journal-muscle power, barvelocity, bench press

7/30/2019 Journal-muscle Power, Barvelocity, Bench Press

1/9

414

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2007, 2, 414-422

2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Marques is with the Sports Dept, University o Beira Interior, Covilh, Portugal. van den Tillaar is with the

Dept o Teacher Education and Sports, Sogn and Fjordane University College, Norway. Vescovi is with

the Faculty o Physical Education and Health, University o Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Gonzlez-

Badillo is with the Sports and Inormatics Dept, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.

Relationship Between Throwing Velocity,Muscle Power, and Bar Velocity DuringBench Press in Elite Handball Players

Mrio C. Marques, Roland van den Tillaar, Jason D. Vescovi,and Juan Jos Gonzlez-Badillo

Purpose: The purpose o this study was to examine the relationship between ball-

throwing velocity during a 3-step running throw and dynamic strength, power,

and bar velocity during a concentric-only bench-press exercise in team-handball

players.Methods: Fourteen elite senior male team-handball players volunteered

to participate. Each volunteer had power and bar velocity measured during a

concentric-only bench-press test with 26, 36, and 46 kg, as well as having 1-

repetition-maximum (1-RMBP) strength determined. Ball-throwing velocity

was evaluated with a standard 3-step running throw using a radar gun.Results:

Ball-throwing velocity was related to the absolute load lited during the 1-RMBP(r= .637, P = .014), peak power using 36 kg (r= .586, P = .028) and 46 kg (r=

.582, P = .029), and peak bar velocity using 26 kg (r= .563, P = .036) and 36 kg

(r= .625, P = .017). Conclusions: The results indicate that throwing velocity o

elite team-handball players is related to maximal dynamic strength, peak power,

and peak bar velocity. Thus, a training regimen designed to improve ball-throw-

ing velocity in elite male team-handball players should include exercises that are

aimed at increasing both strength and power in the upper body.

Key Words: upper extremity, strength, team handball

Team handball is a contact Olympic sport1,2 that is also played proessionallyin Europe.3 It consists o intense, intermittent activities such as running, sprinting,and jumping, as well as regular throwing, hitting, blocking, and pushing betweenplayers.1,2 In addition to technical and tactical skills, it has been argued that one othe key skills necessary or success in team handball is throwing perormance.1-4Ball velocity and throwing accuracy are the most important actors or scoring inteam handball.5-7 Three actors are essential with regard to eciency o throwing:mechanics, coordination o consecutive actions o body segments, and upper andlower extremity muscle strength and power.5,8-10 Although muscle strength and power


2/9

Throwing Velocity and Bench-Press Testing 415

have been reported to be associated with throwing velocity in team handball,2,5,7limited data have been published on elite male handball players.3

To our knowledge, ew studies have examined the relationship between ball-

throwing perormance in elite team-handball players with indices o dynamicstrength,1-3,5,11 power,8 and bar velocity1,8 during muscle contractions o the upperextremity in concentric-only bench-press exercise. Other investigations have usedisokinetic and isometric tests as indices o strength,2,5,7 but single-joint actions andhandgrip strength are not specic assessment strategies. In other words, using astrength test with constant speed (ie, isokinetic) or a test in which muscle action isnot accompanied by motion (ie, isometric) might be less suitable or athletics than atest that allows or variable speeds throughout the range o motion (ie, isotonic). Wechose to use the bench-press exercise because it seems most specic to overhand-throwing technique.5 Thus, using a multijoint exercise such as the bench-press testshould be advantageous when exploring or relationships with a dynamic move-ment such as throwing. None o the previous studies examined throwing velocitywith maximal-strength dynamic perormance together with power output and barvelocity during a concentric-only bench-press exercise in male handball players.Thereore, the aim o this study was to determine the relationships between ball-throwing velocity in elite team-handball players and selected measures o strength,power, and bar velocity during a concentric-only bench-press exercise. Examinationo these relationships could be o great importance or the optimal developmento resistance-training programs to improve handball-throwing perormance in

proessional handball athletes.

