball throwing. In fact, in medicine ball throwing, this
force output is not great enough to increase the throwing
velocity when using regular balls.
In both 1RMBP and 4RMPS, THPs experienced significant improvements, particularly between T1-T2
(1RMBP: 16%; 4RMPS: 30.7%). In addition, it was observed that 4RMPS almost doubled increased gains when
compared with the 1RMBP. Because several subjects
were very young, we suggest that the squat exercise produced important muscular adaptations sufficient to result
in significant increments in 4RMPS performance.
After 9 weeks of heavy bench press exercise, Hoff and
Almasbakk (14) also found significant increases in
1RMBP (32%; p 0.05) in 16 competition females, similar to those observed in the present investigation after 12
weeks. Furthermore, Gorostiaga et al. (11) observed that
an RT group (adolescent THPs) showed an improvement
in maximal strength of the leg extensors (12.2%; p 0.01)
and the upper extremity muscles (pec dec: 23%; p 0.01),
while observing no changes in a non-RT group (only team
handball practice) and in a control group. These results
reinforce those obtained in the present data, because it is
more difficult to induce strength development in trained
athletes compared to younger and inexperienced subjects
(26). However, because the maximal strength test characteristics differed between Gorostiaga et al. (11) and our
investigation, we forbear to speculate more about this issue.
Earlier studies demonstrate the absence of any cor-

relation between muscular strength and BTv (6). Subsequently, no correlation has been found between 1RMBP
and BTv over different testing sessions (T1-T2, T1-T3,
and T2-T3). In contrast, Hoff and Almasbakk (14) found
a significant correlation between 1RMBP and BTv (r
0.88; p 0.05). It is possible that some of the improvements experienced in our study could be related to distinct factors. For example, after a heavy RT period, important neuromuscular adaptations occur (25, 26), implying a higher recruitment of motor units and an increased
firing rate of motor neurons (26, 27, 34), especially in
trained athletes (34). However, Fleck et al. (9) found significant correlations (p 0.05) between averages BTv
with peak torque in 3 different testing speeds for shoulder
horizontal abduction. In addition, these researchers also
demonstrated significant correlations (p 0.05) with
peak torque of shoulder flexion (300) and elbow extension (240 and 300). They suggested that an RT program
in which the main object is to improve BTv should include exercises to increase torque capabilities, namely of
the shoulders horizontal abductors to ensure that upper
extremities could be decelerated in a controlled manner
during the follow-through of the throwing motion (9, p.
24). This could be extremely important to avoid injury.
For this reason, the torque produced during these movements is related to BTv (9).
Several authors (6, 9, 16) also argued that BTv is able
to establish a strong correlation between maximum
strength developments in lower extremities. The present
investigation, having demonstrated great increases in
4RMPS, suggests that a combination of powerful legs and
efficient trunk rotation make for a better throw (9). This
type of analysis could confirm that the main factor affecting BTv is effective energy transfer from the lower to
the higher limbs (6, 16). An alternative explanation might
point to the fact that the present data was carried out
during a competition phase, reflecting an increased number of throws in training and competition.
To reiterate, athletes often experience interruptions in
training processes and competition programs (15, 18),
which may result in a reduction or cessation of their normal physical activity levels (15, 18). According to Kraemer et al. (18), research investigating changes in vertical
jump ability after DT period have shown no changes after
2 weeks and a 35% reduction after 12 weeks of DT. Previous studies claimed different results. In fact, Hakkinen
and Komi (12, 13) observed significant decreases in CMJ
height (p 0.05) after 24 weeks of RT followed by 12
weeks of DT. This could be due to a longer period of DT.
It seems that with shorter DT periods of 2 to 67 weeks,
jumping performance could be maintained. Kraemer et al.
(18) observed that recreationally trained men can maintain jump performance during short periods of DT (6
weeks). The researchers (18) argued that other factors
like jumping technique may be critical for vertical jump
performance and may have contributed to the lack of
change despite the reduction of performance.
These results tend to be borne out by those of the present investigation in THPs. Here, subjects also showed a
decline in their jump ability during DT period, although
not a significant one. In our opinion, this could suggest
that game-specific jumping is a better means of positively
influencing jump performance in THPs (i.e., training
jump shot in team handball). The maintenance of athletic
performance during DT period may be also explained by

