Effect of Different Training Programs on the Velocity of Overarm Throwing a Brief Review

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench printing on throwing velocity and strength among handball players

• Jørund Løken,
• Tom Erik Jorung Solstad,
• Nicolay Stien,
• Vidar Andersen,
• Atle Hole Saeterbakken

ten

• Published: November 19, 2021
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0260297

Figures

Abstruse

Bench press is a pop training-exercise in throw related sports such as javelin, baseball and handball. Athletes in these sports oftentimes apply bouncing (i.eastward., letting the barbell collide with the breast) to create an increased momentum to accelerate the barbell upwards before completing the motion by throwing the barbell. Importantly, the effects of the billowy technique in bench press take non been examined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of bench press throw with (BPT_bounce) or without bounce (BPT) on throwing velocity (penalty and 3-step), 1-repetition maximum (one-RM) and average power output (20-60kg) in bench press amid handball players. Sixteen male amateur handball players (7.1±1.9 years of handball experience) were randomly allocated to an eight-calendar week supplementary ability grooming plan (two x week^-1) with either the BPT or BPT_bounciness. Except for the bounce technique, the grooming programs were identical and consisted of 3 sets with three–5 repetitions at 40–threescore% of 1-RM with maximal effort in free-weight barbell demote press throw. The results revealed no significant differences between the groups in any of the tests (p = 0.109–0.957). Notwithstanding, both groups improved penalty throw (BPT; iv.half-dozen%, p<0.001, ES = 0.57; BPT_bounce; v.1%, p = 0.008, ES = 0.91) and 1-RM (BPT; 9.7%, p<0.001, ES = 0.49; BPT_bounce; 8.vii%, p = 0.018, ES = 0.60), merely merely the BPT improved the 3-step throw (BPT; two.ix%, p = 0.060, ES = 0.38; BPT_bounciness; two.3%, p = 0.216, ES = 0.xl). The BPT improved power output just at 20kg and 30kg loads (9.1% and 12.seven%; p = 0.018–0.048, ES = 0.43–0.51) whereas BPT_bounce demonstrated no significant differences across the loads (p = 0.252–0.806). In conclusion, the bounce technique demonstrated similar effects on throwing velocity, muscle force and muscle ability output as conventional bench press throw without the bounce technique.

Citation: Løken J, Solstad TEJ, Stien Northward, Andersen V, Saeterbakken AH (2021) Effects of bouncing the barbell in bench press on throwing velocity and forcefulness among handball players. PLoS ONE 16(11): e0260297. https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pone.0260297

Editor: Luca Paolo Ardigò, Universita degli Studi di Verona, ITALY

Received: Oct 4, 2021; Accustomed: November 7, 2021; Published: November nineteen, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Løken et al. This is an open admission article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Information Availability: All relevant information are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The funders had no office in study design, data drove and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors received no specific founding for this work. As of this, a) in that location are no sources of funding (financial or material support) for this study to report. Furthermore, b) there were no founders involved and therefore the funders had no role in study pattern, information collection and analysis, conclusion to publish, or grooming of the manuscript. Finally, c) none of authors received whatever form of salary form any founders. To clarify everything: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors accept declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Coaches and researchers have adult resistance grooming programs with the intent to maximize the transfer of training-effects to loftier-velocity movements (i.e., sprinting, kicking, jumping) [1, ii]. In sports involving overarm throws (e.chiliad., handball, javelin, water polo, baseball game), maximizing release velocity is one of the most critical parameters for success [3]. Previous studies have demonstrated that throwing velocity may exist increased through various training methods (i.east., traditional forcefulness training, power grooming, core stability training, and throwing with underweight- and overweight balls) [iv–7]. Potentially, these various resistance preparation approaches may result in dissimilar adaptations [8, 9], and different effects on throwing functioning [10, xi].

In sports relying on the overarm throw, the barbell bench printing practice is one of the most utilized exercises for developing upper trunk forcefulness and power [4, 6, ten, 12]. The demote press movement can be altered using various equipment, intensities, and lifting techniques [9, 13]. However, it is non still clear which resistance training approach that maximize performance in high-velocity movements such equally the overarm throw [2, 4, 7]. Notably, several researchers take highlighted the importance of performing resistance grooming exercises with maximal try (i.eastward., move the load equally apace as possible) to improve sport-specific high-velocity force [8, xiv, 15]. On this basis, the bench press throw (BPT) with lighter loads (30–lx% 1-RM) is frequently recommended for explosive power training considering it allows the lifter to push through the entire ascending movement [12, sixteen]. Furthermore, previous studies show superior dispatch, muscle activity, strength, velocity, power output, and improvements in throwing distance and velocity with the performance of BPT compared to the traditional bench press using loads lower than 70% 1-RM [10, 11, 13].