Methods

Subjects

A group o 14 senior elite male team-handball players volunteered to participatein the study (average age 22, range 1828; Table 1), which included 4 Portugueseinternational players. Participants had been trained by the same coach and or thesame club team or the 2 years beore testing. The team has been rated as one o the

best Portuguese elite team-handball squads. Beore commencing the study, playershad a physical examination by the team physician, and each was cleared or anymedical disorders that might limit ull participation in the investigation. Subjectswere required to sign an inormed-consent orm beore the study that had beenapproved by the Institutional Review Committee Board o the local Committee or

Table 1 Descriptive Characteristics of the Subjects

Anthropometric characteristic Mean SD

Age (y)Height (cm)

Body mass (kg)

Arm span (cm)

Training time (y)

22.3 3.7182.1 6.7

82.5 12.2

184.4 7.8

9.5 1.9


3/9

416 Marques et al

Medical Research Ethics, conormed with current Portuguese law and regulations,and was carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration. No players were takingexogenous anabolicandrogenic steroids or other drugs or substances expected to

aect physical perormance or hormonal balance during this study.

Experimental Design and Methodology

All testing was carried out at the completion o the second period o in-seasontraining in 1 session. Subjects were amiliar with all the testing procedures andexercises, because they had been perorming them as part o their regular trainingroutine. The concentric-only bench-press exercise was used to simultaneously assessdynamic strength, power, and bar velocity and was perormed ater the evaluationo throwing velocity.

Ball-throwing velocity was evaluated on an indoor team-handball court by anoverarm throw using a 3-step running throw, which is commonly perormed duringteam handball. The standing (ie, stationary) throw is also used in team handball andhas been used requently in previous studies,6,7 but during competition it is only usedduring penalty shots and is ar less commonly perormed than the 3-step throw.

Ater a 10-minute standardized warm-up the subjects were instructed to throwa standard handball (mass 480 g, circumerence 58 cm) with maximal velocity at astandard goal, using their preerred throwing hand and throwing technique. Playerswere allowed only a 3-step preparatory run and were required to release the ballbehind the 9-m line. Each subject executed 5 throws, with 2 minutes rest betweentrials. An average o the 4 throws with the greatest velocity was used or analysis.The coaches supervised the entire throwing test to ensure that the subjects were usingan overarm-throwing technique regularly used in handball.6 As motivation, athleteswere immediately inormed o their perormance. The ball-throwing velocity wasdetermined using a Doppler-radar gun (Sports Radar 3300, Sports Electronics Inc)with 0.1-km/h accuracy within a eld o 10 rom the gun. The Doppler-radargun was located behind a wooden target (perimeter: 60 cm) that had a hole in themiddle to permit optical contact with the ball and the player. The intraclass correla-tion coecient (ICC) or ball-throwing velocity was .95 (95% condence interval:

0.870.97), and the coecient o variation (CV) was 3.4%.Dynamic strength was assessed with a 1-repetition concentric-only maximalbench-press action (1-RMBP) using a ree-weight barbell machine. To begin thetest and with the help o 2 coaches, the bar was positioned on the athletes chestand was required to remain there or about 1 second beore he initiated movementin an eort to minimize any countermovement eect on any o the perormanceindices. Next, the athlete was instructed to perorm a concentric-only action romthis starting position, as quickly as possible, until ull extension o the elbowsoccurred. A trial was discounted i there appeared to be an initial countermovemento the bar, i the athletes lower back or buttocks were elevated o the bench, or i

the athlete ailed to achieve ull elbow extension. The 1-RMBP showed an ICC o.91 (95% interval 0.620.98) and a CV o 9.7%.

