Strength and Conditioning Training by The Danish.1

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING TRAINING BY THE

DANISH NATIONAL HANDBALL TEAM BEFORE AN


OLYMPIC TOURNAMENT
THUE KVORNING,1,2 MIKKEL R.B. HANSEN,1 AND KURT JENSEN1
1
Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; and 2Team
Danmark (the Danish Elite Sports Institution), Brøndby, Denmark

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

T
Kvorning, T, Hansen, MRB, and Jensen, K. Strength and eam handball is an Olympic sport which is played
conditioning training by the Danish national handball team before worldwide and is highly developed in many Euro-
an Olympic tournament. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1759–1765, pean countries (14). In the past decade, the Danish
2017—The physical demands imposed on national team handball men’s handball team has been ranked as one of
the world’s leading national handball teams after winning (a)
teams during the Olympics imply significant physical preparation
the European Championship in 2008 and 2012, (b) the silver
to improve performance and reduce incidence of injuries. The
medal in the World Championship in 2011, and (c) the
purpose of this case report was to describe and analyze the
Olympic gold medal in Rio 2016. The physical demands
strength and conditioning (S&C) training performed by the Danish imposed on national teams during international tournaments
national handball team before the Beijing Olympic Games. Eight (e.g., the Olympics) with several matches in a compressed
weeks of S&C was divided into 5 weeks emphasizing muscle period, and the number of substitutes reduced from 16 to 14
hypertrophy and long-interval running followed by 3 weeks empha- players, means that fewer players have to cover the physical
sizing strength, power, and short-interval running. Body mass load during matches, and the high match frequency means
increased by 1.6% (p , 0.05), whereas body fat decreased by less time for recovery between matches. Thus, the physical
1.0% (p , 0.05). No differences were seen in countermovement challenge in an Olympic tournament requires a significant
jump or jump-and-reach height (p . 0.05). Agility performance physical preparation to improve recovery capacity, reduce
was evaluated by a T-test and improved by 2.5% (p , 0.05). incidence of injuries, and compete successfully (17).
However, there is a large diversity of programs and
Changes by 6% and 22% were seen in 1 repetition maximum
models for training and preparations, and it is difficult to
(1RM) bench press and 1RM back squat, respectively. However,
pin point the optimal set-up. In this context, this case report
only the 1RM bench press increased significantly (p , 0.05).
may function as a plausible approach because we report
Running performance was tested by the Yo-Yo intermittent recov- what was actually done by the Danish men’s handball team—
ery test, level 2, and improved by 25% (p , 0.05). In conclusion, a team ranked as one of the world’s leading national hand-
during 8 weeks of S&C training before the Beijing Olympics, body ball teams—before the Olympics in Beijing 2008.
composition changed toward more muscle mass, better upper- The purpose of this case report is therefore to describe
body strength, better interval running, and agility performance, and analyze the effect of the strength and conditioning
whereas no changes were seen in jumping or lower-body muscle training performed by the Danish national handball team in
strength. This case report may be used as a handy script for an 8-week preparation period leading up to the Beijing
handball teams preparing for competition. Detailed and periodized Olympics 2008 and to evaluate this as a possible preparation
S&C training programs for 8 weeks are provided and can be used model for upcoming tournaments.
by teams ranging from moderately to highly trained.
METHODS
KEY WORDS team handball, 1RM dynamic strength, aerobic,
Experimental Approach to the Problem
anaerobic, agility
The strength and conditioning programs and testing were
performed by Team Denmark, the Danish Elite Sport Institu-
tion in cooperation with the Danish Handball Federation. A
Address correspondence to Thue Kvorning, [email protected]. range of tests performed before the preparation period (pretest)
31(7)/1759–1765 evaluated the strength and conditioning level of each player. A
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research field-testing set-up was chosen to be able to operate in an elite
Ó 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association setting with change of training sites and minimum time for

