| Literature DB >> 24235989 |
Pantelis T Nikolaidis1, Jørgen Ingebrigtsen.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine possible discriminant physical and physiological characteristics between elite male handball players from elite teams with different league rankings. Players from three teams (A, B and C), which competed in the first league of the Greek championship during the season 2011-2012 participated in the study. Team A finished first, B came second and C came eighth out of eleven clubs. Teams A and B also participated in European Cups, and team A won the European Challenge Cup. The players (n=44) were examined for anthropometric characteristics and performed a series of physical fitness tests. Players from teams A and B were taller (6.2 cm (0.7;11.7), mean difference (95% CI) and 9.2 cm (4.0;14.5), respectively), and had a higher amount of fat free mass (6.4 kg (1.1;11.8) and 5.4 kg (0.2;10.5)) compared to those of team C. Players from team A performed better than players from team C in the squat jump (5.5 cm (1.0;10.0)), the countermovement jump without (5.5 cm (0.4;10.6)) and with arm-swing (6.0 cm (0.7;11.3)) and in the 30 s Bosco test (5.7 W·kg-1 (1.2;10.2)). Also, players from team A outperformed team B in mean power during the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT, 0.5 W·kg-1(0;0.9)) and in the Bosco test (7.8 W·kg-1 (3.4;12.2)). Overall, players from the best ranked team performed better than the lowest ranked team on WAnT, vertical jumps and the Bosco test. Stepwise discriminant analysis showed that stature and mean power during the Bosco test were the most important characteristics in TH players, accounting for 54.6% of the variance in team ranking. These findings indicate the contribution of particular physical fitness components (stature, fat free mass and anaerobic power) to excellence in TH. In addition, the use of the Bosco test as an assessment tool in talent identification and physical fitness monitoring in this sport is further recommended.Entities:
Keywords: anaerobic power; anthropometry; discriminant variables; handball; physical fitness; sport excellence
Year: 2013 PMID: 24235989 PMCID: PMC3827752 DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2013-0051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Kinet ISSN: 1640-5544 Impact factor: 2.193
Physical characteristics of participants with ANOVA and Tukey post –hoc indicating mean differences between the players of the teams
| Team A (n = 14) | Team C (n = 13) | Team C (n = 13) | ANOVA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 24.0±5.7 | 27.2±6.7 | 25.0±5.8 | F2,41 = 1.16, p = 0.323 |
| Body mass (kg) | 87.6±9.0 | 87.5±9.8 | 81.8±8.7 | F2,41 = 1.76, p = 0.185 |
| Stature (cm) | 185.1±6.5[ | 188.2±6.1[ | 179.0±4.7[ | F2,41 = 9.22, p = 0.000 |
| BMI (kg·m−2) | 25.6±2.4 | 24.7±2.4 | 25.6±2.7 | F2,41 = 0.60, p = 0.552 |
| BF (%) | 16.6±3.6 | 17.8±4.0 | 18.6±4.0 | F2,41 = 0.96, p = 0.392 |
| FFM (kg) | 72.8±5.3[ | 71.7±6.2[ | 66.4±5.5[ | F2,41 = 4.94, p = 0.012 |
| WHR | 0.82±0.03 | 0.80±0.05 | 0.81±0.03 | F2,41 = 0.60, p = 0.553 |
| Endomorphy | 3.3±1.0 | 3.6±1.0 | 4.1±1.4 | F2,41 = 1.98, p = 0.151 |
| Mesomorphy | 5.2±1.2 | 4.9±1.1 | 5.7±1.2 | F2,41 = 1.54, p = 0.226 |
| Ectomorphy | 2.1±1.0 | 2.5±1.1 | 1.7±1.0 | F2,41 = 2.22, p = 0.121 |
Data are mean±SD. BMI was body mass index, BF body fat percentage, FFM fat-free mass, WHR waist-to-hip ratio.
The letters A, B or C when presenting as exponents denote that the column’s group differs from the respective group
Physiological characteristics of, and differences between, participants assessed by one-way ANOVA and a Tukey post-hoc
| Team A (n = 14) | Team B (n = 17) | Team C (n = 13) | ANOVA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWC170 (W·kg−1) | 3.3±0.5 | 2.9±0.6 | 2.9±0.8 | F2,39 = 1.89, p = 0.164 |
| Pmax (W·kg−1) | 13.2±2.3 | 14.8±1.8 | 13.9±2.7 | F2,38 = 2.02, p = 0.147 |
| Pmean (W·kg−1) | 8.8±0.4[ | 8.3±0.5[ | 8.3±0.6[ | F2,39 = 4.34, p = 0.020 |
| SAR (cm) | 21.8±8.7 | 21.2±10.5 | 24.4±9.2 | F2,41 = 0.42, p = 0.658 |
| HST (kg·kg−1) | 1.3±0.2 | 1.3±0.2 | 1.4±0.2 | F2,41 = 0.70, p = 0.504 |
| SJ (cm) | 36.5±4.5[ | 33.5±4.7 | 31.0±4.8[ | F2,38 = 4.70, p = 0.015 |
| CMJ (cm) | 37.7±3.7[ | 36.4±5.7 | 32.2±6.2[ | F2,38 = 3.89, p = 0.029 |
| CMJarm (cm) | 46.6±4.1[ | 43.1±6.1 | 40.6±6.1[ | F2,38 = 4.05, p = 0.026 |
| Bosco (W·kg−1) | 38.8±3.7[ | 31.0±4.6[ | 33.0±5.5[ | F2,38 = 10.57, p = 0.000 |
Data are mean±SD. PWC170 physical working capacity in heart rate 170 beats/min, Pmax=maximal power output estimated by the Force-velocity test, Pmean= mean power during the Wingate anaerobic test, SAR=sit-and-reach test, HST=handgrip strength test, SJ=squat jump, CMJ= countermovement jump, CMJarm countermovement jump with arm-swing.
The letters A, B or C when presenting as exponents denotes that the column’s group is significantly higher compared to the respective group
Summary of stepwise discriminant analysis by team
| Wilks’ lambda | F | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step | Entered | Statistic | df1 | df2 | df3 | Statistic | df1 | df2 | Significance |
| 1 | Bosco mean power (W·kg−1) | 0.599 | 1 | 2 | 34 | 11.358 | 2 | 34 | <0.001 |
| 2 | Stature (cm) | 0.454 | 2 | 2 | 34 | 7.979 | 4 | 66 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Jumping performances of participants according to their team. SJ=squat jump, CMJ=countermovement jump without arm-swing, CMJarm=countermovement jump with arm-swing and Bosco=mean power during 30 s modified Bosco test. *p<0.05, †p<0.01 and ‡p<0.001 significance level of the Tukey post-hoc test