570

MARQUES

AND

GONZALEZ-BADILLO

the continuation of specific team handball practices and

competitions and, simultaneously, by the short duration
of DT itself.
After 4 weeks of DT, Skoufas et al. (28) observed that
BTv increases were only maintained (an insignificant decrease of 0.9%) by using 20% lighter balls, suggesting that
lighter weight training can be efficient in retaining performance gains. However, these results are contradicted
by the present data, which showed that BTv was significantly reduced after the DT period (2.7%; p 0.05), despite coinciding with a competition phase. Several authors have proposed that strength losses incurred during
DT are related to neural changes coupled with longerterm atrophic decline (18). We suggest that such decreases may be due to the incapacity of subjects to stimulate
their motor units or to recruit fast twitch fibers in both
explosive skills, reinforcing the hypothesis that RT absence induces significant neural losses in the muscles involved in throwing ability. It is unclear whether the inconsistency of results between different studies involving
different sports is due to methodological differences, different training backgrounds, or different population characteristics.
The primary limitation of this study is the absence of
a control group. In practical terms, to locate a specific
control group (i.e., another elite team handball sample at
the same performance level of the experimental team)
and to access testing conditions is not an easy task for
coaches or researchers. These difficulties are compounded
by the ethical problem already alluded to (17). However,
such considerations ought not to detract from the necessity and importance of this type of investigation or of the
present study, especially in the team handball field.
The present authors speculate that the overall physical condition gains were probably due to the addition of
the RT program because all subjects were in peak condition at the outset of the study. Additionally, the DT results could be a sound indicator that the previous RT program contributed to improved subject performance, especially in throwing ability, because BTv declined significantly during DT period, whereas THPs have maintained
permanent throwing ability over the playoff period.
Another important finding of this study was that
short-term RT using moderate relative intensity tended
to produce significant enhancements in THPs performance in 4RMPS and 1RMBP. In both exercises, given
that the average intensity is practically the same between
RT cycles (range average intensity 80% of 1RMBP and
4RMPS), the changes in volume can justify the changes
in the performance. However, this is only true to the extent that prolonging the duration of training brings about
progressively diminishing performance returns. According to Carpinelli and Otto (8), progressive overload is necessary for increasing muscular strength. For adaptations
to occur, a stimulus in excess of previous stimuli needs to
be applied during an RT program. Fry et al. (10) conceive
that, once a given threshold level of strength training intensity has been reached in resistance trained athletes,
the appropriate physiological adaptations may well be optimized and that training beyond this limit provides no
further benefits. This statement is supported by the present findings since average intensity was equal in both of
the training cycles (16 weeks and 712 weeks).
In summary, THPs can increase both 1RMBP and
4RMPS using moderate volume and medium to high in-

tensity. Therefore, the present data suggest that for

health and safety reasons, increasing training volume
does not always provide a better stimulus for improving
adaptations during a short-term training period. In fact,
trained THPs can optimize performance achieving only
30% fewer lifts tolerable at loads higher than 80% than
what they achieve in maximal dynamic strength exercises.
These conclusions should be interpreted within the
context of the study and its sample of experienced players.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present findings suggest that RT could be an important factor in positively influencing not only maximal dynamic strength performance but also jumping ability,
speed, and throwing velocity performances in highly
trained THPs. They also demonstrate that 7 weeks of DT
were sufficient to induce significant losses in BTv but not
in CMJ ability. The data support the continued use of RT
program throughout the competition period. For practitioners, the investigation may be useful in suggesting
ways to optimize training whilst avoiding DT effects.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
8.
9.

10.

11.

12.

ADAMS, K., J.P., OSHEA, K.L., OSHEA, AND M. CLIMLEIN. The

effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric
training on power production. J. Strength Cond. Res. 6:3641.
1992.
ALEN, M., K. HAKKINEN, AND P.V. KOMI. Changes in neuromuscular performance and muscle fiber characteristics of elite
power athletes self-administering androgenic and anabolic steroids. Acta Physiol. Scand. 122:535544. 1984.
BAKER, D. Improving vertical jump performance through general, special, and specific strength training: A brief review. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 10:131136. 1996.
BAKER, D., G. WILSON, AND R. CARLYON. Periodization: The
effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:235242. 1994.
BARATA, J. Changes in ball velocity in the handball free throw,
induced by two different speed-strength training programs.
Portug. J. Hum. Perf. 28:4555. 1992.
BAYIOS, I.A., E.M. ANASTASOPOULOU, D.S. SIOUDRIS, AND K.D.
BOUDOLOS. Relationship between isokinetic strength of the internal and external shoulder rotators and ball velocity in team
handball. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 1:229235. 2001.
BOSCO, C. La Valoracion de la Fuerza con el Test de Bosco. Barcelona, Spain: Paidotribo, 1994.
CARPINELLI, R.N., AND R.M. OTTO. Strength training: Single
versus multiple sets. Sports Med. 26:7384. 1998.
FLECK, S.J., S.L. SMITH, M.W. CRAIB, T. DENAHAN, R.E. SNOW,
AND M.R. MITCHELL. Upper extremity isokinetic torque and
throwing velocity in team handball. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6:
120124. 1992.
FRY, A.C., J.M. WEBBER, L.W. WEISS, M.D. FRY, AND Y. LI.
Impaired performances with excessive high intensity free
weight training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14:5461. 2000.
GOROSTIAGA, E., M. IZQUIERDO, P. ITURRALDE, M. RUESTA, AND
J. IBANEZ. Effects of heavy resistance training on maximal and
explosive force production, endurance and serum hormones in
adolescent handball players. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 80:485493.
1999.
HAKKINEN, K., AND P.V. KOMI. Changes in electrical and mechanical behavior of leg extensor muscles during heavy resistance strength training. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7:5564. 1985.