Still, ane of the more difficult regions of the exercise is the transition from descending to ascending the barbell [17]. Typically, this region is often standardized then that the barbell should stop at or just to a higher place breast level to avoid the bounce upshot [10]. The bounce is the result of letting the barbell collide with the chest which immediately creates a momentum to aid accelerate the ascending barbell. BPT with the bounciness technique (BPT_bounce) has been utilized in training by elite track and field throwing athletes, equally it may provide a more explosive and specific bench press variation. Still, to the authors' all-time knowledge, no previous study has examined the chronic furnishings of the bounce technique in BPT. Still, Krajewski and colleagues [18] compared the acute effects of performing the conventional deadlift with either the pause or bounce technique. Twenty resistance-trained men performed 2 sets of v repetitions at 75% of 1-RM with both techniques. The bounce technique reduced the strength requirements and lift time in both the early stage (0.0–0.1s) of the lift and the entire ascending stage.

The effects of BPT_bounce may be comparable to the drop-jump. A drib-jump may issue in loftier level of force evolution prior to the ascending phase, through a stretch-shortening cycle type action that stores the elastic energy, triggering spinal reflexes as the muscles stretches, and thereby enhancing the potentiation due to the pre-stretched muscles to a greater extent than a countermovement spring [19–22]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the effects of demote printing throw with bounce (BPT_bounce) and a without bounciness (BPT) on throwing velocity (penalization and 3-step), 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) in bench press, and average power output (20–60kg) in bench press among handball players. Information technology was hypothesized that the BPT_bounciness preparation group would increase throwing velocity and power more than than the BPT group, while the BPT group would increase in the one-RM more than than the BPT_bounce group.

Methods

Blueprint

The study used a within- and between groups design in which the subjects were randomized to train twice per calendar week with either BPT or BPT_bounciness for 8 weeks in addition to regular team handball preparation. Test variables pre-and post-intervention consisted of throwing velocity (7m punishment and 3-step), bench press i-RM, and average power output profile (twenty-60kg) in bench press.

Participants

Subjects were recruited from 2 dissimilar handball teams and randomized into the 2 training groups BPT and BPT_bounce. Of annotation, each team was randomized into the two groups meaning that each team had equal number of participants in each grouping. This was done to annul the possible bias due to the preparation routines and preparation/testing equipment. Initially, xix amateur handball players were recruited; yet, 2 players were injured (not related to the intervention), and ane did not nourish the post-test. Sixteen subjects completed at to the lowest degree 12 preparation sessions and were included in the data analysis. The boilerplate training attendance was 16 (± 2.0 sessions) and 16 (± 2.vii sessions) for the BPT group and BPT_bounciness grouping. Details of the subjects are included in Tabular array ane.

Ethics statement

All subjects were informed with written and verbal instructions regarding the implications and potential side effects of participating in this experiment. The study was conducted from Oct to December 2020, and the nowadays procedures were performed in accordance with the Announcement of Helsinki and canonical by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ref. 288211).

Procedures

Four to 5 days before the pre-test, a familiarization with BPT and BPT_bounciness technique was performed. The familiarization session aimed to familiarize the subjects with both the BPT and BPT_bounce technique by completing several attempts with each technique on loads between thirty–60% of self-reported ane-RM (e.yard., 20–70 kg). Of annotation, the handball players were experienced with resistance preparation and were tested in bench printing 1-RM often (eastward.g., 3–v times) each year. Ane-to-two repetitions for each load were conducted with no more than five loads for each technique. In the BPT technique, the subjects were instructed to lower the barbell and lightly touch (no bounce allowed) the breast (sternum position) and immediately printing upwards with maximal voluntary intent until projecting the barbell (i.e., throw the barbell). Like instructions were given for the BPT_bounce technique, except the teaching to bounce the barbell off the chest. For both techniques, subjects were instructed with the following statement: "the goal is to generate every bit high velocity during the ascending phase as possible, with a fast but controlled lowering velocity". In the BPT, trials were omitted if the barbell bounced or if the descending phase was terminated before touching the sternum lightly. For the BPT_bounce, trials were rejected if the bar did not clearly bounce off the chest. In both techniques, trials were rejected if the hip lifted from the bench or if any hesitation occurred in the transition from the descending to the ascending stage.