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1759

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength and Conditioning for Olympic Handball

testing. Tests included measurements of body composition, Procedures


aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity, explosive muscle Players performed 2 similar batteries of tests before and after
strength, maximal dynamic strength, and agility performance. the 8-week training period. Some players were not tested
Based on descriptive data obtained over several years of testing because of injury or anxiety of getting injured specifically by
the Danish national handball team and results obtained from the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) testing before the Olym-
the above-mentioned pretest reference values were created. pics. The pretesting was conducted 10 weeks before the
When the individual pretest results were compared to these Olympics and the posttesting after a minimum of 48 hours of
reference values, physical performance profiles for each player rest after completion of the final strength and conditioning
were calculated. Thus, on behalf of each player pretest results, session. Players were asked to consume a typical meal at
strength and weaknesses were identified, and training goals least 2–3 hours before scheduled testing time. Moreover, all
were set for each player. In addition, a mean value for each test testing sessions within the preprogram and postprogram
was calculated, and each player was advised to score at least were conducted under same conditions and at the same time
mean level in each test, when tested after the training period. of the day. Most of the players were already familiar with the
The main purpose of this approach was to increase the tests because they were a part of the national team set-up.
performance level of the poorest conditioned players—bring Those who were not familiar with the tests were familiarized
them closer to or above the team mean. Individual and specific before testing. Furthermore, before each test, the players
performance characteristics above the mean, in the different performed a general warm-up, and players were allowed to
performance tests, were seen as positive features for the specific add to this if needed. The warm-up was then standardized
handball player. During this process, if a player tested lower between pretesting and posttesting. Testing was performed
than the mean value in more than 1 performance area (i.e., on 2 consecutive days with rest in between tests and in the
muscle mass, maximal and explosive muscle strength, speed chronological sequence listed below.
and agility on one hand, and on the other aerobic and anaer-
obic power and capacity), then he was given first priority to Day 1.
improve aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity and second  Body composition measurement of height, body mass,
priority to speed, strength etc. The pretesting was followed and skinfolds.
by interviews with all players to assess each player’s own  Explosive muscle strength of the lower limbs using
ambitions and expectations to their individual physical per- countermovement jump (CMJ) with hands on hips
formance level and then finally to combine and align these and jump-and-reach (JR) test with 3-step run up.
inputs with the wishes from the head coach to be able to  Agility performance using the T-test, including forward-
fulfill his overall playing strategy for the Olympics (i.e., backward and sideways running (1).
playing style, tactics etc.). These subjective inputs were
taken into consideration to further individualize the Day 2.
strength and conditioning programs.  Maximum dynamic strength using 1 repetition maxi-
mum bench press (1RMBP) and 1 repetition maximum
Subjects back squat (1RMBS).
Nineteen players (age: 29.5 6 4.0 years, range: 20.9 – 36.2  Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test, level 2 (YYIR2); 2
years, body mass: 94.0 6 6.6 kg, height: 1.89 6 5 m) from the times 20 m including a quick turn, 10 seconds of recov-
male Danish national handball team chosen to compete in the ery with increasing speed, and repeated until exhaustion
Beijing Olympic Games were included in this case report. (10).
The players completed their competition season just 2
Body Composition Measurement
months before starting the national team preparations for
The body composition variables of height (m), body mass
the Olympics. Until then, they have been following recovery
(kg), body fat (%), and fat-free mass (FFM) (kg) were
and training programs in their respective clubs. The training
measured in each player. Body mass was measured to the
level can be quantified by the pretest data shown in Table 3. A
nearest 0.1 kg using an electronic scale (Soehnle—profes-
large variation is seen and therefore showing that some play-
sional; Soehnle, Bachnang, Germany), and height was
ers were relatively well conditioned when entering, others
measured to the nearest 0.001 m using a stadiometer (Seca
may have been heavily taxed by a long season and therefore
Corp., Chino, CA, USA). Skinfold thickness at 4 sites
showing relatively poor condition at the pretesting.
(biceps, triceps, subscapular, and suprailiaca) was mea-
This case report was, by the local ethical committee,
sured using a Harpend caliper (Harpenden, UK), and per-
categorized as an ethical nonnotifiable project because it deals
centage body fat was calculated from these measurements
with methods and tests, which are already included in the daily
using the equation of Durnin and Womersley (6).
work with the national team and therefore normal practice for
the included players. In addition, the National Danish Handball Countermovement Jump Test
Federation has given informed consent to this respective case CMJs were performed on a contact mat (Newtest Oy,
report. Oulu, Finland). Players were instructed to place their
the TM

