| Literature DB >> 33206670 |
Bjørn Fristrup1,2,3,4, Peter Krustrup1,5,6, Jesper L Andersen2, Therese Hornstrup3, Frederik T Løwenstein3, Mikkel A Larsen3, Jørn W Helge4, Susana C A Póvoas1,7, Per Aagaard8.
Abstract
Prolonged physical inactivity in young adults may lead to deficiencies in musculoskeletal fitness, and thus a need exists to develop physical activity and exercise programmes that are effective of increasing musculoskeletal fitness. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate the effects of small-sided team handball training on lower limb muscle strength, postural balance and body composition in young adults. Twenty-six men and twenty-eight women were stratified for peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and body fat percentage and randomly allocated to either 12 wks of small-sided recreational team handball training (THG: 14 men and 14 women, age 24.1±2.6 yrs (mean±SD), VO2peak 39.8±5.9 ml/kg/min and body fat percentage 32.7±8.7%) or serving as non-exercising controls (CON: 12 men and 14 women, age 24.8±3.1 yrs, VO2peak 39.7±5.0 ml/kg/min, body fat percentage 31.7±9.7%). THG trained on average 1.8 times/week for 12 wks. At 0 and 12 wks, lower limb muscle strength, rate of force development (RFD), vertical jump height and power, postural balance, body composition and muscle biopsies were assessed. No training effects were observed for maximal isokinetic or isometric knee extensor strength, maximal vertical jump height or take-off power, fibre type distribution or capillarization. Late phase (RFD) increased (+7.4%, p<0.05) and postural sway excursion length was improved after training (-9%, p<0.05) in THG with no difference from CON (p>0.05). Further, THG demonstrated a decrease in body fat percentage (-3.7%) accompanied by increases in whole-body fat free mass (FFM) (+2.2%), leg FFM (+2.5%), total bone mineral content (BMC) (+1.1%), leg BMC (+1.2%), total hip bone mineral density (+1.6%) and hip T-score (+50%) which differed from CON (all p<0.05). In conclusion, recreational small-sided team handball training appears to effectively improve rapid force capacity, postural balance, lean and fat body mass and bone health in previously untrained young adults. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04247724). ClinicalTrials.gov ID number: NCT04247724.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33206670 PMCID: PMC7673568 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Anthropometric characteristics of study participants.
| Variable | THG | CON |
|---|---|---|
| Study participants | 28 | 26 |
| (m/w) | (14/14) | (12/14) |
| (50%/50%) | (46%/54%) | |
| Age (yrs) | 24.1 ± 2.6 | 24.8 ± 3.1 |
| Height (cm) | 176.1 ± 8.6 | 176.0 ± 9.8 |
| Weight (kg) | 80.1 ± 16.6 | 78.4 ± 15.8 |
| BMI | 25.8 ± 4.6 | 25.2 ± 3.6 |
| VO2peak (ml-O2/kg/min) | 39.8 ± 5.9 | 39.7 ± 5.0 |
Data represents means ± standard deviation. Number of study participants presented as total number and distribution into men (m) and women (w).
Fig 1Participant recruitment.
Flow diagram depicting the inclusion/exclusion of study participants in the initial phase of enrolment and during the subsequent phases of intervention allocation, post testing, and data analysis.
Muscle fibre (VL) and capillary analysis.