Before each exam session, the subjects were instructed to complete a five-infinitesimal general warm-up on a treadmill or stationary cycle. The warm-up continued in the lab with dynamic stretches for the pectoralis, inductive deltoid, and triceps brachii, followed by 10 repetitions in the bench printing with 20kg, 4 repetitions at 50% of cocky-reported one-RM and 2 repetitions with 75% of self-reported 1-RM. Preferred grip width and dorsum position on the demote were measured and controlled before each elevator. All testing and training were conducted in Smith machines.

The pre- and post-tests consisted of two testing days. On the first day, the load-ability test and 1-RM, test was conducted. In the load-ability test, the subjects performed 1–3 attempts separated with 2–3 minutes residue at loads increasing from 20–60kg with both BPT techniques performed in a randomized social club. To assess the power output, a linear encoder (Ergotest Innovation, Stathelle, Norway) was fastened to the barbell. The linear encoder measured barbell vertical displacement and time with a resolution of 0.019 mm and a sampling rate of 200 Hz. Using the commercial software Musclelab v.x (Ergotest Innovation, Stathelle, Norway), the boilerplate power (e.grand., from the everyman to the highest barbell position) was calculated from the ascending phase of the BPT for each load. The attempts with the highest average power were selected for the analysis.

The 2d mean solar day of testing was conducted 5–seven days after the first test and consisted of measuring maximal throwing velocity in a penalty throw (7m) and a 3-step handball throw. Later a general warm-up, both tests followed a procedure inspired past Saeterbakken et al. [5]. Groups of three subjects tested in rotation with a 60-second rest between attempts, performing 5–10 maximal throws. The test was terminated when the velocity decreased subsequently the 5^th effort. The penalisation shot was performed behind the 7m line and followed regular penalty rules, with the forepart human foot on the ground during the throw. The three-step throw was performed behind the 9m dotted line, and subjects were allowed a three-pace run-upwards. Subjects were instructed to throw the ball (mass 480 g, circumference 58 cm) equally fast and straightforward as possible [5]. Maximal brawl velocity was measured with a Stalker Radar gun (The Stalker ATS II; Radar Sales, Plymouth, MN, USA) with an accuracy of ± 3%. The radar was located 1 meter behind the participant at ball height during the throw [23]. The average of the iii best throws was used in further analysis [five]. The examination-retest coefficient of variation (CV) for the three all-time throwing velocities used in the analyses were 1.49 and 1.23 for the penalty and 3-footstep throw.

Grooming programs.

Due to national traveling restrictions post-obit the Covid-19 pandemic, only six subjects (iii subjects in each group) from i of the recruited handball teams were supervised every session. The other 10 subjects were supervised in the first two sessions and one session midway through the intervention. The unsupervised subjects were instructed to train in pairs and to encourage each other to perform each lift with maximal voluntary effort and with a proper bounciness (due east.g., a pregnant and visible compression of the chest). A researcher had weekly contact with them, and all subjects delivered a preparation log for each week. Both groups received the same power preparation program and were asked to keep their regular team handball training. In addition, the subjects were encouraged to continue their usual resistance training routines, but refrain from additional resistance preparation involving the breast, shoulder, and triceps muscles.

Each grooming session was initiated with a warm-upward and included: dynamic stretches for the pectoralis major, inductive deltoid, and triceps brachii muscle, x repetitions with an unloaded bar (20kg), 6 repetitions with 50% of that session's training load and 4 repetitions with 70% of that session's training load. The grooming program (Tabular array 2) was based on previous recommendations for power training [12, 24] and a recent demote throw study [25]. The one-RM result from the pre-test was used to summate training load in weeks 1–4, whereas a new 1-RM test (identical procedures as described previously) was conducted subsequently calendar week four of the intervention to adapt the loading.

During the intervention, the subjects reported their weekly numbers of team handball sessions and resistance training sessions targeting the upper body. The post-examination was performed 6–8 days after the intervention to maximize adaptations to the training intervention while minimizing fatigue.

Statistics.

