Hermassi Et Al. 2010 The Effect of Heavy Vs Moderate Load Training

THE EFFECT OF HEAVY- VS.
MODERATE-LOAD
TRAINING ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH,
POWER, AND THROWING BALL VELOCITY IN MALE
HANDBALL PLAYERS
SOUHAIL HERMASSI,
1
MOHAMED SOUHAIEL CHELLY,
1,2
MOURAD FATHLOUN,
3
AND ROY J. SHEPHARD
4
1
Research Unit Evaluation and Analysis of Factors Inuencing Sport performance, Higher Institute of Sport and Physical
Education of Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia;
2
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, Tunis, Tunisia;
3
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education, El Kef, Tunisia; and
4
Faculty of Physical Education & Health,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT
Hermassi, S, Chelly, MS, Fathloun, M, and Shephard, RJ. The
effect of heavy- vs. moderate-load training on the development
of strength, power, and throwing ball velocity in male handball
players. J Strength Cond Res 24(9): 24082418, 2010The
aimwas to compare the effect of 2 differing 10-week resistance
training programs on the peak power (PP) output, muscle
volume, strength, and throwing velocity of the upper limbs in
handball players during the competitive season. The subjects
were 26 men (age 20.0 60.6 years, body mass 85.0 613.2 kg,
height 1.86 6 0.06 m, and body fat 13.7 6 2.4%). They were
randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: control (C; n = 8), heavy
resistance (n = 9), or moderate resistance (MR; n = 9) training,
performed twice a week. A forcevelocity test on an appro-
priately modied Monark cycle ergometer determined PP.
Muscle volumes were estimated using a standard anthropo-
metric kit. One-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press
(1RM
BP
) and 1RM pull-over (1RM
PO
) scores assessed arm
strength. Handball throwing velocity was measured with (T
R
)
and without run-up (T
W
). Both training programs enhanced
absolute PP relative to controls (p , 0.05), although differ-
ences disappeared if PP was expressed per unit of muscle
volume. Heavy resistanceenhanced 1RM
BP
and 1RM
PO
compared to both MR (p , 0.01 and p , 0.05, respectively)
and C (p , 0.001 for both tests). Heavy resistance also
increased T
R
and T
W
compared to C (p , 0.01 and p , 0.05,
respectively). Moderate resistance increased only T
R
compared
to C (p , 0.01). Thus, during the competitive season, the
PP, 1RM
BP
, 1RM
PO
, and T
W
of male handball players were
increased more by 10 weeks of bench press and pull-over
training with suitably adapted heavy loads than with moderate
loads. It would seem advantageous to add such resistance
exercise before customary technical and tactical handball
training sessions.
KEY WORDS arm throwing, maximal strength, upper extremity,
throwing performance
INTRODUCTION
T
eam handball is an Olympic sport that has rarely
been the object of scientic investigation. Available
research suggests that successful players have well-
developed aerobic and anaerobic tness (6,10,29).
The physical demands are for running, jumping, sprinting,
throwing, hitting, blocking, and pushing. The game requires
high-impact intermittent exercise, with many lateral move-
ments, jumps, and throws (10). Throwing is a fundamental
skill. Two basic factors inuence the efciency of shots:
accuracy and throwing velocity. The faster the ball is thrown,
the less time defenders have to save the shot. Handball
coaches and scientists seem agreed that the main determi-
nants of throwing velocity are technique, the timing of
movement in consecutive body segments, and the strength
and power of both the upper and lower limbs (11). Each of
these factors can be improved by training, particularly
resistance programs designed to enhance strength and power
in both the upper and lower limbs. However, there is
disagreement concerning the type of overload that is most
likely to enhance velocity. Training programs that produce
the greatest change in muscle cross-section typically involve
loads of 70% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (22), whereas
programs designed to improve strength through enhanced
neuronal coordination are typied by intensities of 85100%
1RM (5,22). The use of moderate loads allows the trainee to
attain greater velocities and accelerations, with a potential for
transfer to such activities as handball (5). Nevertheless,
Address correspondence to Dr. Mohamed Souhaiel Chelly, csouhaiel@
yahoo.fr.
24(9)/24082418
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2408 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
many studies have argued that heavy training (.80% 1RM)
can not only enhance power and strength but can also
enhance the handball throwing velocity of the upper limbs
(10,22,34).
In his brief review, Van Den Tillaar (34) summarized
current knowledge on the respective benets of various
handball-training programs (training with overweight balls,
training with underweight balls, training with underweight
and overweight balls, and general weight training). He con-
cluded that no clear answer could as yet be given as to the
type of resistance training that was most effective in in-
creasing throwing velocity. There was no consensus on
the optimal loading for developing maximal strength, power,
and thus throwing velocity. Moreover, the few published
studies of programs intended to increase strength and throw-
ing velocity in handball players have used only concentric
exercises (10,13,18,24). However, most of the actions re-
quired during playbut especially throwing the ballrequire
a combination of eccentric and concentric contractions
(a stretch-shortening cycle [SSC]). Use of SSC exercises
seems important for enhancement of an individuals power.
Because greater power outputs are developed, greater power
adaptation is likely. Moreover, the velocity and acceleration
proles of the rebound movement simulate those that occur
during throwing more closely than do the movements seen
with nonrebound exercise (in particular, they have a higher
velocity and a longer period of acceleration) (5).
Based on the technical limitations and inconclusive nature
of the aforementioned studies, our aim was to compare the
increases of performance induced when heavy resistance
(HR) or moderate resistance (MR) training was added to the
normal in-season regimen of experienced handball players.