All participants used an initial weight o 26 kg, which was subsequentlyincreased by increments o 10 or 5 kg or each trial until an individual could notexecute a successul lit. Subjects perormed a single repetition at each absolute load,


4/9


with at least 3 minutes o rest between trials to reduce the likelihood o atigue. Thelast bearable load was determined as the 1-RM. Bar displacement, average velocity(m/s), and average power (W) were recorded by attaching a rotary encoder to the

end o the bar. The rotary encoder recorded the position and direction o the bar towithin an accuracy o 0.0002 m. Customized sotware (JLML I+D, Madrid, Spain)was used to calculate average power or each repetition o the bench press perormedthroughout the whole range o motion as a most representative mechanical param-eter associated with a contraction cycle o arm-extensor muscles participating inthe bench press (ie, elbow and shoulder joints).1,2,8 Strong verbal encouragementwas given to each subject to motivate maximal and rapid perormance o each testaction. The reproducibility o the measurements has been reported elsewhere.1,2,8 Fortesting, absolute (ie, 26, 36, and 46 kg) rather than relative 1-RM loads were used,as reported previously.12,13 Baker et al12,13 used absolute loads in bench throwing,varying rom 40 to 80 kg, rather than individually predetermined selected percent-ages o 1-RM, ollowing the precedent o Hakkinen and Komi.14,15 The absoluteloads used in the current study represented approximately 38%, 52%, and 67% othe group mean 1-RM. Only the rst 3 trials were taken or analysis because powerdeclined signicantly (P = .037) ater the third trial (46 kg).

Statistical Analyses

Standard statistical methods were used or the calculation o means and SDs. ThePearson productmoment correlation coecient was used to examine the associa-

tion between strength, power, and velocity rom the concentric-only bench-pressexercise at each absolute load with ball-throwing velocity. Dierences on eachdependent variable between the 3 absolute loads were determined using a 1-wayANOVA with a Tukey post hoc analysis when appropriate. Statistical signicancewas accepted at P .05 or all analyses.

Results

The mean values o maximal 1-RMBP and ball-throwing velocity were 68.88

10.06 kg (mean SD) and 23.98 1.7 m/s, respectively. Power and bar velocityduring the concentric-only bench press with 26, 36, and 46 kg are presented in Figure1. Velocity decreased (P < .0001) over the range o absolute loads. For peak powera signicant decrease was ound between 26 and 46 kg (P = .02), and or averagepower a signicant dierence was ound between 36 and 46 kg (P = .0001).

Pearson productmoment correlation coecients are presented in Table 2.Maximal strength (1-RMBP) had a positive relationship with throwing velocity (r=.637, P = .014; Table 2). In addition, signicant correlations were observed betweenthrowing velocity and peak bar velocity at 26 kg and 36 kg (r= .563 and r= .625,respectively; P < .04) and peak power at 36 kg and 46 kg (r= .58, P < .03; Table

2). Also shown in Table 2 are the correlations between 1-RM with power, as wellas bar velocity with the dierent loads. In addition, signicant correlations wereound between peak power output and peak bar velocity at each load (r .89, P .0001) and between average power output and average bar velocity at each load(r .91, P .0001).


5/9

418

Figure 1 (a) Average and peak power and (b) average and peak velocity at 26, 36, and46 kg (38%, 52%, and 67% o maximal dynamic strength). *Signicant dierence on a .05level between all loads. **Signicant dierence on a .05 level between these 2 loads.

Table 2 Correlations Between Throwing Velocity, 1-RMBP, andMeasures of Strength, Power, and Bar Velocity During Concentric-Only Bench Press

Correlation r with throwing velocity r with 1-RMBP

1RMBP

Vav

26

Vav

36

Vav

46

Vpeak

26

Vpeak

36

Vpeak

46

Pav

26

Pav

36

Pav

46

Pmax26P

max36

Pmax

46

.637a

.383

.521

.376

.563a

.625a

.503

.360

.500

.246

.379

.586a

.582a

.637a

.675a

.620a

.707a

.711a

.597a

.639a

.672a

.563a

.628a

.830a

.748a

Abbreviation: 1-RMBP

, maximal dynamic strength; Vav

, average bar velocity; Vpeak

, peak bar velocity;P

av, average power; P

max, peak power.

aSignicant correlations (P < .05).