1760 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

T-test
Agility performance—as defined
TABLE 1. Strength training program, emphasizing mainly muscle hypertrophy
during the first 5 weeks (A) and maximum strength and explosive muscle
by Sheppard et al. (20) as
strength during the last 3 weeks (B).*† a rapid whole-body movement
with change of speed or direc-
(A) tion— was evaluated by a T-test,
Power clean or power snatch 4 repetitions with 75% of 1RM 3 4 sets
Squat or leg press or lunge or step up 8RM 3 4 sets
9 3 9 m. Players had 2 “warm-
Bench press or dumbbell press or pull 8RM 3 4 sets up trials” before actual testing.
over The players were instructed to
Lat pull-down or bent-over row 8RM 3 4 sets start the T-test on the “Go”
One-legged standing heel raise 8RM 3 3 sets command, and simultaneously
One-legged leg curl 8RM 3 4 sets
Russian twist or wood chop 20 repetitions 3 3 sets the timer started the watch.
Lower back exercises 4 sets On the Go command, the play-
Abdominal exercises 4 sets ers sprint forward, sideways,
Rotator cuff exercises 3 sets and backwards in a “T” pattern.
(B) The players should always face
Power clean or power snatch 2–3 repetitions, 4 repetitions with 90% of front and not cross their feet
1RM 3 4 sets when moving sideways. The
Explosive step up or jump squat 5 repetitions with 30% of 1RM 3 3 sets timer stopped the watch when
Squat or leg press or lunge 4–6RM 3 4 sets (perform 3 maximum the player terminated the test
CMJ between sets)
Bench press or dumbbell press or 4–6RM 3 4 sets by touching the finishing pole.
pull over The players were allowed 2 mi-
Lat pull-down or bent-over row 8RM 3 4 sets nutes of rest between trials. The
One-legged leg curl 8RM 3 4 sets test score was the best time of 2
Medicine ball twist (10–15 kg) 20 repetitions 3 3 sets trials, to the nearest 0.1 second.
Lower back exercises 4 sets
Abdominal exercises 4 sets For details, see Ref. 1.
Rotator cuff exercises 3 sets Maximum Dynamic
*RM = repetition maximum; CMJ = countermovement jump. Strength Test
†Rest between exercises was 1–2 minutes for upper-body exercises and 2–3 minutes for Maximal dynamic strength of
lower-body exercises.
the upper and lower extremity
was assessed using 1RMBP and
1RMBS, respectively. The tests
were performed with free
hands on the hips and to land on the contact mat in weights, and the 1RM testing protocol closely adhered to
a position similar to that of take-off. The depth of the CMJ the recommendations of the National Strength and Condi-
was self-selected and should represent each player’s opti- tioning Association (1). The 1RM was determined within 3
mal depth for maximal jump height. The players were attempts for all players. The highest load lifted was used as
allowed for 30 seconds of rest between each attempt, 3 the test score.
in total and the highest jump measured being used for
Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test: Level 2
further analysis.
The YYIR2 test is previously described by Bangsbo et al. (2).
In short, the protocol involved repeated 2 3 20-m runs back
Jump-and-Reach Test and forth between the starting, turning, and finishing line at
The JR test was determined by a Vertec device (SwiftPer- a progressively increasing speed controlled by audio beeps
formance, Wacol, Australia), with a 3-step run up. Before with 10 seconds of recovery between each run. The test was
starting the JR test, players standing reach height was considered failed if the players became unable to reach the
measured (the point marked by the fingertips, with the finishing line on time twice or felt unable to finish another
arm fully extended upward and heels on the ground). Then, shuttle at the dictated speed. The total distance covered
the players performed a 3-step run up toward the Vertec, during the test was used for further analysis.
followed by a single-legged jump with arm swing. To
calculate vertical jump height, the difference between Strength and Conditioning Program
standing height reached by the fingertips on the Vertec Strength training was periodized, so the first 5 weeks
and the highest jump and reach was measured. Players had 3 emphasized muscle hypertrophy, whereas the last 3 weeks
attempts, with 1-minute rest in between, and the test score emphasized the development of maximum muscle strength
was the highest jump of the 3 attempts (1). and explosive muscle strength. Strength training was