To incorporate the prestretch inherent to handball into
both types of training, we used a succession of eccentric
concentric contractions. We hypothesized that 10 weeks of
either HR or MR training performed twice a week would
enhance handball throwing velocity, strength, and power in
the upper limbs relative to players continuing with their
normal in-season regimen, and we aimed to determine which
of the 2 programs would be most effective.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to address the question: How far
does 10 weeks of HR or MR in-season training, performed
twice per week, enhance the performance of handball
players? To examine the question experimentally, a team
of experienced players was divided randomly into 3 groups:
HR (n = 9), MR(n = 9), and control (standard in-season
regimen) (C; n = 8). All participants completed 2 familiari-
zation trials in the 2 weeks before denitive testing. Denitive
measurements began 4 months into the playing season; data
were collected before the start of the enhanced training, and
after completion of the 10-week trial. On each occasion, the
protocol included a forcevelocity test to evaluate the muscle
power of the upper limbs, a handball-throwing test, a
1RM bench press, pull-over, and detailed anthropometric
measurements to assess the volume of muscle in the upper
limbs. Testing sessions were carried out at the same time of
the day, and under the same experimental conditions, at least
3 days after the most recent competition. Players maintained
their normal intake of food and uids during the trial.
However, they abstained from physical exercise for 1 day
before testing, drank no caffeine-containing beverages in the
4 hours preceding testing, and ate no food for 2 hours before
testing. Verbal encouragement ensured maximal effort
throughout the tests of muscle performance.
Subjects
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review
Committee for the ethical use of human subjects, according
to current national laws and regulations. Participants gave
written informed consent after receiving both a verbal and
a written explanation of the experimental design and its
potential risks. Subjects were told that they were free to
withdraw from the trial without penalty at any time. Our
investigation was focused on 26 elite male handball players
(age 20 60.6 years, body mass 85.0 613.2 kg, height 1.85 6
0.06 m, and body fat 13.7 6 2.4%), all drawn from a single
team in the top National Handball League. Their mean
handball experience was 8.2 60.6 years. Before the study, all
were examined by the team physician, with a particular
focus orthopedic and other conditions that might preclude
resistance training, and all were found to be in good health.
The 26 individuals were randomly assigned between 3
groups: HR (n = 9), MR (n = 9), and control (standard in-
season regimen) C(n = 8). These 3 groups were initially well
matched in terms of their physical characteristics (Table 1).
Evaluation and Procedures
This study was performed during a 10-week period from
January to March. All subjects engaged in the same training
sessions, supervised by the 2 team coaches, from the
beginning of the competitive season (September) until the
end of the current study (March). They thus continued
handball training 34 times per week and played 1 ofcial
game per week. Practice training sessions lasted 90 minutes;
usually, they emphasized skill activities at various intensi-
ties, offensive and defensive strategies, and 30 minutes of
continuous play with only brief interruptions by the coach.
The controls maintained this normal frequency of training,
and the 2 experimental groups supplemented these sessions
by the specic resistance exercises. All subjects also engaged
in weekly school physical education sessions; these lasted
for 40 minutes and consisted mainly of ball games. All
participants were tested before and after the 10-week trial,
using identical protocols; tests were completed in a xed
order over 2 consecutive days. Care was taken to ensure that
those undertaking resistance training were tested 59 days
after their last strength training session to allow adequate
recovery from the acute effects of resistance training.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2010 | 2409
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Testing Schedule
The subjects were carefully familiarized with the techniques
of circuit training and lifting for 2 weeks before measurements
and training began. They were also familiarized with the 1RM
test procedure, and a theoretical maximal load was calculated
for eachsubject. Testing was integrated into the weekly training
schedules. During the denitive tests, a standardized battery
of warm-up exercises was performed before maximal efforts.
On the rst denitive test day, the forcevelocity test was
performed, followed by anthropometrical assessment, and
nally the 1RM pull-over (1RM
PO
) was measured. During the
second denitive test day, the 1RM bench press (1RM
BP
) was
measured, and throwing velocities were determined with the
subjects standing at their adapted chairs.
Day 1
The ForceVelocity Test. Forcevelocity measurements on the
legs were performed on a standard Monark cycle ergometer
(model 894 E, Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden).
The instantaneous peak velocity was used to calculate the
maximal anaerobic power for each braking force. The maxi-
mal velocity (Vmax) was dened as the greatest velocity
attained without external loading. The peak power (PP) was
dened as the greatest power output calculated for the dif-
ferent braking forces. The subject was judged to have attained
the braking force corresponding to his maximal anaerobic
power if an additional load induced a decrease in power
output. Parabolic relationships were obtained only if we
observed a decline of PP over 2 successive braking forces.
Arm tests were made using an appropriately modied
version of the same apparatus. The ergometer pedals were
replaced by hand cranks, and the saddle pillar was removed
to avoid injuries. The modied ergometer was xed to a
metal support, bringing the crankshaft to shoulder level. The
unrestrained subject stood freely in front of the ergometer,
TABLE 1. Participants physical characteristics.*
Age (y) Body mass (kg) Height (m) % Body fat Experience (y)
HR (n = 9) 20.1 6 0.6 87.7 6 18 1.87 6 0.07 14.9 6 4.4 8.2 6 0.7
MR (n = 9) 20.0 6 0.7 87.1 6 8.4 1.85 6 0.06 14.5 6 3.1 8.4 6 0.7
C (n = 8) 20.0 6 0.5 80.9 6 13.5 1.84 6 0.05 16.5 6 4.0 8.0 6 0.8
*HR = heavy load resistance group; MR = moderate load resistance group; C = control group.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
TABLE 2. Heavy resistance training program.*
Exercises Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6
Bench press 80: 3 3 5 80: 3 3 5 85: 3 3 3 85: 3 3 3 85: 3 3 4 85: 3 3 4
Pull-over 80: 3 3 3 80: 3 3 3 85: 3 3 5 85: 3 3 5 85: 3 3 6 85: 3 3 6
Bench press 90: 3 3 3 90: 3 3 3 90: 3 3 4 90: 3 3 4 90: 3 3 6 90: 3 3 6
Pull-over 90: 3 3 2 90: 3 3 2 90: 2 3 3 90: 2 3 3 90: 3 3 3 90: 3 3 3
Bench press 95: 3 3 3 90: 3 3 5 95: 3 3 3 90: 3 3 5 95: 3 3 3 95: 3 3 5
Pull-over 95: 2 3 2 90: 3 3 3 95: 2 3 2 90: 3 3 3 95: 2 3 3 95: 3 3 3
Exercises Session 19 Session 20
Bench press 95: 3 3 4 95: 3 3 4
Pull-over 95: 3 3 4 95: 3 3 4
Training summary
Principal exercises % of RM sets 3 reps
*RM = repetition maximum.