6/9


Discussion

The purpose o this study was to examine the relationships between 3-step ball-

throwing velocity and selected measures o dynamic strength, power, and barvelocity during a concentric-only bench-press test in elite team-handball players.The major ndings o this study were the signicant correlations between maximalstrength, peak bar velocity, and peak power measures during concentric benchpress and ball-throwing velocity. These data suggest that aspects o both musclestrength and power o the upper extremities and torso play a role in the ability tothrow a ball at high velocity.

Previous published reports examining the relationship between throwing per-ormance and indices o upper body strength have provided equivocal ndings,with some studies reporting a relationship4,11 and others ailing to observe a positive

association.7,8 For example, van den Tillaar and Ettema7 reported a weak correlationbetween isometric handgrip strength and ball-throwing velocity or emale team-handball players (r= .49, P = .027), as well as or male team-handball players (r=.43, P = .056). On the other hand, Fleck et al5 observed stronger correlations withpeak torque during shoulder fexion (r= .63, 300/s) and elbow extension (r= .63,240/s; r= .65, 300/s) in a group o team-handball players. Ho and Almasbakk4observed a greater association between ball-throwing velocity and 1-RMBP (r=.883) in emale team-handball players, suggesting that dynamic, multijoint testsmight prove more useul than isometric or single-joint assessments. The ndings othe current study did not reveal as strong a relationship between throwing velocityand 1-RMBP (r= .64) as that observed in the study by Ho and Almasbakk4 (r= .88) and might represent gender dierences or the use o dierent bench-pressprotocols. Gorostiaga et al2 and, more recently, Marques and Gonzlez-Badillo3observed no association between the 3-step running throwing velocity and maximaldynamic-strength increments (1-RM) ater a resistance-training regimen in a groupo male proessional handball players.

It is dicult to compare the results o studies that have investigated the rela-tionships between throwing velocities and maximal strength in elite team-handballplayers because they dier markedly in a number o actors, including the method o

measurement o maximal strength. Several studies used isokinetic5,11

and isometrictechniques,7 whereas others employed isoinertial methods.1-3,8 A problem with theuse o isometric tests is that they only represent the strength at the specic anglemeasured.8 Furthermore, in team handball not many o the movements are isometricduring the throwing action, and thereore it is not natural to test isometric strengthin relationship with a high-velocity movement such as throwing.8 Isokinetic testsinvolve movements perormed at a constant speed and typically assess a singlejoint motion, such as shoulder16 or elbow fexion,5 that is not specic to throwing.8The bench press is very requently used in resistance-training programs in teamhandball1-4 to increase strength but also to enhance throwing perormance.1-4Another

actor that could possibly contribute to the dierent outcomes between previousinvestigations with respect to the relationships between throwing velocity is thetraining and playing experience o participants.

Ball-throwing velocity was observed to have signicant correlations with Pmax

36and P

max46 but not with P

max26 (Table 2). This was surprising considering that peak

power was greatest during the trial using 26 kg (Figure 1). One explanation or this


7/9

420 Marques et al

nding could be the deceleration o the bar beore maximizing peak movementvelocity. Mayhew et al17-19 investigated the relationships between bench-press powerwhen using 20 kg and the seated shot put in emale college athletes and reported

only a small correlation (r= .38).17 In a training study Mayhew et al19 observedthat the changes in seated shot-put perormance were not correlated to changes inbench-press power. In contrast, Mayhew et al18 ound that seated shot put was sig-nicantly correlated to bench-press absolute power (r= .51) in 40 college ootballplayers. These ndings suggest that the relationship between muscle power andseated shot-put perormance could be infuenced by the mass o the bench-pressload, the mass o the shot put, or gender dierences.