| Baseline | 12 wks | Change from baseline | Percentage change from baseline | T-distribution | df | With-in group | F-ratio | Time x group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Type I (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 11 (0) | 47.0 | 14.8 | 39.2 | 14.6 | -7.8 | 16.9 | -16.6% | 1.531 | 10 | 0.157 | 0.033 | 0.859 |
| CON n = 9 (0) | 45.7 | 14.4 | 39.1 | 13.1 | -6.6 | 11.5 | -14.4% | 1.722 | 8 | 0.123 | ||
| Type IIa (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 11 (0) | 37.6 | 11.0 | 44.2 | 9.3 | 6.6 | 13.0 | 17.6% | -1.689 | 10 | 0.122 | 0.629 | 0.438 |
| CON n = 9 (0) | 34.6 | 7.2 | 37.2 | 11.3 | 2.6 | 8.2 | 7.7% | -0.964 | 8 | 0.363 | ||
| Type IIx (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 11 (0) | 15.5 | 9.9 | 16.6 | 10.7 | 1.1 | 11.7 | 7.4% | -0.325 | 10 | 0.752 | 0.216 | 0.648 |
| CON n = 9 (0) | 19.8 | 13.1 | 23.7 | 9.1 | 3.9 | 15.1 | 19.9% | -0.779 | 8 | 0.458 | ||
| Type I (μm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 5246 | 1055 | 6572 | 2004 | 1326 | 1756 | 25.3% | -1.998 | 6 | 0.093 | 1.573 | 0.234 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 5125 | 1568 | 5207 | 644 | 82 | 1951 | 1.6% | -0.111 | 0 | 0.915 | ||
| Type IIa (μm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 7064 | 1300 | 7877 | 3216 | 814 | 3145 | 11.5% | -0.684 | 6 | 0.519 | 0.362 | 0.559 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 6682 | 2627 | 6653 | 1163 | -30 | 1965 | -0.4% | 0.040 | 6 | 0.970 | ||
| Type IIx (μm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 6640 | 1902 | 5859 | 2620 | -781 | 3595 | -11.8% | 0.575 | 6 | 0.586 | 0.239 | 0.634 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 5283 | 2326 | 5222 | 1767 | -61 | 1511 | -1.2% | 0.107 | 6 | 0.918 | ||
| Type I (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 38.8 | 15.6 | 38.8 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 0.0% | -0.003 | 6 | 0.998 | 0.037 | 0.851 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 35.4 | 13.0 | 36.9 | 16.2 | 1.6 | 15.7 | 4.5% | -0.266 | 6 | 0.799 | ||
| Type IIa (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 45.5 | 15.4 | 50.2 | 9.0 | 4.7 | 15.4 | 10.4% | -0.813 | 6 | 0.447 | 0.290 | 0.600 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 43.5 | 11.1 | 44.2 | 10.5 | 0.7 | 12.6 | 1.6% | -0.144 | 6 | 0.890 | ||
| Type IIx (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 15.7 | 12.5 | 11.0 | 8.5 | -4.7 | 9.0 | -30.2% | 1.393 | 6 | 0.213 | 0.202 | 0.661 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 21.2 | 12.5 | 18.9 | 9.4 | -2.3 | 11.0 | -11.0% | 0.560 | 6 | 0.596 | ||
| Cap./fibre | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 2.1 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 4.8% | -0.444 | 6 | 0.673 | 0.147 | 0.708 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 1.9 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.5 | -0.4% | 0.036 | 6 | 0.973 | ||
| Cap./mm2 | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 7 (0) | 346.4 | 37.4 | 342.3 | 127.9 | -4.1 | 127.0 | -1.2% | 0.086 | 6 | 0.934 | 0.044 | 0.838 |
| CON n = 7 (0) | 355.6 | 90.4 | 339.9 | 50.1 | -15.7 | 72.3 | -4.4% | 0.575 | 6 | 0.586 | ||
*Different from baseline (p≤0.05). Data reflects analysis of muscle biopsies from the men in both the team handball group (THG) and control group (CON) before (baseline) and after (12 wks) the intervention period. Means ± standard deviation at baseline and after 12 wks intervention is presented. Mean change score and standard deviation for each group (change from baseline) and percentage change from baseline is also presented. Table 4 shows furthermore the within-group T-distribution degrees of freedom (df) and p-values, along with F-ratio and between-group p-values.
Fig 2Late phase (0–200 ms) rate of force development (RFD).
Late phase (0–200 ms) rate of force development (RFD) assessed during maximal isometric knee extensor strength (MVIC) testing at baseline (black columns) and following (grey columns) 12 wks small-sided team handball training (THG) or no training (CON). Data are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD). *Within-group different from baseline (p<0.05).