the TM
Pull-Over and Bench Press Training and Arm Performance
with the exception that the smallest subjects were allowed
to stand on a step as needed. This posture was adopted to
minimize activation of the lower limbs during test performance.
The parameters measured with the forcevelocity test were
PP expressed in Wand Wkg
21
of total body mass, maximal
force (Fmax), and maximal velocity (Vmax). The relationship
between braking force F and velocity V can be expressed by
the following equation:
V b aF or V V
0
V
0
F=F
0
V
0
1 F=F
0
;
where V
0
is the intercept with the velocity axis, that is, the
theoretical maximal velocity for a braking force of zero, and
F
0
is the intercept with the force axis, that is, the theoretical
maximal braking force corresponding to a velocity of zero (36).
A valid forcevelocity test requires short all-out sprints
(duration about 7 seconds), using a suitable sequence of
ergometer braking forces (1). Subjects were verbally encour-
aged to reach their maximal pedaling rate as quickly as
possible. The peak velocity was noted and was used to
calculate forcevelocity relationships. Arm tests began with
a braking force = 1.5% of the subjects body mass (3). After a
5-minute recovery, the braking was increased in sequence to
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9% of the body mass. The same sequence
was performed again, until an additional load induced
a decrease in power output at each of 2 repetitions; this value
was accepted as the PP. In general, 68 short all-out sprints
were performed in a given session.
TABLE 3. Moderate resistance training program.*
Exercises Session1 Session2 Session3 Session4 Session5 Session6
Bench press 55: 3 3 6 55: 3 3 6 60: 3 3 6 60: 3 3 6 60: 4 3 6 60: 4 3 6
Pull-over 55: 2 3 6 55: 2 3 6 60: 2 3 6 60: 2 3 6 60: 3 3 6 60: 3 3 6
Bench press 65: 3 3 6 65: 3 3 6 65: 4 3 6 65: 4 3 6 70: 3 3 6 70: 3 3 6
Pull-over 65: 2 3 6 65: 2 3 6 65: 3 3 6 65: 3 3 6 70: 2 3 6 70: 2 3 6
Bench press 70: 4 3 3 70: 4 3 3 70: 4 3 6 70: 4 3 6 75: 3 3 6 75: 3 3 6
Pull-over 70: 3 3 6 70: 3 3 6 70: 4 3 3 70: 4 3 3 75: 2 3 6 75: 2 3 6
Exercises Session 19 Session 20
Bench press 75: 4 3 6 75: 4 3 6
Pull-over 75: 3 3 6 75: 3 3 6
Training summary
Principal exercises % of RM Sets 3 reps
*RM = repetition maximum.
TABLE 4. Comparison of handball throwing velocity between HR, MR, and C before and after 10-week trial.*
HR MR C
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
T
R
(ms
21
) 14.6 61.4 20.8 6 1.0 14.66 1.3 20.1 6 1.7 15.9 6 1.1 17.3 6 0.8
k
T
W
(ms
21
) 12.9 6 1.1 17.2 6 0.8 13.76 1.4 17.6 6 2.0 14.4 6 1.7 15.7 6 0.9
*HR = heavy resistance group; MR = moderate resistance; C = control group; T
R
= handball throwing velocity with run-up; T
W
=
handball throwing velocity without upper limb run-up.
Two-way analysis of variance with repeated measure (group 3 time) was used to assess the training related effects.
MR signicantly different from C at p , 0.01.
k
HR signicantly different from C at p , 0.001.
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Anthropometry. The muscle volume of the upper limbs was
estimated as detailed previously, using circumferences and
skin-fold thicknesses measured at different levels of the arm
and the forearm, the length of the upper limb, and the breadth
of the humeral condyles (20,32,33).
Muscle volumes were estimated as follows:
Muscle volume total limb volume fat volume
bone volume:
The total limb volume was estimated as the volume
of a cylinder, based on its length (L), corresponding to the
distance from the acromion to the minimum wrist circum-
ference, and the mean of 5 limb circumferences (axilla,
maximum relaxed biceps, minimum above the elbow, maxi-
mum over the relaxed forearm, and minimum above the
styloid process) according to the following formula:
Total limb volume +C
2

L=62:8;
where +C
2
is the sum of the squares of the 5 circumferences
of the corresponding limb.
Skin folds were assessed using a standard Harpenden
caliper (Baty International, Burgess Hill, Sussex, United
Kingdom). The fat volume was calculated as follows:
+C=5

+S=2n

L;
where +S is the sum of 3 skin folds for the upper limb
(biceps, triceps, and midforearm), and n represents the
number of skin folds measured on each limb.