By implementing both speed- and strength-oriented training strategies or aspecic power-training method, power and other perormance variables might beenhanced.12 Baker13 observed that the average power produced at 55% o 1-RMbench-press throwing in highly trained rugby players was maximal compared withaveraged power at other 1-RM load percentages. The bench press is an exercisedeemed to indicate upper body power capabilities. It also should be noted thatthe average power output with loads o 46% and 62% o 1-RM bench throw werenot signicantly dierent rom each other. In the current study we ound that thehighest average power output occurred at 52% o 1-RM, which was in accordancewith the ndings o Baker et al.12,13 Baker and Nance20 stated that the highest poweroutput occurred in the range o 46% to 62% o 1-RM and not at loads o 30% to45% because the subjects in their studies were specically power-trained athletes.

In the current study the athletes were also power trained.Gorostiaga et al2 observed a positive relationship between bar velocity duringa bench-press test using 30% o 1-RMBP and standing ball-throwing velocity orelite (r= .67) and amateur team-handball players (r= .71). The 3-step throwingvelocity was associated with the bar velocity at 30% , 60%, and 70% o 1-RMBP(r= .57.72), but only in the elite players, suggesting a dierence or open- andclosed-kinetic-chain movements between elite and amateur players. The currentinvestigation is in agreement with that o Gorostiaga et al2 in that we observedsignicant correlations between peak bar velocity during the concentric-only bench-press trials using 26 kg (r= .563) and 36 kg (r= .625). Although peak bar velocity

at 46 kg was not statistically correlated (r= .501, P = .68) with throwing velocity,the relative load and correlation all within the range reported by Gorostiaga et al.2Taken together these data suggest that 3-step throwing velocity is related to thecapacity to move low loads with upper limbs at maximal velocities.8 The signicantrelationship observed between upper extremities and 3-step throwing velocity inthe current study has been previously reported during concentric isokinetic elbowextensions in top team-handball players.5 This suggests that 3-step throwingvelocity is related to the capacity to move low external loads with upper limbs atmaximal velocities.5 These correlations were not very high, however, because thekinematics o overarm throwing dier very much rom the kinematics o the bench

press. For example, in overarm throwing it was observed that the timing o pelvismovement is very important or good throwing perormance.10 Recently, van denTillaar and Ettema10 investigated the contribution o upper extremity, trunk, andlower extremity movements in overarm throwing in team handball. The analysisconsists o maximal angles, angles at ball release, and maximal angular velocitieso the joint movements and their timing during the throw. Only the elbow angle


8/9


(r= .64; extension movement range) and the level o internal-rotation velocity othe shoulder at ball release showed a signicant relationship with throwing peror-mance (r= .67). In addition, a strong correlation was ound or the timing o the

maximal pelvis angle with ball velocity (r= .84), indicating that better throwersstarted to rotate their pelvis orward earlier during the throw. No other relationshipswith throwing velocity were ound, indicating that these specic characteristics areo primary importance or throwing perormance in team-handball players. Thus,muscles involved in pelvis rotation were not tested by the bench-press exercise,which could explain the low signicant correlation between throwing velocity andpeak bar velocity.

There are several limitations to this study that should be noted. First, we useda small sample size, which might infuence correlations i outliers are present.Normality was assessed or each o the perormance outcomes, and it does notappear that the results o this investigation were aected by outliers. Second, weonly assessed upper body strength and power, whereas van den Tillaar and Ettema10have indicated that other kinetic and kinematic variables play an important role inthrowing velocity or team-handball players. Given the act that throwing is a highlycomplex motor skill, a single test that could account or nearly all the variabilityin throwing velocity is unlikely.