All baseline variables were tested for normality (Shapiro Wilk) and visually inspected. To examine potential differences in squad handball training, resistance training or change in relative resistance in the loads for the ability exam, contained T-tests were used. Split-plot ANOVA (within-subject factor: time (pre and post); between-subject factor: BPT-technique (BPT and BPT_bounce)) was used to determine the furnishings of the intervention on average power output, maximal strength, 7m- and three-pace throwing velocity. Magnitude of the furnishings was adamant using Cohen'southward d. An outcome size of < 0.ii was considered trivial, 0.ii–0.5 small-scale, 0.v–0.8 medium and > 0.viii large [26]. The significance level was set up to ≤ 0.05 and all data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) if zero else is stated.

Results

In that location was no significant divergence betwixt the two groups in weekly squad handball (p = 0.387) or resistance preparation sessions (p = 0.109) during the intervention. The BPT reported two.6 ± 1.seven and 3.3 ± 1.0 team handball and resistance training sessions per week whereas the BPT_bounciness reported 1.nine ± one.2 and 2.half-dozen ± 0.5 team handball and resistance training sessions per week. Furthermore, no pregnant differences in discipline anthropometrics (p ≥ 0.158), maximal ball velocity (p ≥ 0.246) and 1-RM (p = 0.629) were observed at pre-examination.

Throwing velocity

No significant interaction (F = 0.08–2.407, p = 0.539–0.929) or pregnant main consequence for group (F = 1.058–1.1225, p = 0.290–0.324) was observed for the 7m and iii-step throwing velocity, but a principal effect for time (F = l.120–53.185, p < 0.001–0.005) was observed (Figs i and 2, and S1 Tabular array). Post hoc exam demonstrated a 5.1% (84.70 ± 3.87 km/h vs. 89.00 ± 5.49 km/h, p = 0.016, ES = 0.91) and 2.3% not-meaning (92.75 ± 5.36 km/h vs. 94.92 ± five.49 km/h, p = 0.114, ES = 0.40) improvement for the 7m and three-step throwing velocity for the BPT_bounce group. For the BPT, a 5.ii% (81.xv ± 7.41 km/h vs. 85.35 ± vii.29 km/h, p < 0.001, ES = 0.57) and 3.8% (88.24 ± 9.13 km/h vs. 91.59 ± 8.37 km/h, p = 0.048, ES = 0.38) improvement was observed for the 7m and iii-stride throwing velocity, respectively.

one-RM

No significant interaction (F = 0.110, p = 0.746) or significant principal result for group (F = 0.137, p = 0.718) was observed, but a significant chief effect for fourth dimension (F = 35.670, p < 0.001) was observed for the 1-RM examination. Mail hoc tests demonstrated an 8.7% (64.64 ± 17.17 kg vs. 75.71 ± 19.83, p < 0.001, ES = 0.threescore) and 10.iii% (66.07 ± 13.06 kg vs. 72.86 ± 14.61 kg, p < 0.001, ES = 0.49) increase for the BPT_bounce and the BPT grouping respectively.

Power output in bench press throw

When measuring power output during bench press throw with bonce, no pregnant interaction (F = 0.066–2.477, p = 0.142–0.802) or significant main issue for grouping (F = 0.453–ane.467, p = 0.254–0.513) or fourth dimension (F = ane.763–four.389, p = 0.060–0.209) was observed with exception of significant chief result for time using the 50kg load (F = 9.780, p = 0.011). All post hoc tests and details are presented in Tabular array 3.

For the bench press throw without bounciness, no pregnant interaction (F = 0.003–2.989, p = 0.109–0.957) or meaning main event for group (F = 0.239–0.407, p = 0.217–0.634) was observed beyond the loads without bouncing the barbell. A significant principal consequence for time was observed for 20kg, 50kg and 60kg (F = seven.953–eighteen.512, p = 0.002–0.015), but not 30kg and 40kg (F = iv.224–four.435, p = 0.057–0.062). All post hoc tests and details are presented in Table three.

The bench press loads 20kg, 30kg, 40kg, 50kg and 60kg represented in the pre-exam 31–78% of the 1-RM load for the BPT_bounciness group and 31–87% for the BPT grouping. At post-test, the loads represented 28–76% of the i-RM load for the BPT_bounce group and 28–85% for the BPT group. No meaning differences of the loads (e.grand., percent of ane-RM) were observed between the groups at pre-exam (p = 0.334–0.940) or post-examination (p = 0.449–0.993).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the training effects of bench press throw with or without the bounce technique. The main findings were that viii weeks of power training with BPT or BPT _bounce had similar effects on throwing velocity, maximal force, and power output in apprentice handball players.