Bone volume was calculated as follows:
p F D
2
L;
where D is the humeral inter-
condylar diameter, F is a geo-
metric factor (0.21 for the
upper limb), and L is the limb
length as measured above.
Standard equations were
used to predict the percentage
of body fat from the biceps,
triceps, subcapsular, and supra-
iliac skin-fold readings (37):
%Body fat a log +4 folds

b;
where +S is the sum of the 4
skin-fold readings (in mm), and
a and b are constants depen-
dent on sex and age.
One-Repetition Maximum Pull--
Over. This exercise is much
like the dumbbell pull-over,
but intensity is added to the
movement by using a barbell.
The bar was positioned about
0.2 m above the subjects chest and was supported by the
bottomstops of the device. The player performed a successive
eccentricconcentric contraction from the starting position.
The eccentric action took the weight over and behind
the individuals head, with the elbow fully extended. At the
end of the backward movement, when the upper limbs were
approximately parallel to the ground and the elbows were
again slightly exed, subjects pushed the barbell to bring it
back to the starting position, keeping their abdominal muscles
well contracted and the body stable without bouncing or
arching of the back. All subjects were familiar with the
technique, as they had used it regularly in their weekly
strength training sessions. A pretest assessment of 1RM
PO
was made during the nal training session. Warm-up for the
denitive test comprised 5 repetitions at loads of 4060% of
the pretest RM
PO
. Thereafter, 45 separate attempts were
performed until the subject was unable to extend the arms
fully. The load noted at the last acceptable extension was
accepted as the 1RM
PO
. Two minutes of rest was allowed
between trials.
Day 2
One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press. A detailed description
of the maximal strength and muscle power testing procedures
is found elsewhere (19). In brief, the maximal strength of the
upper extremity was assessed using a maximum 1-repetition
successive eccentricconcentric bench press action
1RM
BP
. Bench press (elbow extension) was chosen because
it involves some arm muscles that are specic to overhand
throwing (8). The test was performed in a squatting
apparatus; the barbell was attached at both ends, and linear
Figure 1. Powervelocity relationships for heavy and moderate resistance groups (n = 18) before (dotted line) and
after (solid line) 10 weeks of resistance training. The relationship is displaced slightly upwards after strength
training.
the TM
bearings on 2 vertical bars allowed only vertical movements.
The bar was positioned 10 mm above the subjects chest
and supported by the bottom stops of the measuring device.
The subject was instructed to perform a purely concentric
action from the starting position, maintaining the shoulders
in a 90 abducted position to ensure consistent positioning
of the shoulder and elbow joints throughout the test (19,28).
No bouncing or arching of the back was allowed. Warm-up
comprised 5 repetitions at 4060% of the perceived maxi-
mum. Thereafter, 45 separate attempts with 2-minute rest
intervals were performed until the subject was unable to
extend the arms fully. The last
acceptable extension was ac-
cepted as the 1RM
BP
.
Handball Throwing Test. Explo-
sive strength production during
a handball overarm throw was
evaluated on an indoor hand-
ball court. One type of throw
(without run-up, T
W
) was per-
formed with 1 hand from
a standing position, using an
adapted chair. The trunk of the
player was immobilized
by a blocked belt; the shoulder
was maintained in 90 of ab-
duction and external rotation,
and the elbow was exed to
90. For the second type of
throw (with run-up, T
R
), sub-
jects were instructed to use
their preferred technique to
throw a handball as fast as possible through a standard goal.
Both throw tests were undertaken after a 15-minute
standardized warm-up and using a standard handball (mass
480 g, circumference 0.58 m). To simulate a typical handball
action, the players were allowed to put resin on their hands,
and they were told to throw with maximal velocity toward
the upper right corner of the goal. The coaches supervised
both tests closely to ensure that the required techniques were
followed. Each subject continued until 3 correct throws had
been recorded, up to a maximum of 3 sets of 3 consecutive
throws. A 1- to 2-minute rest was allowed between sets of
throws and 1015 seconds be-
tween 2 throws of the same set.
Throwing time was recorded
with an accuracy of 0.001 sec-
ond, using a digital video camera
(SONY, HVR A1U DV Cam-
corder, Japan). The camera was
positioned on a tripod 3 mabove
and parallel to the edge of the
adapted chair. Data processing
software (Regavi & Regressi,
Micrelec, Coulommiers, France)
converted measures of handball
displacement to velocities. The
reliability of the data processing
software was veried previously
(4). The throw with the greatest
average velocity was selected for
further analysis.
Training. Both HR and MR pro-
grams continued for 10 weeks.
Figure 2. Comparisons of absolute and relative peak power output and muscle volume of upper limbs between
heavy resistance (HR), moderate resistance (MR), and control (C) groups before and after 10 weeks of resistance
training. *One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) differs signicantly (p , 0.05) between HR and C.
+
One-way
ANOVA differs signicantly (p ,0.05) between MR and C.
Figure 3. Comparison of upper limb strength between heavy resistance (HR), moderate resistance (MR), and
control (C) groups before and after 10 weeks of resistance training. ***One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
differs signicantly (p , 0.001) between HR and C.
#
One-way ANOVA differs signicantly (p , 0.05) between
HR and MR.
##
One-way ANOVA differs signicantly (p , 0.01) between HR and MR.
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Two training sessions per week were performed on Tuesdays
and Thursdays, immediately before the normal handball
training sessions. A researcher supervised each workout to
ensure that proper procedures were followed. Both 1RM
BP
and 1RM
PO
exercises were used
to determine appropriate loads
for training sessions. 1RM values
were reassessed at the fourth
week, and the loads were up-
dated for both HR and MR
groups as necessary.