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1761

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength and Conditioning for Olympic Handball

interval running, with warm-up


before and cooling down after
TABLE 2. Conditioning training program, emphasizing mainly aerobic capacity and recovery jogging performed
and power during the first 5 weeks (A) and anaerobic capacity and power during
the last 3 weeks (B).* during the breaks. During the
long active recovery breaks (i.
(A) e., 8- and 12-minute active rest),
1. 3 times 12 min as far as possible, active rest for 10 min after each interval (HR
players were told to do various
;25 beats below HRmax)
2. 4 times 8 min as far as possible, active rest for 8 min after each interval (HR ;15 core exercises in between
beats below HRmax) recovery jogging. Some players
3. 1 time 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, and 1 min as far as possible, active rest for 3 min after were allowed to execute parts
each interval (HR ;0–5 beats below HRmax) of the aerobic and anaerobic
4. 15 times 40-m sprints with start every 3 min
training on stationary bikes
(B) because of their minor injuries
1. 4 times 1 ½ min, as far as possible, start every 5 min or injury history in general.
2. 4 times 40 s, as far as possible, start every 5 min Throughout the 8-week train-
3. 2 rounds of 5 intervals of 15-s sprint, start every 2 min, 10 min rest in between
ing period, planning strived to
rounds
secure that aerobic and anaero-
*Programs 1–4 are followed progressively from day to day and repeated in an “endless bic training was executed sepa-
circle.” Heart rate (HR) (below HRmax) is indicated to represent intensity except during sprint rately from strength and agility
exercises.
training. This was done either
by training on separate days or
when trained on the same day,
planned on a base of traditional exercises (i.e., deadlift, bench separated by 4–6 hours. However, in a third of the training
press, back squat, lunges, jump squats, power cleans, and sessions, aerobic and anaerobic training was combined with
snatches [Olympic lifts]) (see Table 1 for details). Note that strength and agility training or with handball training in the
in some cases, more than 1 exercise is listed for each body same training session.
part, which meant that the first-listed exercise was first pri- From an overall perspective, the strength and conditioning
ority and so forth, but the players should only choose one of program was periodized, as described, in blocks of 5 and 3
the listed exercises. The rationale behind this approach was weeks. Thus, training load changed from higher volume to
training variation and to come around different lower volume and from lower to higher intensity between the
individual minor injuries which could influence the choice two blocks. On average, both aerobic and anaerobic condi-
of exercises. The training was performed with a load of 8RM tioning and strength training was performed 3 times a week
(in the Olympic lifts, the load was 75% of maximum) for 5 throughout the 8-week period. But depending on the players’
weeks. During the following 3-week period, the load was strong and weak points, determined by the pretesting, some
increased to 4–6RM (in the Olympic lifts, the load was players had focus on aerobic and anaerobic training, with 4
90% of maximum) (see Table 1 for details). Throughout sessions a week and only 2 strength training sessions and vice
the 8-week period, agility drills including change of direc- versa. After the 8-week training period, the national team had
tion, short sprints, reaction time exercises, and various plyo- approximately 10 days (for packing, traveling, and settling in
metric/stretch shortening cycle (SSC) exercises such as the Olympic village) between the final strength and condition-
jump and throw exercises were performed. These sessions ing session and the first match at the Olympics. This specific
were performed 3 times a week in combination with hand- period was used for tapering; therefore, players were given
ball training or strength training. instructions on when and how to rest and how to perform
From a pure physiological perspective, it is difficult to 2 strength and conditioning training sessions with low volume
distinguish between conditioning training purely stimulating and high intensity after arrival in Beijing.
either the aerobic or anaerobic energy systems. The condi- The same strength and conditioning coach supervised
tioning performed in this case report is more correctly approximately a third of all the strength and conditioning
characterized by emphasizing one system more than the sessions. The remaining training sessions in most cases were
other, but to ensure a clear training terminology, we decided executed in unison with teammates.
to use the terms aerobic power and capacity as one training
area and anaerobic power and capacity as another training Statistical Analyses
area. However, the aerobic and anaerobic training was All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical
periodized in such a way that the first 5 weeks of training Package for the Social Sciences (version 2.0; SPSS, Inc.,
emphasized aerobic power and capacity, and the last 3 weeks Chicago, IL). Distribution normality was proved with the
had focus on anaerobic power and capacity (see Table 2 for Shapiro-Wilk test. All variables were normally distributed,
details). All aerobic and anaerobic training was performed as and for that reason, parametric statistics were applied. All
the TM