IN-SEASON RESISTANCE TRAINING 571

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

HAKKINEN, K., AND P.V. KOMI. Effect of explosive type strength

training on electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor muscles during concentric and various
stretch-shortening cycle exercises. Scand. J. Sports Sci. 7:65
76. 1985.
HOFF, J., AND B. ALMASBAKK. The effects of maximum strength
training on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female
team-handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 9:255258. 1995.
HORTOBAGYI, T., J.A. HOUNARD, J.R. STEVENSON, D.D. FRASER,
R.A. JOHNS, AND R.G. ISRAEL. The effects of detraining on power athletes. Acta Physiol. Scand. 25:929935. 1983.
JORIS, H., V. MUIJEN., G. SCHENAU, AND H. KENPER. Force velocity and energy flow during the over arm throw in female
handball players. J. Biomech. 18:409414. 1985.
KRAEMER, W.J. The body of knowledge: Use and professionalism. Strength Cond. J. 27:3335. 2005.
KRAEMER, W.J., L. KOZIRIS, N.A. RATAMESS, K. HAKKINEN,
N.T. TRIPLETT-MCBRIDE, A.C. FRY, S.E. GORDON, J.S. VOLEK,
D.N. FRENCH, M.R. RUBIN, A.L. GOMEZ, M.J. SHARMAN, L.J.
MICHAEL, M. IZQUIERDO, R.U. NEWTON, AND S.J. FLECK. Detraining produces minimal changes in physical performance
and hormonal variables in recreationally strength-trained
men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 16:373382. 2002.
KUKOLJ, M., R. ROPRET, D. UGARKOVIC, AND S. JARIC. Anthropometric, strength, and power predictors of sprinting performance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 39:120122. 1999.
LACHOWETZ, T., J. EVON, AND J. PASTIGLIONE. The effect of an
upper body strength program on intercollegiate baseball throwing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:116119. 1998.
MCEVOY, K.P., AND R.U. NEWTON. Baseball throwing speed
and base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance
training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:216221. 1998.
NESSER, T.W., R.W. LATIN, K. BERG, AND E. PRENTICE. Physiological determinants of 40-meter sprint performance in young
male athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10:26367. 1996.
NEWTON, R.U., AND P. MCEVOY. Baseball throwing velocity: A
comparison of medicine ball training and weight training. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:198203. 1994.
PLISK, S.A. Speed, agility, and speed-endurance development.
In: Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle and R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2000. pp. 471491.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.
31.

32.

33.

34.

SALE, D.G. Neural adaptations to strength training. In:

Strength and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific Publications, 1992. pp. 249265.
SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D. Training for power events. In: Strength
and Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
Publications, 1992. pp. 381395.
SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D., AND M. BUERLE. Neuronal adaptation
and increase of cross-sectional area studying different strength
training methods. In: Biomechanics X-B (vol. 6-B). G.B. Johnson, ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1987. pp. 615620.
SKOUFAS, D., P. STEFANIDIS, C. MICHAILIDIS, K. HATZIKOTOULAS, M. KOTZAMANIDOU, AND E. BASSA. The effect of handball
training with underweighted balls on the throwing velocity of
novice handball players. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 44:157171.
2003.
VAN MUIJEN, A., H. JORIS, G. KEMPER, AND V. SCHENAU. Effects on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female handball players. Sports Training Med. Rehab. 2:103113. 1991.
VERKHOSHANSKI, Y. Componentii e struttura dellimpegno esplosivo di forza. Rivista Cultura Sport. 14:1521. 1996.
WILSON G., R.U. NEWTON, A. MURPHY, AND B. HUMPHRIES. The
optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exer. 25:12791286. 1993.
YOUNG, W., B. BENTON, G. DUTHIE, AND J. PRYOR. Resistance
training for short sprints and maximum-speed sprints.
Strength Cond. J. 23:713. 2001.
YOUNG, W., B. MCLEAN, AND J. ARDAGNA. Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting performance. J. Sports
Med. Phys. Fitness 35:1319. 1995.
ZATSIORSKY, V.M. Science and Practice of Strength Training.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1995.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the athletes who participated as
subjects in this study, as well as their head coach, Rolando J.
Freitas, for allowing them to partake. The authors also
acknowledge with thanks the editorial assistance of John
Stirling Wilks, PhD, in preparation of this article.

Address correspondence to Dr. Mario Antonio Cardoso

Marques, mariomarques@mariomarques.com.