Heavy resistance group: Each
session included 2 exercises
for the upper extensor muscles
(pull-over and bench press), with
subjects training at 8095% of
their personal 1RM. They per-
formed 13 repetitions per set and
36 sets of each exercise with
3- to 4-minute rest between sets.
Their program is detailed in Table
2. Both the pull-over and bench
press exercises require successive
eccentricconcentric loaded con-
tractions performed at a slow
velocity. The prescription of
such loading intensities with such velocities is designed to
produce the greatest increases in maximal strength (22).
Moderate resistance group: Each session included 2 exercises
for the upper extensor muscles (pull-over and bench press),
Figure 4. Comparisons of handball throwing velocity with (T
R
) or without (T
W
) upper limb run-up between heavy
resistance (HR), moderate resistance (MR), and control (C) groups before and after 10 weeks of resistance training.
*One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) differs signicantly (p , 0.05) between HR and C. **One-way ANOVA
differs signicantly (p , 0.01) between HR and C. ++One-way ANOVA differs signicantly (p , 0.01) between
MR and C.
TABLE 5. Comparison of forcevelocity test, upper limb muscle volume, and strength between heavy HR, MR, and C
before and after 10-week trial.*
HR MR C
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Forcevelocity test
Power (W) 542 6 122 6016 125 558 6 63 614 6 65 511 6 30 535 6 20
k
Power (Wkg
21
) 6.2 6 0.7 6.9 6 0.7 6.4 6 0.7 7.0 6 0.8 6.4 6 1.0 6.6 6 0.9
k
Power (WL
21
) 129 6 13 140 6 18 135 6 15 139 6 16 140 6 16 143 6 15
Maximal pedaling velocity (rpm) 150 6 16 152 6 7 155 6 20 162 6 14 163 6 13 170 6 15
Maximal force (N) 129 6 25 135 6 29 131 6 18 136 6 12 116 6 17 109 6 11
Force-velocity test 1RM (kg)
Arm muscle volume 4.8 6 1.1 4.9 6 1.1{ 4.8 6 0.7 5.0 6 0.7# 4.3 6 0.5 4.8 6 0.5
1RM (kg)
Pull-over 25.9 6 7.6 38.9 6 6.0** 28.9 6 7.8 35.8 6 6.4 20.6 6 5.6 21.8 6 7.1
Bench press 88 6 13 101 6 10 91 6 10 97 6 12# 80 6 11 81 6 13
*HR = heavy resistance group; MR = moderate resistance; C = control group; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.
Two-way analysis of variance with repeated measure (group 3 time) was used to assess the training related effects.
MR is signicantly different from C at p , 0.01.
k
HR is signicantly different from C at p , 0.05.
{HR is signicantly different from MR at p , 0.05.
#MR is signicantly different from C at p , 0.05.
**HR is signicantly different from MR at p , 0.001.
MR is signicantly different from C at p , 0.01.
HR is signicantly different from C at p , 0.001
HR is signicantly different from MR at p , 0.01.
the TM
with subjects training at 5575% of their personal 1RM.
They performed 36 repetitions per set and 24 sets of
each exercise with 1-to 1.30-minute rest between sets. Their
program is detailed in Table 3. Both the pull-over and the
bench press require successive eccentricconcentric loaded
contractions, performed as rapidly as possible.
Statistical Analyses
Standard statistical methods were used to calculate means
and SDs. Training-related effects were assessed by a 2-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measure
(group 3 time). When a signicant F value was observed,
Sheffe s post hoc procedures were performed to locate
pairwise differences. Percentage changes were calculated as
([posttraining value 2 pretraining value]/pretraining value)
3 100. One-way ANOVAs tested any intergroup differences
in percentage change. The reliability of T
R
, T
W
, 1RM
BP
, and
1RM
PO
measurements was assessed using intraclass corre-
lation coefcients (ICCs). The p #0.05 criterion was used for
establishing statistical differences throughout (we accepted
p # 0.05, whether positive or negative differences, that is,
a 2-tailed test).
RESULTS
The ICCs for measurements of strength and throwing
velocity were all quite high: 1RM
BP
= 0.99, 1RM
PO
= 0.98,
T
W
= 0.98, T
R
= 0.96.
The muscle power of both training groups increased rela-
tive to the control regimen (Table 4). The typical parabolic
relationship of power to velocity was seen in both training
groups before and after training (Figure 1), with increases
after training. Both programs enhanced absolute muscle
power, although this advantaged disappeared if power was
expressed per unit of limb volume (Figure 2).
Training increased 1RM
PO
and 1RM
BP
(Table 4, Figure 3),
with HR gaining substantially relative to controls over the
course of the trial (p , 0.001 for both comparisons). More-
over, HR induced larger strength increments than ML,
because their 1RM
PO
and 1RM
BP
values were statistically
different (p ,0.05 and p ,0.01, respectively). Both programs
also enhanced the 2 indices of throwing performance
(T
W
and T
R
) (Table 5, Figure 4), although the gain was
signicantly greater for HR than for MR (Figure 4).
DISCUSSION
Our ndings substantiate our hypothesis that short-term in-
season resistance training enhances the PP output, throwing
velocity, and upper limb strength of experienced trained male
handball players, whether a heavy or a moderate loading is
used (Figure 4). A few previous studies have examined the
effects of concentric exercise on the muscle power, throwing,
and strength of handball players (10,12,24), but to the
authors knowledge, this is the rst study to compare the
players gains of PP, throwing velocity, and strength
adaptations at moderate and heavy loads, using successive
eccentricconcentric exercises such as the pull-over and the
bench press.