1762 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

SSC exercises. Hence, despite


the emphasis on both strength
TABLE 3. Effects of training on body composition and physical performance.*†
and jump training, it could be
N Pre Post % expected that the players were
already well trained and have
Body weight (kg) 19 94.0 6 6.6 95.5 6 6.4z 1.6
reached a certain level, and
Body fat (%) 19 15.2 6 2.8 14.4 6 2.6z 1.0
FFM (kg) 19 79.5 6 5.7 81.7 6 5.6 2.7 therefore only capable of
CMJ (m) 16 43.5 6 4.2 45 6 5.4 3.4 achieving minor and nonsig-
JR (m) 16 68.5 6 5 69 6 3.3 0.7 nificant changes. However,
T-test (s) 15 8.38 6 0.2 8.17 6 0.2z 2.5 a fundamental relationship ex-
1RMBP (kg) 10 110 6 12.1 116 6 15.5z 5.4
ists between strength and
1RMBS (kg) 4 156 6 29.8 190 6 34.6 22
YYIR2 (m) 16 797 6 175 997 6 167z 25 power (i.e. explosive muscle
strength), which dictates that
*FFM = fat-free mass; CMJ = countermovement jump; JR = jump-and-reach; RM = repe- an individual cannot possess
tition maximum; 1RMBP = bench press; 1RMBS = back squat; YYIR2 = Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test: level 2. a high level of power without
†Values for pre and post the 8-week training period are shown. Values are in mean 6 SD. first being relatively strong
zSignificant difference (p , 0.05) between pre and post.
(4,5). Thus, on the contrary,
it may be argued that the pres-
ent handball players do not
possess a satisfying level of
values were expressed as mean 6 SD. Student’s paired t-test maximal muscle strength to adapt to the explosive training
was used to examine the differences between the physical exercises in the training program and therefore showing no
parameters describing the players before and after the improvements in CMJ and JR. In support of this, Cormie
strength and conditioning period. In all cases, the level of et al. (4,5) showed that stronger subjects (1RMBS ;2 times
statistical significance was set at p , 0.05. the body weight) adapted more positive to the same bal-
listic power training (e.g., jump squat) than weaker subjects
RESULTS (1RM BS ;1.3 times the body weight) (4,5). In comparison,
Body weight increased and body fat decreased after training most of the players in this respective case report had
(p , 0.05). Accordingly, FFM—calculated as the difference a 1RM BS equal to 1.5 times the body weight at the pretest,
between body mass and body fat—increased (p , 0.05). No and it could be speculated that the potential for adapting to
changes in jump height in CMJ or JR were seen (p . 0.05). the loaded jumps and SSC exercises etc. could have been
The YYIR2 test and the T-test improved (p , 0.05). One greater if the players were stronger to begin with.
repetition maximum bench press increased significantly (p , The increase in 1RMBP and nonsignificant increase
0.05), whereas the 1RMBS showed a tendency to increase (p 1RMBS from pre to post the 8-week training is in line with
= 0.069) (Table 3). previously reported data (4,5,16). When compared with
European top-level handball players, the performance level
DISCUSSION of the Danish players in the 1RMBP was considered good,
Our findings indicate that the 8 weeks of strength and whereas the level in the 1RM BS was comparable with Euro-
conditioning training led to significant improvements in pean top-level players (13). Only 10 and 4 of the initial 19
body composition and performance (Table 3). In short, body players performed, respectively, the 1RMBP and 1RMBS after
mass increased significantly from pretraining to posttraining, the training period, which may have influenced the statistical
and concurrently, the players reduced their body fat, indi- power mainly in the 1RMBS test. The main reason for the
cating a development in FFM. The T-test, 1RMBP, and the low participation was anxiety of being injured by the 1RMBS
YYIR2 test were improved, whereas 1RM BS showed a ten- testing before the Olympics.
dency to increase. The strength and conditioning training The YYIR2 performance in this case report was increased
described in this case report may therefore be a prudent by 25% from pretraining to posttraining. The level and
preparation model for upcoming tournaments. performance change are in accordance with other top-level
The increase in body weight and FFM is consistent with handball players (15,18). The additional focus on strength
previous research, which reported seasonal increases in body and agility training throughout the 8-week training period,
mass in relation to training in top-level male European which improved agility capacity (T-test), is also likely to
handball players (3,8,13). influence the players’ ability to perform in the YYIR2 test.
Jumping performance is considered important determinants Consequently, suggesting that the improved agility capacity
in a large number of sports and also handball. It was surprising might influence the players’ ability to perform the YYIR2
to observe that no change in jumping performance occurred test because of improved techniques regarding faster change
during the 8 weeks of training, including plyometric jump/ of direction, accelerations and decelerations.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1763