In contrast to the hypotheses, similar effect of the two techniques were observed. This may be due to like stimuli for adaptation every bit both techniques were trained with maximum voluntary endeavour and the intent to develop force as fast equally possible throughout the entire ascending movement of the barbell. Furthermore, the resistance training protocol had similar preparation volume and similarities in techniques (e.g., targeting same muscle groups), and intensities (e.k., % of 1-RM). This may explain the similar results. In addition, the rate of muscular tension development and motor unit of measurement activation may take been relatively like contained of the techniques [21, 27] every bit both groups performed BPT. Therefore, the deviation betwixt the techniques in the present study might take been insignificant to evoke different responses. Still, the possibility that some players performed a greater bounce than other cannot be rejected. A small bounciness would make the training intervention shut to identical and could potentially explicate the findings. Importantly, the examination leader attended as many training sessions as possible to promote maximal try and a proper visual bounce. Furthermore, both groups trained with the aforementioned volume and load (sets 10 repetitions x load) suggesting that the workload between the groups was the same. Previous studies accept compared different workloads such as heavy resistance training (>70% of 1-RM) with ballistic power training (< 30% of 1-RM) and reported similar improvement in sprint, jump height, and throwing operation [28, 29]. Nevertheless, to exploit the elastic energy and stretch-shortening bike from the descending phase to the ascending phase with maximal acceleration of the loads, a considerable requirement of muscle power and strength are required [30, 31], especially for the BPT_bounciness group. Based on the BPTbounce groups`relative one-RM strength level (1-RM/body weight = 0.98), it is plausible that their force level was too depression to exploit the bounciness issue maximally in BPT. For instance, higher driblet jump heights (>60cm) take demonstrated lower reactive forcefulness alphabetize than lower heights [32]. Reactive forcefulness alphabetize is calculated by dividing the jump acme past ground contact fourth dimension and has proven reliable and a useful tool to measure the power to quickly modify from eccentric to concentric musculus activity [33, 34]. In the aforementioned study [32], the ground contact time was longer using higher drib jump heights (>60cm) which means that the ability to speedily blot and then transmit the free energy to a propulsive contraction decreased with increasing driblet bound heights. All the same, the relative lower limb forcefulness was non included in the written report [32], which could support our speculation that the subjects in the present study were not strong enough to exploit the bounce effect. Furthermore, non-professional person volleyball players have demonstrated greater effects in different jump types during half dozen weeks of countermovement jump grooming than drib jump training (17 vs. seven%) [35]. These findings could implicate that the subjects in the present study may not accept been trained specifically for eccentric force, which tin effect in reduced ability to absorb and transmit the energy to a concentric movement [36]. Importantly, maximal attempt and the intention to develop force chop-chop have previously been accounted equally a critical stimulus for improving loftier-velocity performance in resistance grooming [37, 38]. For example, Sakamoto and colleagues [10] showed that bench throw training (xxx–50% RM) significantly increased throwing altitude and maximum strength compared to no significant increase with the traditional demote press technique (eastward.g., no barbell throw).

The intervention may have provided a too depression stimuli due to a combination of low loads, reduction in handball matches, duration of the intervention, or total training volume to detect differences betwixt the groups in throwing velocity. The subjects of this study completed an boilerplate of 16 intervention sessions (i.e., vi weekly sets) over viii weeks and the resistance training plan was designed equally a supplement to the subjects`squad handball preparation. Nonetheless, no physical contact or matches were allowed during the intervention due to the national and local COVID-xix regulation which could potentially take influenced the findings with reduced handball session intensity and throwing training (e.g., low loads training with maximal velocity). It could be speculated that a longer training menses may have afflicted the muscular activeness more than (i.due east., neurological and morphological) and improved motor coordination, leading to greater upshot of the bounce technique. However, this is speculative and cannot be answered past the present study`s recordings. Yet, the consistent operation of the sport-specific skill in conjunction with resistance grooming might be pivotal to transfer effects of from the resistance training to throwing velocity [8, 14, 15]. An increased training volume and an extended intervention period could have allowed potential differences between the groups [39]. Still, the increase in maximal strength for the 2 groups (8.seven% and 10.two%) was similar to the 10% increment reported by Sakamoto et al. [10] who completed a 12 week intervention with 2 sessions per calendar week.