This group participated in a 10-week supervised in-season
strength training program, with a frequency of 2 sessions per
week. Each session included 2 exercises for the upper limbs
(Pull-over and Bench press). Loads were 8095% of the
personal 1RM, based on a succession of eccentricconcentric
muscle contractions at a slow velocity, and rest intervals of
34 minutes between sets. Relative to controls, HR showed
improvements in both absolute muscle power (W) (11.3%;
p , 0.01) and the relative power (Wkg
21
) (11.6%; p , 0.01)
for the upper limbs, but no changes when power was
expressed per liter of upper limb muscle volume (WL
21
)
(Figure 2). This might suggest that the gain in muscle power
was largely attributable to an increase in regional muscle
volume. However, this would be a little surprising, because
resistance training with a heavy load does not usually induce
a signicant increase in muscle volume. In fact, the average
percentage increase of muscle power per unit of muscle
volume (WL
21
) for HR (8.3 6 5.1%) tended to be higher
than for MR or C (3.1 6 4.8 and 2.9 6 7.8%, respectively),
although with the small size of our groups and the higher
SD of the relative measurements, intergroup differences were
not statistically signicant (Figure 2). Moreover, increases in
upper limb muscle volume over the course of the trial did not
differ substantially or signicantly between HR and C (2.9 6
3. vs. 2.2 6 3.6%) (Figure 2, Table 4). This leads us to suggest
that HR training did not increase muscle bulk appreciably
and that the increase in muscle power induced by the
HR program reects neuronal adaptation, a well-accepted
response to HR training (31).
Schmidtbleicher (31) dened power as the greatest
impulse the neuromuscular system could produce in a given
time. Heavy loads are fundamental to power development,
because high forces are associated with maximal motor unit
recruitment according to the size principle, with units also
ring at higher frequencies (2,26). High force development
may also inhibit force-feedback reexes from the Golgi
tendon organs or improve the synchronization of motor unit
ring (16,21,30). In terms of muscle growth, the development
of large forces is also important to the remodeling of muscle
tissue (protein synthesis and degradation) (9,23). The
development of large forces stimulates receptor and
membrane sensitivities, and muscle growth factors, thereby
triggering an increase in protein turnover and the accretion of
muscle protein (5). Heavy loading, particularly when the
muscle is actively stretched, may further mediate muscle
tissue growth by inducing greater reversible tissue damage
(such damage seems a stimulus to muscle hypertrophy).
Given the importance of large forces to the adaptative
process, heavy training loads would appear to offer the
optimal stimulus to development of muscle power.
Although the prescription of a load based upon the
maximizing of mechanical power output appears to be an
attractive strategy to enhance the power of the limbs,
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
performance may be critically dependent on the ability to
exert force at speeds specic to a given athletic discipline.
Although a powerful action is often associated with rapid
velocities (e.g., in sprinting, jumping, and throwing), other
activities such as lifting also have an important power
component (5). In our study, longer contraction durations
were associated with heavier loads; the prescription of such
loads would seem best suited to maximizing strength (22).
Many authors have replicated the nding of Gorostiaga et al.
(12) that resistance training improves the strength of the leg
extensors (12.2%; p , 0.01) and the upper extremity muscles
(23%; p , 0.01), whereas no changes are seen in a non-
resistance activity (team handball practice) or a control
group. However, in our study, gains of maximal strength for
the upper limbs were larger (HR: 57 and 16% for pull-over
and bench press, respectively; MR: 28 and 6% for pull-over
and bench press, respectively; C: 4 and 1% for pull-over and
bench press, respectively) (Figure 3) than observed by
Gorostiaga et al. (12). This could reect differences in either
the initial status of the players or the training programs and
the training exercises.
Gorostiaga et al. (10) studied the effect of an entire season
of play (45 weeks) on the powerload relationships for the
arm extensor muscles of elite male handball players. They
examined performance on 4 occasions: the beginning (T1) of
the rst preparatory period, at the beginning (T2) and the
end (T3) of the rst competitive period, and at the end of the
second competitive period (T4). Training was periodized
from a high-volume, low-intensity phase during the pre-
paratory period to a low-volume, high-intensity phase
toward the competitive period. Values of 1RM
BP
obtained
at T3 increased signicantly (p , 0.01) compared with T1
(10). This result agrees well with our ndings, because we
noted a signicant enhancement (p , 0.001) in both 1RM
PO
and 1RM
BP
for HR relative to C (Figure 3). The closer
increase of 1RM upper limb strength in our study could be
explained by the greater number of weekly training sessions
of Gorostiaga et al. (10). Moreover, it is more difcult to
increase the strength of trained athletes than younger and
inexperienced subjects (31). Recently Marqueset al. (24)
examined the effect of 12 weeks of resistance training (23
sessions per week) in high-level handball; their loadings were
in the range 7085% of concentric 1RM
BP
. They noted a 28%
increase of 1RM
BP
, However our HR group improved their
1RM
BP
by only 16% (Table 4, Figure 3), probably because of
participation in fewer weekly sessions for a shorter period.
It is well known that MR training (around 70% 1RM)
increases regional muscle volume (22). Our MR results are in
agreement, showing signicant increments of upper limb
muscle volume relative to C and HR (Table 4, Figure 2). The
loads were 5575% of 1RM for both the pull-over and bench
press exercises; subjects executed 36 repetitions per set of
each successive eccentricconcentric exercise as rapidly as
possible, with a rest interval of only 1-1.3 minutes between
sets (Table 3). Ten weeks of moderate strength training
yielded considerable gains in upper limb muscle volume,
which could explain the signicant enhancement of PP
output relative to C (p , 0.05, Figure 2). This view is
supported by the disappearance of the difference when PP
output is expressed relative to body mass and especially to
upper limb muscle volume (Table 4, Figure 2). Our
observations further show that whether expressed in absolute
units or relative to body mass or muscle volume, the power
increases in the MR group did not differ signicantly from
HR. Although the percentage gain for MR was signicantly
greater than for C, it remained smaller than that for HR
(Figure 2). This nding suggests that although short periods
of MR training yield some gains of upper limb muscle power
output, the response is less than could have been obtained
with high resistance training.