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength and Conditioning for Olympic Handball

Our overall practical philosophy, behind the testing and Team handball players must train for muscle mass,
strength and conditioning program, was to secure a physical strength, power and agility performance, and aerobic and
base for playing handball and to underpin the individual anaerobic power and capacity, and at the same time, thus,
player’s technical and tactical characteristics, rather than concurrent training is essential for high-level performance.
seeking a position-specific prototype (i.e., wing, back, pivot, However, concurrent training is known to influence the
and goalkeeper), in terms of physical performance (9). In magnitude of strength gains, also known as the “interference
addition, we had to take the relatively short training period phenomenon” (7). The interference phenomenon dictates
of 8 weeks into consideration, and the fact that these that it is important to get the balance right between these
position-specific physical performance features, can for some different aspects of training (7). To minimize the interference
players, be difficult to achieve because of various limiting training of aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity, this
factors (i.e., technical/tactical training priorities versus phys- modality was separated as much as possible from strength,
ical priorities, injury history, genetic set-up etc.). speed, and agility training, and if combined in the same
Concerning planning of the strength and conditioning session, players were alternating the sequence. It may be
training modalities, all aerobic and anaerobic training was speculated that some interference have occurred, as indi-
performed as interval training, which is coincident with the cated by the lack of improvements in jumping performance,
important features for the success in handball. Both high- because it is acknowledged that aerobic training may ham-
volume and high-intensity intervals seem to be important for per the players’ ability to adapt to the strength and plyomet-
the athlete performing in high-intensity sports (12). This ric/SSC training (8). However, concurrent training within
training method is also known as the polarized approach the same day is a necessary compromise when all training
(11,12). In addition, there seems to be a sound support for modalities, including technical and tactical training, have to
the benefits of using high-intensity interval training in fit in a week plan.
already-trained athletes (11,12). With this understanding In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that an 8-week
in mind, the aerobic and anaerobic training was performed strength and conditioning period before an Olympic tour-
with the focus on aerobic capacity and power during the first nament was sufficient to induce positive changes in body
5 weeks by emphasizing volume and intensity at the same composition and physical performance of elite handball
time, by executing the training as intervals with long rest players. Thus, the training applied during the preparation
periods in between running intervals. During the last 3 period changed body composition toward more muscle
weeks, focus was put on anaerobic capacity and power by mass and less body fat. Running performance increased both
emphasizing higher intensity and therefore reducing volume. in relation to short intense movements in the T-test and in
The strength and agility training was planned on inspiration longer anaerobic and aerobic running in the YYIR2 test,
from the “mixed approach” described by Newton & Kraemer whereas the team in general was not able to increase their
(19). Ultimately, the main goal of strength and agility training jumping abilities or strength of the lower body. Overall, we
for handball is to increase muscle mass, strength, power, and demonstrated that we are able to optimize the physical
agility performance. In short, the mixed approach comprises performance level of already well-trained national team
different training modalities, which are all known to improve handball players in 8 weeks, for the more demanding
explosive muscle performance. The modalities are defined as competition schedule at the Olympics. Accordingly, we
slow-velocity strength training (i.e., 3RM squat etc.), high- expect the players to tolerate more physical load during
velocity strength training (i.e., jump squat performed with matches and to recover faster, during an intense Olympic
30% of 1RM), rate of force development training (i.e., power tournament but also for the World championships and
clean, heavy strength training performed with maximal effort), European championships. It seems prudent to conclude that
SSC training, and intramuscular coordination training (i.e., the described procedure could function as a preparation
jumps, sprints, throws, agility etc.). model for upcoming tournaments.
Thus, the program included exercises such as deadlift,
bench press, and back squat and explosive types of strength PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
training exercises such as the power snatch, power clean, This case report can be used as a handy script for handball
loaded jumps, and SSC exercises. The reason for performing teams preparing for competition. Detailed and periodized
these exercises is that they involve multiple joints (especially strength and conditioning training programs for 8 weeks are
hip and knee joints) and activate large muscle volumes, and provided and can be used by teams ranging from moderately
they are performed from a standing position (19). Most of these to highly trained. By focusing on partly supervised and
exercises teach the players to apply force and power with periodized strength and conditioning training, as described
selected muscle groups in the proper sequence and therefore with gradually more intensity in both endurance and
enable these to explode in a ballistic type of movement, and strength training, an increase in performance can be
additional important benefits from these exercises consist of expected. In addition, relevant tests and related reference
teaching the player to move fast from eccentric contractions values are provided for individual adjustments to be done
to concentric contractions (i.e., reactive strength). according to the needs and capacity analysis.
the TM