Both groups improved the 7m penalization throw, whereas only the BPT improved the 3-step throwing velocity. This may be the upshot of the penalty throw being better at isolating improvements to the upper trunk musculature, as the 3-step involves more complex motor skills. Withal, the effects on 7m throwing velocity in this written report are similar to the 2% improvement reported by McEvoy and Newton [11] who incorporated a like intervention meantime with regular sport practise. The present study population may not be optimal for such a specific investigation. Amateur athletes may reply to a broad range of preparation stimuli and is typically less sensitive to the specifics of training [7, 15, 28]. For athletes with only a few years of resistance- or handball experience, additional throwing and general resistance preparation results in positive outcomes [7]. The speculation is supported past ii reviews on throwing velocity who both stated that there is no definitive answer to which blazon of training which produces the greatest increase in throwing velocity [4, 7].

Regarding the bench press 1-RM results, information technology was hypothesized that the BPT would increase 1-RM to a greater degree than BPT_bounce. This hypothesis was based on the principle of specificity and that the 1-RM exam was carried out with a technique more than similar (no bounce allowed) to the preparation of the BPT group. Opposite to the hypothesis, results showed like improvements between the groups. Similar training book, intensity, and workloads, in addition to depression relative bench printing force (0.94 and 0.98 at baseline), are near likely the caption of the findings. Different findings have been reported in a report comparing heavy resistance preparation and ballistic power training [28, 29], but not in all [forty]. Importantly, ability preparation with maximal effort tin improve 1-RM strength [2].

Despite no significant differences between the groups in power output beyond loads, the BPT improved power output only at the 20kg and 30kg loads (9.ane% and 12.7%, respectively) whereas BPT_bounce demonstrated no significant differences across the loads. These loads were lower loads than the one being used in the intervention (Tabular array 2) and thereby not co-ordinate to the load/movement velocity specific response typically reported elsewhere [2, 12, 38]. Typically, it is considered easier to increase forcefulness than velocity, specially when initial strength is depression [xvi, 41]. This may explain the improvement in 1-RM strength even though no significant differences were observed betwixt the groups. Furthermore, Cuevas-Aburto et al. [40] demonstrated similar increase in bench printing 1-RM comparison a strength-oriented preparation plan to a ballistic training program. Chiefly, an increase in subjects' strength-generating chapters increases their potential to become faster at any given force or resistance [42], potentially explaining the increased throwing velocity.

The nowadays study has several limitations which the reader needs to be mindful of. First, the written report suffered from a relatively small number of subjects and blazon 2 error cannot be ruled out when comparing the techniques. Using the post-test results from the 7m throwing test to calculate the minimal sample size to discover significant deviation (α level of 0.05, and β level of eighty%), 12 subjects in each grouping was required. Additionally, and based on the mail-examination results, the statistical ability in the present study was 44%. Also, the difference between the techniques might be greater with heavier loads (>60% 1RM). However, we designed a power grooming program using loads between twoscore–60% of 1-RM. Still, whether greater resistance training experience (e.grand., strong athletes) or heavier loads might be more beneficial for one of the bench press throw techniques is beyond the scope of the present report, but should be examined in further studies. If introducing the bounce technique with a heavier relative load, it should exist considered confronting the possibility of increased injury risk, especially if the subjects are inexperienced. Also, due to low access to appropriate subjects (handball players) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report could not include a control group. Researchers may have these considerations in mind when interpreting the results or planning to investigate the effects of bounciness in the future.

In determination, the results demonstrated similar effects of the BPT and BPT_bounce techniques on maximal throwing velocity, maximal strength, and ability output in amateur handball players. For athletes where the strength component is less developed, the present results indicated that the bounciness technique is not of significant importance. Importantly, the findings of this written report must exist interpreted in the context of both techniques beingness performed as explosively as possible. It is important to note that the findings are limited to brusk-term power training amidst apprentice athletes. In that case, more force-oriented training could possibly render similar improvements to throwing velocity while increasing maximal forcefulness to a larger caste, which is considered a critical long-term accommodation for athletes involved in explosive endeavors. Withal, once adequate force has been developed, the apply of more explosive and specific grooming variations is considered increasingly important [12, fifteen]. Yet, this possibility requires further study.