As with power gain, upper limb muscle strength (whether
assessed by 1RM pull-over or bench press) increased after
moderate strength training, with gains of 24 and 6% for
1RM
PO
and 1RM
BP
, respectively (Figure 3). However, such
gains did not statistically surpass the gains seen in those
following the control regimen, and they were signicantly
less than those seen with HR training (p ,0.05 and p ,0.01,
respectively). These results lead us to think that any trend to
an increase of strength with MR training is insufcient to
demonstrate a statistically signicant and practically impor-
tant difference. When training the upper limbs, heavy loads
are important to enhancing strength.
The 10-week period of HR training led to a considerable
gain in throwing velocities. The mean velocity of T
R
increased
from 14.6 6 1.4 to 20.8 6 1.04 ms
21
(Table 5), a 42% gain
(p , 0.01). In contrast, the controls improved their throwing
velocity by only 9% (Figure 4). Similarly, T
W
showed a
statistically signicant of 34% in HR (p , 0.05), whereas the
change in controls was only 9%. It is difcult to compare the
results of the few studies that have measured throwing velo-
cities in male handball players because they differ markedly
in a number of design factors, including the method of
measurement (photoelectric cells, radar, cinematography)
(8,12,25,35), handball weight, players ages and skill levels
(amateur or professional), and throwing techniques (stand-
ing, 3-step running throw, jump shot). Differences in the
intensity of training may also have contributed to conicting
results. Our data seem in accordance with the ndings of
Gorostiaga et al. (12), who noted a signicant enhancement
(p , 0.001) of standing handball throwing velocity after 6
weeks of heavy upper limb resistance training. However, for
these last authors, the training exercises were the supine
bench press, half squat, knee exion curl, leg press, and pec-
dec, (12) quite different exercises from those used in our
study. Given the training-induced adaptations observed in
the present study, we would conclude that both of the
programs that we evaluated boosted handball throwing
velocity. However, the heavy load training was superior, in
that it enhanced both throwing modes (T
R
and T
W
) (Figure 4).
Certainly, a combination of strength, handball technique, and
the TM
competitive skills training signicantly enhanced maximal
and specic-explosive strength of the upper extremity over
the 10-week program. The increase in maximal upper limb
strength should give players an advantage in sustaining the
forceful muscle contractions required during actions such as
throwing, hitting, blocking, pushing, and holding (10). The
increased velocity in both modes of throwing (T
R
and T
W
) is
likely of major importance to successful play, because elite
handball players achieve substantially higher velocities than
lower level competitors (89% advantage in men [11] and
1011% advantage in women [13]). Our study demonstrated
a considerable (43%) increase of throwing velocity in response
to eccentricconcentric pull-over and bench press training
exercises. A combination of high velocity and accurate
throwing seem critical factors for success in handball (11,13).
Although the neurophysiological mechanisms contributing to
the increased throwing velocity are unknown, possible factors
include more effective neural activation (17), a selective
increase in cross-sectional area of the fast-twitch bers (17),
changes in intrinsic muscular properties (7), an increase in
myosinadenosine triphosphatase activity (14), better syn-
chronization of motor units (27), and a higher ring frequency
(15). Schmidtbleicher (31) attributed the increase of muscle
performance after heavy training to the size principle of motor
recruitment. In their view, heavy training was needed to ensure
the recruitment of fast-twitch motor units; low loads did
not overload the muscle sufciently to induce an adaptation.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The current study indicates that with only 2 sessions per
week, 10 weeks of in-season bench press and pull-over
resistance training with suitably adapted heavy loads elicits
substantial enhancements in PP output, dynamic strength,
and handball throwing velocity in male handball players.
Moreover, this regimen is more effective than training
at a lighter loading. It is quite practical to add this type
of resistance training to traditional in-season technical and
tactical handball training activities. We also recommend
bench press and pull-over training for players who
are regularly involved in other strength training programs
to reduce the risk of injury during a game. There are many
potential neuromuscular explanations of the observed
changes in performance, and these merit furtherinvestiga-
tion; when the mechanisms are understood, it may be
possible to realize even larger gains of performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Ministe re de lenseigne-
ment supe rieur et de la Recherche Scientique, Tunisia for
nancial support.
REFERENCES
1. Arsac, LM, Belli, A, and Lacour, JR. Muscle function during
brief maximal exercise: Accurate measurements on a friction-loaded
cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74: 100106, 1996.
2. Behm, DG. Neuromuscular implications and applications of
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 9: 264274, 1995.
3. Bouhlel, E, Chelly, MS, Tabka, Z, and Shephard, R. Relationships
between maximal anaerobic power of the arms and legs and
javelin performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 47: 141146,
2007.
4. Chelly, MS, Fathloun, M, Cherif, N, Ben Amar, M, Tabka, Z, and Van
Praagh, E. Effects of a back squat training program on leg power,
jump-and sprint performances in junior soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 22412249, 2009.
5. Crewther, B, Cronin, J, and Keogh, J. Possible stimuli for strength and
power adaptation: Acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 35: 967
989, 2005.
6. Delamarche, P, Gratas, A, Beillot, J, Dassonville, J, Rochcongar, P,
and Lessard, Y. Extent of lactic anaerobic metabolism in handballers.
Int J Sports Med 8: 5559, 1987.