Conclusions and Applications

Within the connes o our study limitations, these ndings highlight the impor-tant relationship between throwing velocity and maximal upper body strength, asassessed by the 1-RM (r= .63), peak power at 52% and 67% o 1-RM (r= .58),and bar velocity at 38% (r= .56) and 52% o 1-RM (r= .62). It would seem thatthrowing-velocity perormance would benet rom training regimens aimed atimproving these perormance qualities. These ndings should be interpreted withcaution because correlations provide only associations and do not represent causa-tion; additional research is required to elucidate whether improvements in upperbody strength, velocity, or power as a result o resistance or plyometric training willindeed improve maximal throwing velocity in elite team-handball athletes.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the athletes who participated in this study, as well as their head

coach, Rolando J. Freitas.

References

1. Gorostiaga EM, Granados C, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M. Eects oan entire season on physical tness changes in elite male handball players. Med SciSports Exerc. 2006;38:357-366.

2. Gorostiaga EM, Izquierdo M, Iturralde P, Ruesta M, Ibanez J. Eects o heavy resistancetraining on maximal and explosive orce production, endurance and serum hormonesin adolescent handball players.Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1999;80:485-493.

3. Marques MC, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. In-season resistance training and detraining inproessional team handball players.J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:563-571.


9/9

422 Marques et al

4. Ho J, Almasbakk B. The eects o maximum strength training on throwing velocityand muscle strength in emale team-handball players.J Strength Cond Res. 1995;9:255-258.

5. Fleck SJ, Smith SL, Craib MW, Denahan T, Snow RE, Mitchell MR. Upper extrem-ity isokinetic torque and throwing velocity in team handball. J Appl Sport Sci Res.1992;6:120-124.

6. van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. Instructions emphasizing velocity, accuracy, or both inperormance and kinematics o overarm throwing by experienced team handball play-ers. Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97:731-742.

7. van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. Eect o body size and gender in overarm throwingperormance.Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91:413-418.

8. Gorostiaga EM, Granados C, Ibanez J, Izquierdo M. Dierences in physical tness andthrowing velocity among elite and amateur male handball players.Int J Sports Med.2005;26:225-232.

9. Mikkelsen F, Olesen MN.Handball 82-84 [Traening af skudstyrken] [thesis/disserta-tion]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University; 1976.

10. van den Tillaar R, Ettema GA. Three-dimensional analysis o overarm throwing inexperienced handball players.J Appl Biomech. 2007;23:12-19.

11. Bayios IA, Anastasopoulou EM, Sioudris DS, Boudolos KD. Relationship betweenisokinetic strength o the internal and external shoulder rotators and ball velocity inteam handball.J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2001;41:229-235.

12. Baker D, Nance S, Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical poweroutput during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes.J Strength Cond

Res. 2001;15:20-24.13. Baker D. The eects o an in-season o concurrent training on the maintenance o

maximal strength and power in proessional and college-aged rugby league ootballplayers.J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15:172-177.

14. Hakkinen K, Komi PV. Changes in electrical and mechanical behaviour o leg extensormuscles during heavy resistance strength training. Scand J Sport Sci. 1985;7:55-64.

15. Hakkinen K, Komi PV. Eect o explosive type strength training on electromyographicand orce production characteristics o leg extensor muscles during concentric andvarious stretch-shortening exercises. Scand J Sport Sci. 1985;7:65-75.

16. Edwards Van Muijen A, Joris H, Kemper HCG, van Ingen Schenau GJ. Throwingpractice with dierent ball weights: eects on throwing velocity and muscle strengthin emale handball players. Sports Med Train Rehabil. 1991;2:103-113.

17. Mayhew JL, Bemben MG, Piper FC. Assessing bench press power in college ootballplayers: the seated shot put.J Strength Cond Res. 1993;7:95-100.

18. Mayhew JL, Bemben MG, Rohrs D. Specicity among anaerobic power tests in collegeemale athletes.J Strength Cond Res. 1994;8:43-47.

19. Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Johns RA, Bemben MG. Changes in upper body power ollow-ing heavy-resistance strength training in college men.Int J Sports Med. 1997;18:516-520.

20. Baker D, Nance S. The relationship between running speed and measures o strengthand power in proessional rugby league players.J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13:230-235.

journal-muscle power, barvelocity, bench press

Documents