Supporting data

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants for their enthusiastic participation in this project. In that location are no disharmonize of interest.

References

1. ane. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance. Sports Med. 2016;46(10):1419–49. Epub 2016/02/04. pmid:26838985.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Cronin J, Sleivert G. Challenges in understanding the influence of maximal power training on improving athletic performance. Sports Med. 2005;35(3):213–34. Epub 2005/02/26. pmid:15730337.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Morriss C, Bartlett R. Biomechanical factors disquisitional for performance in the men's javelin throw. Sports Med. 1996;21(6):438–46. Epub 1996/06/01. pmid:8784963.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. van den Tillaar R. Event of different grooming programs on the velocity of overarm training: A cursory review. The Journal of Forcefulness & Conditioning Research. 2004;18(two):388–96. 00124278-200405000-00033. pmid:15142008
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
5. five. Saeterbakken AH, van den Tillaar R, Seiler S. Issue of core stability training on throwing velocity in female handball players. J Forcefulness Cond Res. 2011;25(3):712–8. Epub 2010/06/29. pmid:20581697.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Bragazzi NL, Rouissi M, Hermassi Southward, Chamari K. Resistance Preparation and Handball Players' Isokinetic, Isometric and Maximal Strength, Muscle Power and Throwing Ball Velocity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(eight). Epub 2020/04/17. pmid:32294971; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7215414.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Szymanski DJ. Effects of Various Resistance Training Methods on Overhand Throwing Power Athletes: A Cursory Review. Strength Cond J. 2012;34(half-dozen):61–74. Epub 2011/12/29. pmid:22201694.
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Velocity specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks. J Sci Med Sport. 2001;4(2):168–78. Epub 2001/09/eleven. pmid:11548916.
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K, Humphries BJ, Murphy AJ. Kinematics, kinetics, and musculus activation during explosive upper body movements. Periodical of applied biomechanics. 1996;12(1):31–43.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Sakamoto A, Kuroda A, Naito H, Sakuma Chiliad. The effectiveness of bench press grooming with or without throws on force and shot put distance of competitive university athletes | SpringerLink. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2018;118(nine):1821–xxx. pmid:29931495
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. McEvoy KP, Newton RU. Baseball throwing speed and base of operations running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 1998;12(four):216–21.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing Maximal Neuromuscular Ability: role ii—training considerations for improving maximal power product. Sports Medicine. 2011;41(2):125–46. Epub 2011/01/twenty. pmid:21244105.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. thirteen. Cronin J, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Developing explosive power: a comparison of technique and grooming. J Sci Med Sport. 2001;4(ane):59–70. Epub 2001/05/08. pmid:11339494.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. xiv. Behm DG, Auction DG. Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports Med. 1993;fifteen(vi):374–88. Epub 1993/06/01. pmid:8341872.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Immature WB. Transfer of force and ability grooming to sports functioning. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(2):74–83. Epub 2006/06/01. pmid:19114741.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Kraemer WJ, Newton RU. Grooming for muscular power. Phys Med Rehabil Clin Northward Am. 2000;11(2):341–68, vii. Epub 2000/05/16. pmid:10810765.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Wilson JM, Flanagan EP. The part of elastic free energy in activities with high forcefulness and ability requirements: a brief review. J Forcefulness Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1705–fifteen. Epub 2008/08/21. pmid:18714212.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Krajewski KT, LeFavi RG, Riemann BL. A Biomechanical Analysis of the Effects of Bouncing the Barbell in the Conventional Deadlift. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33 Suppl one:S70–S7. Epub 2018/03/01. pmid:29489730.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. nineteen. van den Tillaar R, Ettema One thousand. A comparing of musculus activeness in concentric and counter movement maximum demote press. J Hum Kinet. 2013;38:63–71. Epub 2013/11/sixteen. pmid:24235985; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3827767.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Bobbert MF, Gerritsen KG, Litjens MC, Van Soest AJ. Why is countermovement bound height greater than squat bound height? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28(11):1402–12. Epub 1996/eleven/01. pmid:8933491.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Komi PV, Bosco C. Utilization of stored elastic free energy in leg extensor muscles by men and women. Med Sci Sports. 1978;x(four):261–v. Epub 1978/01/01. pmid:750844.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Aagaard P, Andersen JL, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Leffers AM, Wagner A, Magnusson SP, et al. A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate musculus in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol. 2001;534(Pt. two):613–23. Epub 2001/07/17. pmid:11454977; PubMed Cardinal PMCID: PMC2278719.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Nuno A, Chirosa IJ, van den Tillaar R, Guisado R, Martin I, Martinez I, et al. Effects of Fatigue on Throwing Performance in Experienced Team Handball Players. J Hum Kinet. 2016;54:103–13. Epub 2016/12/xxx. pmid:28031762; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5187964.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Baker D, Newton RU. Methods to increase the effectiveness of maximal power training for the upper body. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 2005;27(6).