7. Duchateau, J and Hainaut, K. Isometric or dynamic training:
Differential effects on mechanical properties of a human muscle.
J Appl Physiol 56: 296301, 1984.
8. Fleck, SJ, Smith, SL, Craib, MW, Denahan, T, Snow, RE, and
Mitchell, MR. Upper extremity isokinetic torque and throwing
velocity in team handball. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6: 120124, 1992.
9. Fowles, JR, MacDougall, JD, Tarnopolsky, MA, Sale, DG,
Roy, BD, and Yarasheski, KE. The effects of acute passive stretch
on muscle protein synthesis in humans. Can J Appl Physiol 25:
165180, 2000.
10. Gorostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Iban ez, J, Gonza lez-Badillo, JJ, and
Izquierdo, M. Effects of an entire season on physical tness
changes in elite male handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38:
357366, 2006.
11. Gorostiaga, EM, Granados, C, Iba n ez, J, and Izquierdo, M.
Differences in physical tness and throwing velocity among elite
and amateur male handball players. Int J Sports Med 26: 225232,
2005.
12. Gorostiaga, EM, Izquierdo, M, Iturralde, P, Ruesta, M, and
Iba n ez, J. Effects of heavy resistance training on maximal and
explosive force production, endurance and serum hormones in
adolescent handball players. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
80: 485493, 1999.
13. Granados, C, Izquierdo, M, Iban ez, J, Bonnabau, H, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Differences in physical tness and throwing
velocity among elite and amateur female handball players. Int J
Sports Med 28: 860867, 2007.
14. Granados, C, Izquierdo, M, Iba n ez, J, Ruesta, M, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Effects of an entire season on physical tness in
elite female handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 351361, 2008.
15. Grimby, L, Hannerz, J, and Hedman, B. The fatigue and voluntary
discharge properties of single motor units in man. J Physiol 316:
545554, 1981.
16. Ha kkinen, K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during
strength and power training. A review. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
29: 926, 1989.
17. Ha kkinen, K, Ale n, M, and Komi, PV. Changes in isometric force-
and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle bre character-
istics of human skeletal muscle during strength training and
detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 125: 573585, 1985.
18. Hoff, J and Almasbakk, B. The effects of maximum strength training
on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female team-handball
players. J Strength Cond Res 9: 255258, 1995.
19. Izquierdo, M, Ha kkinen, K, Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ, Iba n ez, J, and
Gorostiaga, EM. Effects of long-term training specicity on
maximal strength and power of the upper and lower extremities in
athletes from different sports. Eur J Appl Physiol 87: 264271, 2002.
20. Jones, PR and Pearson, J. Anthropometric determination of leg fat
and muscle plus bone volumes in young male and female adults.
J Physiol 204: 6366, 1969.
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
21. Komi, PV. Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction of
neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int J Sports Med
7: 1015, 1986.
22. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, and Triplett-
McBride, T. Progression models in resistance training for healthy
adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364380, 2002.
23. Lieber, RL and Fride n, J. Muscle damage is not a function of muscle
force but active muscle strain. J Appl Physiol 74: 520526, 1993.
24. Marques, MC and Gonza lez-Badillo, JJ. In-season resistance training
and detraining in professional team handball players. J Strength Cond
Res 20: 563571, 2006.
25. Marques, MC, van den Tillaar, R, Vescovi, JD, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ.
Relationship between throwing velocity, muscle power, and bar velocity
during bench press in elite handball players. IJSPP 2: 414422, 2007.
26. McDonagh, MJ and Davies, CT. Adaptive response of mammalian
skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 52: 139155, 1984.
27. Milner-Brown, HS, Stein, RB, and Lee, RG. Synchronization of
human motor units: Possible roles of exercise and supraspinal
reexes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 38: 245254, 1975.
28. Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, Humphries, BJ, Wilson, GJ, Kraemer, WJ,
and Ha kkinen, K. Inuence of load and stretch shortening cycle
on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during
explosive upper-body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol
75: 333342, 1997.
29. Rannou, F, Prioux, J, Zouhal, H, Gratas-Delamarche, A, and
Delamarche, P. Physiological prole of handball players. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 41: 349353, 2001.
30. Sale, D. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength and Power
in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. London, United Kingdom: Blackwell, 1992.
pp. 249265.
31. Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events. In: Strength and
Power in Sport. P.V. Komi, ed. London, United Kingdom: Blackwell,
1992. pp. 381395.
32. Shephard, RJ, Bouhlel, E, Vandewalle, H, and Monod, H. Muscle
mass as a factor limiting physical work. J Appl Physiol 64: 14721479,
1988.
33. Shephard, RJ, Vandewalle, H, Bouhlel, E, and Monod, H. Sex
differences of physical working capacity in normoxia and hypoxia.
Ergonomics 31: 11771192, 1988.
34. van den Tillaar, R. Effect of different training programs on the
velocity of overarm throwing: A brief review. J Strength Cond Res
18: 388396, 2004.
35. van den Tillaar, R and Ettema, G. Effect of body size and gender in
overarm throwing performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 413418,
2004.
36. Vandewalle, H, Pe re` s, G, and Monod, H. Standard anaerobic
exercise tests. Sports Med 4: 268289, 1987.
37. Womersley, J and Durnin, JV. An experimental study on variability of
measurements of skinfold thickness on young adults. Hum Biol
45: 281292, 1973.
the TM

Hermassi Et Al. 2010 The Effect of Heavy Vs Moderate Load Training

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Hermassi Et Al. 2010 The Effect of Heavy Vs Moderate Load Training

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

THE EFFECT OF HEAVY- VS.

También podría gustarte