1764 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 10. Krustrup, P, Mohr, M, Nybo, L, Jensen, J, Nielsen, J, and Bangsbo, J.


The Yo-Yo IR2 test: Physiological response, reliability, and
The authors want to thank the Team Danmark employees application to elite soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1666–1673, 2006.
Susanne Jørgensen and Hanne Overgaard for their support and 11. Laursen, P. Training for intense exercise performance: High-
cooperation during the testing of the Danish national handball intensity or high-volume training? Scand J Med Sci Sports 20(Suppl
team. 2): 1–10, 2010.
12. Laursen, P and Jenkins, DG. The scientific basis for high-intensity
interval training: Optimising training programs and maximising
REFERENCES performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports Med 32:
53–73, 2002.
1. Baechle, T and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 2008. 13. Marques, MAC and Gonzáles-Badillo, JJ. In-season resistance
training and detraining in professional team handball players. J
2. Bangsbo, J, Iaia, FM, and Krustrup, P. The Yo-Yo intermittent Strength Cond Res 20: 563–571, 2006.
recovery test: A useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in
intermittent sports. Sports Med 38: 37–51, 2008. 14. Marques, MC, van den Tillaar, R, Vescovi, JD, and González-
Badillo, JJ. Relationship between throwing velocity, muscle power,
3. Chaouachi, A, Brughelli, M, Levin, G, Boudhina, N, Cronin, J, and and bar velocity during bench press in elite handball players. Int J
Chamari, K. Anthropometric, physiological and performance Sport Psychol Perform 2: 414–422, 2007.
characteristics of elite team-handball players. J Sports Sci 27: 151–
157, 2009. 15. Massuca, LM, Fragoso, I, and Teles, J. Attributes of top elite team-
handball players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 178–186, 2014.
4. Cormie, P, McGuigan, M, and Newton, R. Adaptations in athletic
performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci 16. Mazzetti, S, Kraemer, WJ, Duncan, ND, Ratemess, NA, Gómez, AL,
Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598, 2010. Newton, RU, Häkkinen, K, and Fleck, SJ. The influence of direct
supervision of resistance training on strength performance. Med Sci
5. Cormie, P, McGuigan, M, and Newton, R. Influence of strength on
magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 11175–11184, 2000.
Sports Exerc 42: 1566–1581, 2010. 17. Michalsik, L, Madsen, K, and Aagaard, P. Technical match
6. Durnin, JV and Womersley, J. Body fat assessed from total body characteristics and influence of body anthropometry on playing
density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: Measurements on performance in male elite team handball. J Strength Cond Res 29:
481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32: 77–97, 416–428, 2015.
1974. 18. Milanez, V, Ramos, S, Leprêtre, P, Leme, L, and Nakamura, FY.
7. Garcia-Pallerés, J and Izquierdo, M. Strategies to optimize Physiological and performance changes in response to pre-season
concurrent training of strength and aerobic fitness for rowing and training in high level handball players. Sci Sports 29: 59–62, 2014.
canoeing. Sports Med 1: 329–343, 2011. 19. Newton, RU and Kraemer, WJ. Developing explosive muscular
8. Gorostiaga, E, Granados, C, Ibanez, J, Gonzalez-Badillo, J, and power, implications for a mixed methods training strategy. J Strength
Izquierdo, M. Effects of an entire season on physical fitness changes in Cond Res 16: 20–31, 1994.
elite male handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 357–366, 2006. 20. Sheppard, JM, Young, WB, Doyle, TL, Sheppard, TA, and Newton,
9. Karcher, C and Buchheit, M. On-court demands of elite handball, RU. An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its
with special reference to playing positions. Sports Med 44: 797–814, relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med
2014. Sport 9: 342–349, 2006.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2017 | 1765

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

You might also like