Author(s): VÅRVIK, F.T., RAASTAD, T.1,2, TORSTVEIT, M.K.1, RUIVEN, M.V.1, GUDDAL, M.1, KRISTIANSEN, S.1, AARRESTAD, S.1, LUND, A.B.1, BJØRNSEN, T.1, Institution: UNIVERSITY OF AGDER, Country: NORWAY, Abstract-ID: 2391

INTRODUCTION:
Handball players often combine strength and power training for additive performance benefits. However, in-season handball-specific training and matches include high-intensity actions questioning the benefit of adding power training in this period. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the effect of high-load versus combined high-load and power training on strength and power capacities during the competitive season in handball players.
METHODS:
Twenty-nine (11 males) high-level handball players were randomized into high-load strength training (HL; n=15, 20±3 years) and combined high-load and power training (COM; n=14, 22±3 years). Training sessions were conducted twice weekly for 15 weeks, with weekly supervision. Per week, the HL group completed 5-9 sets per muscle group (80-85% one-rep max [RM]), and the COM completed 2-4 high-load sets, 56-66 bodyweight jumps, and 4-7 sets of power exercises (≤50% 1RM). Outcomes pre- and post-intervention included 1RM squat and bench press, maximal isometric strength (MVC) and rate of force development (RFD; 0-30, -50, -100, and -250ms time intervals), pneumatic resistance leg press maximal power (Pmax), countermovement jump (CMJ) height and power; 10- and 30m linear sprint and change of direction (CoD) times (4x180 turns). Subjective readiness was rated using a 5-point Likert scale before all matches. The data were analyzed with t-tests and are reported as mean change with 95% confidence intervals or standard deviations.
RESULTS:
Over 15 weeks, players engaged in ~one match and four handball training sessions per week. Training attendance was 87±11% in the HL group and 84±13% in the COM group. MVC and CMJ power increased 6.6% (1.2, 12.1, p<0.02) and 5.7% (0.9, 10.6 p<0.03) more in HL versus COM, but the change in jump height did not differ between groups (HL: 0.8±4.9%, COM: -1.4±7.9%, p=0.13). No other between-group differences were observed (p=0.14-0.9). Squat 1RM increased in both groups (HL: 6.7±2.9%, COM: 5.6±3.5%, p<0.01); 1RM bench press improved in HL (5.3±7.3%, p<0.02) but not in COM (0.9±5.8%). Leg press Pmax increased only in HL (3.9±5.1%, p<0.02, COM: 2.4±4.1%, p=0.07). RFD time points from 0-100 to -250ms improved by 15-18% in HL (p<0.02), while COM improved 0-30 and -50ms by 20-33% and -100ms by 12% (p<0.03). CoD time improved in COM (-1.5±1.9%, p<0.04) but not in HL (-1.3±2.8%, p=0.12). Match readiness was rated high with no group differences (HL: 3.9±0.5, COM: 3.8±0.5).
CONCLUSION:
In general, more favorable adaptations were observed with the HL training regime compared to COM training. Nevertheless, only the COM group improved RFD in the early phase (0-30 and -50ms), suggesting certain velocity-specific adaptations, but these improvements did not transfer to other power metrics or performance improvements. Importantly, the HL group did not impair match readiness. Consequently, high-load strength training should likely be emphasized for in-season maximal strength and power enhancement in high-level handball players.