Muscle strength, CMJ height/power and postural balance.
| Baseline | 12 wks | Change from baseline | Percentage change from baseline | T-distribution | df | With-in group | F-ratio | Time x group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Isokinetic MVC (Nm) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 24 (10) | 230.1 | 70.2 | 239.3 | 69.5 | 9.2 | 26.1 | 4.0% | -1.736 | 23 | 0.096 | 0.442 | 0.509 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 213.3 | 56.1 | 218.1 | 54.4 | 4.8 | 21.0 | 2.3% | -1.164 | 25 | 0.255 | ||
| Isometric MVC (Nm) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 25 (11) | 270.3 | 75.7 | 275.4 | 72.5 | 5.1 | 25.7 | 1.9% | -0.980 | 24 | 0.337 | 0.444 | 0.508 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 253.2 | 70.8 | 262.9 | 74.4 | 9.7 | 24.9 | 3.8% | -1.994 | 25 | 0.570 | ||
| Isometric RFD0-50 ms (Nm/s) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 24 (11) | 1397.4 | 709.1 | 1400.4 | 658.1 | 3.0 | 590.3 | 0.2% | -0.513 | 24 | 0.981 | 0.174 | 0.679 |
| CON n = 23 (12) | 1110.7 | 499.5 | 1191.5 | 658.6 | 80.8 | 687.2 | 7.3% | -0.836 | 25 | 0.579 | ||
| Isometric RFD0-200 ms (Nm/s) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 24 (11) | 956.0 | 306.5 | 1026.6 | 316.9 | 70.6 | 147.8 | 7.4% | -2.575 | 24 | 0.028 | 1.930 | 0.172 |
| CON n = 23 (12) | 874.3 | 239.6 | 876.2 | 250.0 | 1.9 | 189.5 | 0.2% | -1.233 | 25 | 0.963 | ||
| Sway area (cm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 27 (13) | 686 | 181 | 637 | 161 | -49 | 162 | -7.1% | 1.575 | 26 | 0.127 | 1.634 | 0.207 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 701 | 229 | 727 | 325 | 26 | 257 | 3.7% | -0.519 | 25 | 0.609 | ||
| Sway length (mm) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 27 (13) | 937 | 268 | 853 | 198 | -84 | 217 | -9.0% | 2.015 | 26 | 0.054 | 1.357 | 0.249 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 930 | 311 | 933 | 369 | 3 | 321 | 0.3% | -0.051 | 25 | 0.960 | ||
| CMJ jump height (cm) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 27 (13) | 24.8 | 7.8 | 25.4 | 7.4 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 2.4% | -1.494 | 26 | 0.147 | 0.242 | 0.625 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 21.8 | 6.0 | 22.1 | 6.3 | 0.3 | 2.0 | 1.5% | -0.847 | 25 | 0.405 | ||
| CMJ Ppeak (W/kg) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 27 (13) | 42.6 | 8.3 | 43.3 | 8.3 | 0.7 | 2.6 | 1.5% | -1.284 | 26 | 0.210 | 0.167 | 0.685 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 38.8 | 6.9 | 39.9 | 7.4 | 1.1 | 5.1 | 2.9% | -1.118 | 25 | 0.274 | ||
*Different from baseline (p≤0.05). Means ± standard deviation for both the team handball group (THG) and control group (CON) before (baseline) and after (12 wks) the intervention period. The mean change score for group and standard deviation (SD) (change from baseline) is presented along with the percentage change from baseline. Table 2 shows the within-group T-distribution degrees of freedom (df) and p-values, along with F-ratio and between-group p-values. Strength parameters isokinetic and isometric maximal voluntary contraction force, early and late phase rate of force development (RFD 0–50 ms, RFD 0–200 ms, respectively) are presented. The variables of postural balance sway area and sway length along with the jump height and peak power from the countermovement jump test (CMJ) are also presented.
Fig 3Postural balance.