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Boffey D, Sokmen B, Sollanek K, Boda Due west, Winter Due south. Effects of Load on Height Power Output Fatigue During the Bench Throw. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(ii):355–9. Epub 2017/11/xvi. pmid:29140909.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. second ed. Hillsdale, NJ; Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
27. 27. Asmussen Eastward, Bonde-Petersen F. Storage of elastic energy in skeletal muscles in man. Acta Physiol Scand. 1974;91(three):385–92. Epub 1974/07/01. pmid:4846332
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Adaptations in athletic performance later ballistic ability versus strength preparation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1582–98. Epub 2010/02/09. pmid:20139780.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Zaras N, Spengos K, Methenitis S, Papadopoulos C, Karampatsos G, Georgiadis G, et al. Furnishings of Strength vs. Ballistic-Ability Preparation on Throwing Performance. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(1):130–7. Epub 2013/10/24. pmid:24149736; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3761775.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Bosco C, Komi PV, Ito A. Prestretch potentiation of human skeletal muscle during ballistic motility. Acta Physiol Scand. 1981;111(2):135–40. Epub 1981/02/01. pmid:7282389
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Bobbert MF. Driblet jumping as a training method for jumping power. Sports Med. 1990;9(i):7–22. Epub 1990/01/01. pmid:2408119.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Addie CD, Amett JE, Neltner TJ, Straughn MK, Greska EK, Cosio-Lima L, et al. Effects of Drib Elevation on Drop Jump Performance. Int J Kinesiol Sport Sci 2019;7(4):28–32.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Flanagan EP, Ebben WP, Jensen RL. Reliability of the reactive strength index and fourth dimension to stabilization during depth jumps. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1677–82. Epub 2008/08/21. pmid:18714215.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Flanagan EP, Comyns TM. The utilise of contact time and the reactive strength index to optimize fast stretch-shortening bicycle grooming. Strength Cond J 2008;30(five):32–8.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Ruffieux J, Walchli M, Kim KM, Taube W. Countermovement Jump Grooming Is More Effective Than Drop Bound Grooming in Enhancing Jump Tiptop in Non-professional person Female person Volleyball Players. Front Physiol. 2020;11:231. Epub 2020/04/08. pmid:32256388; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7091110.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Roig M, O'Brien K, Kirk 1000, Murray R, McKinnon P, Shadgan B, et al. The furnishings of eccentric versus concentric resistance grooming on musculus strength and mass in healthy adults: a systematic review with meta-assay. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(eight):556–68. Epub 2008/11/05. pmid:18981046.
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Behm D, Sale D. Intended rather than actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 1993;74:359–68. pmid:8444715
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina Fifty, Gorostiaga EM, Pareja-Blanco F. Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in demote press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(eight):772–81. Epub 2014/04/17. pmid:24734902.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Alen One thousand, Kauhanen H, Komi PV. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength preparation in 2 years. Journal of Practical Physiology. 1988;65(6):2406–12. pmid:3215840.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Cuevas-Aburto J, Janicijevic D, Perez-Castilla A, Chirosa-Rios LJ, Garcia-Ramos A. Changes in bench press performance and throwing velocity later on forcefulness-oriented and ballistic resistance training programs. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020;threescore(eleven):1423–30. Epub 2020/07/18. pmid:32674535.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. The function of maximal strength and load on initial power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(ten):1763–nine. Epub 2000/10/xx. pmid:11039650.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Ettema Grand, Glosen T, van den Tillaar R. Event of specific resistance preparation on overarm throwing functioning. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3(2):164–75. Epub 2009/02/12. pmid:19208925.
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar

flemingantark.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0260297

Share this post