The effect of high and low velocity-based training on the throwing performance of collegiate handball players

The intensity of strength training exercise is generally regarded to be the most essential element in developing muscle strength and power. The exercise intensity of strength training is known as one-repetition maximum (1RM). Velocity-based training (VBT) has been proposed as a different approach fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPeerJ (San Francisco, CA) Vol. 10; p. e14049
Main Authors Abuajwa, Bassam, Hamlin, Mike, Hafiz, Eliza, Razman, Rizal
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States PeerJ. Ltd 28.09.2022
PeerJ, Inc
PeerJ Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The intensity of strength training exercise is generally regarded to be the most essential element in developing muscle strength and power. The exercise intensity of strength training is known as one-repetition maximum (1RM). Velocity-based training (VBT) has been proposed as a different approach for determining training intensity. VBT relies on the use of linear position transducers and inertial measurement units, providing real-time feedback to objectively adjust the exercise intensity based on an athlete's velocity zone. This study investigated the effects of two different training interventions based on individualized load velocity profiles (LVP) on maximal bench press strength ( , 1RM), maximum throwing velocity (TV), and skeletal muscle mass (SKMM). Twenty-two university handball players were randomly assigned to Group 1 (low-movement speed training) or Group 2 (high-movement speed training). Group 1 exercised with a bar speed of 0.75-0.96 m/s, which corresponds to a resistance of approximately 60% 1RM, whereas Group 2 trained at 1.03-1.20 m/s, corresponding to a resistance of approximately 40% 1RM. Both groups exercised three times a week for five weeks, with strength and throwing tests performed at baseline and post-intervention. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was applied, and the results showed the interaction between group and time was not statistically significant for SKMM (  = 0.537), 1RM (  = 0.883), or TV (  = 0.774). However, both groups significantly improved after the five weeks of training: SKMM (3.1% and 3.5%,  < 0.01), 1RM (15.5% and 15.0%,  < 0.01), and throwing velocity (18.7% and 18.3%,  < 0.01) in Group 1 and 2 respectively. Training at both prescribed velocities in this study elicited similar changes in strength, muscle mass, and throwing velocity.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:2167-8359
2167-8359
DOI:10.7717/peerj.14049