Postural balance assessed as center of pressure (CoP) sway length during 30-sek unilateral static balance test at baseline (black columns) and following (grey columns) 12 wks small-sided team handball training (THG) or no training (CON). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) are presented. *Within-group difference compared to baseline (p<0.05).
Body composition.
| Baseline | 12 wks | Change from baseline | Percentage change from baseline | T-distribution | df | With-in group | F-ratio | Time x group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Body fat percentage (%) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 32.7 | 8.7 | 31.5 | 8.6 | -1.2 | 1.5 | -3.7% | 4.137 | 27 | <0.001 | 5.044 | 0.029 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 31.7 | 7.9 | 31.4 | 8.1 | -0.3 | 1.6 | -0.9% | 0.739 | 25 | 0.467 | ||
| FFM (kg) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 53.2 | 9.2 | 54.3 | 9.5 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 2.2% | -5.816 | 27 | <0.001 | 4.564 | <0.037 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 53.3 | 11.5 | 53.8 | 12.0 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.0% | -2.530 | 25 | 0.018 | ||
| FFM legs (kg) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 19.2 | 3.8 | 19.7 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 2.5% | -4.657 | 27 | <0.001 | 2.574 | 0.151 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 18.9 | 4.4 | 19.2 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.3% | -2.617 | 25 | 0.015 | ||
| BMC (kg) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 2.84 | 0.41 | 2.87 | 0.42 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 1.1% | -3.405 | 27 | 0.002 | 7.151 | 0.010 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 2.83 | 0.57 | 2.83 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.0% | -0.180 | 25 | 0.859 | ||
| BMC legs (kg) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 1.05 | 0.20 | 1.06 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.2% | -4.234 | 27 | <0.001 | 9.175 | <0.004 |
| CON n = 26 (14) | 1.05 | 0.25 | 1.05 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.02 | -0.4% | 0.880 | 25 | 0.387 | ||
| Total body BMD (g/cm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 1.265 | 0.096 | 1.268 | 0.091 | 0.003 | 0.022 | 0.2% | -0.733 | 27 | 0.470 | 0.329 | 0.569 |
| CON n = 25 (13) | 1.251 | 0.129 | 1.250 | 0.126 | -0.001 | 0.018 | -0.1% | -0.043 | 24 | 0.966 | ||
| Total hip BMD (g/cm2) | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 1.099 | 0.115 | 1.117 | 0.115 | 0.018 | 0.017 | 1.6% | -5.410 | 27 | <0.001 | 21.844 | <0.001 |
| CON n = 25 (13) | 1.061 | 0.137 | 1.060 | 0.140 | -0.001 | 0.011 | -0.1% | 0.590 | 24 | 0.561 | ||
| Total body T-score | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 8.3% | -1.007 | 27 | 0.323 | 0.284 | 0.596 |
| CON n = 25 (13) | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0% | -0.312 | 24 | 0.758 | ||
| Total hip T-score | ||||||||||||
| THG n = 28 (14) | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 50.0% | -5.014 | 27 | <0.001 | 18.266 | <0.001 |
| CON n = 25 (13) | 0.2 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 1.1 | -0.1 | 0.1 | -50.0% | 0.749 | 24 | 0.461 | ||
*Different from baseline (p≤0.05). Means ± standard deviation for both the team handball group (THG) and control group (CON) before (baseline) and after (12 wks) the intervention period. The mean change score for group and standard deviation (SD) (change from baseline) is presented along with the percentage change from baseline. Table 3 shows the within-group T-distribution, degrees of freedom (df) and p-values, along with F-ratio and between-group p-values. Body fat percentage (%), free fat mass (FFM (g)), bone mineral content (BMC (g)), bone mineral density (BMD (g/cm2)) and T-score (total body T-score) for the whole body are shown in the table. Furthermore, fat free mass (FFM legs (g)) and bone mineral content (BMC (g)) for the legs are presented. In addition, T-score for the whole body (total body T-score) and hip (total hip T-score) are presented.