Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (Jun 2019)
Playing Level and Position Differences in Body Characteristics and Physical Fitness Performance Among Male Team Handball Players
Abstract
The primary aim of the study was to examine the anthropometric characteristics, as well as the physical performance of professional handball players classified by playing position and competition level. Twenty male players (age: 20.4 ± 0.88 years) from the first handball league and 18 male players (age: 21.3 ± 1.61 years) from the second handball league were categorized as backs (8/8), pivots (5/4), and wings (7/6). The following variables were measured in both groups: peak power; vertical squat jump (SJ), and countermovement jump (CMJ); sprint times over 15 and 30 m; handball throwing velocity during the jump shot (JS); and 3 steps shot (T3 step); upper and lower limb muscle volumes; Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test. Anthropometric data revealed significantly (p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.248) less muscle volume for second league players (3.13 ± 0.29 l) than for first league (3.71 ± 0.82 l). The cross-sectional area for the first league players was also larger (p = 0.010, ηp2 = 0.192). Regarding performance parameters, we found significant (p < 0.05 and ηp2 > 0.20) league differences in five of 15 (33%) performance parameters: running throw (ηp2 = 0.285), SJ power (ηp2 = 0.670), SJ velocity (ηp2 = 0.900), peak upper limb power (ηp2 = 0.231) and Yo-Yo-IR 1 (ηp2 = 0.348). The second league players showed higher SJ velocity than the first league players (ηp2 = 0.900). In contrast, we detected a greater difference in SJ power (ηp2 = 0.670) but in favor of the first league players. Pivots were the players with the highest throwing velocity and wings were the fastest (15, 30 m sprint), strongest (countermovement jump), and most enduring (Yo-Yo-IR 1) athletes. Backs showed consistently the lowest level throwing velocity and sprint performance (exception: second league). The anthropometric differences between playing levels and playing positions may indicate the advantageous characteristics that the respective position demands, whereas the playing position differences in physical fitness characteristics may indicate training specificity issues that must be addressed cautiously.
Keywords
