Póvoas Et Al 2014

PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF ELITE TEAM HANDBALL

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PLAYING POSITION

SUSANA C. A. POVOAS,1,2 ANTONIO A. M. R. ASCENSAO,3 JOSE MAGALHAES,3 ANDRE F. SEABRA,3

PETER KRUSTRUP,4,5 JOSE M. C. SOARES,6 AND ANTONIO N. C. REBELO6

1Research Center in Sports, Health Sciences and Human Development, Vila Real, Portugal; 2Maia Institute of HigherEducation, Research Center in Sport and Physical Activity, Maia, Portugal; 3Research Center in Physical Activity, Health andLeisure, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 4Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and EnvironmentalSciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom; 5Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Copenhagen Center for TeamSport and Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; and 6Center of Research, Education, Innovation andIntervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT

Povoas, SCA, Ascensao, AAMR, Magalhaes, J, Seabra, AF,

Krustrup, P, Soares, JMC, and Rebelo, ANC. Physiological

demands of elite team handball with special reference to playing

position. J Strength Cond Res 28(2): 430–442, 2014—This study

aimed to analyze the physiological demands of match play for

different playing positions in elite male team handball. Time motion

(N = 30) and heart rate (HR;N = 70) data were recorded through-

out 10 official matches. The mean distance covered by backcourt

players (4.96 6 0.64 km) was greater (p # 0.02) than for wings

and pivots (4.236 0.52 and 3.916 0.51 km, respectively). Back-

court players spent less time standing still and walking (;76%)

than wings and pivots (;80%) (p# 0.03), and wings spent more

time sprinting than the other playing positions. Backcourt players

(122.9 6 17.0) and pivots (126.8 6 33.0) performed more high-

demanding actions per game than wings (54.66 15.6) (p = 0.01).

The time spent by pivots in high-intensity activities decreased from

the first to the second half (4.1 6 2.4 to 2.7 6 0.9%; p # 0.01),

while backcourt players showed a decrease in high-demanding

playing actions (p# 0.05). Backcourt players and pivots had high-

er mean (84 6 9 and 83 6 9% vs. 79 6 10%; p # 0.03) and

peak effective HR, and percentage of total time at intensities

.80% maximal HR (HRmax) than wings. The fraction of total time

spent at intensities .80% HRmax decreased for all outfield play-

ing positions in the second half (from 39–76 to 30–46%). Com-

petitive team handball involves position-specific differences in the

physiological demands. Furthermore, exercise intensity decreases

from the first to the second half for all outfield playing positions

suggesting that these players experience neuromuscular fatigue.

Training of elite handball players should comprise high-intensity

position-specific exercises aiming at improving the ability to main-

tain a high exercise intensity throughout the game.

KEY WORDS time motion analysis, heart rate, intermittent

exercise, professional top male handball players, specific

positions

INTRODUCTION

Team handball is played professionally in manyEuropean countries. Despite being an Olympicsport since 1972, and one of the most popular teamsports for men worldwide, scientific knowledge

regarding the physiological demands in elite team handballis scarce. Time motion and heart rate (HR) analyses of hand-ball players during games have shown considerable variationamong players (19). As position-related demands might con-tribute to this variation, specific positions of the playersshould be considered in the analysis. In fact, previous studiesfound differences between playing positions regarding thetotal distance covered and the distance covered at differentlocomotor categories (15,24). Nevertheless, no studies so farhave investigated in detail the activity profile of elite malehandball throughout official matches for different playingpositions, including low- and high-intensity movementsand the specific handball actions such as turns, stops, jumps,throws, changes of direction, and one-on-one situations inthe offensive and defensive play. These are actually criticalactions for the game implying elevated energy and mechan-ical demands for the players (18). In addition, the tactical-technical demands in handball matches differ between themain phases of the game (attack vs. defense) among differentplaying positions. Thus, it is expected that activity profileswould also be different between these phases. Moreover, theofficial rules of team handball were changed in 2000, whichincreased the intensity of the game (3,9,10). Nonetheless, tothe best of our knowledge, no study has been publishedconcerning position-related handball time motion character-istics after the rule changes.

Address correspondence to Susana C.A. Povoas, [email protected].

28(2)/430–442

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research� 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association

430 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

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

Handball is considered a complex and highly demandingintermittent sport, as it involves multiple high-intensity runs(19,24), frequent body contacts, and several other high-inten-sity actions. The ability to intermittently perform maximalshort-duration activities during games is crucial to obtaina high level of performance in team sports (21). However,no studies to date have described the frequency and durationof maximal and high-intensity activities during handballmatches or the time and the intensity of periods that inter-sperse these activities, which is of critical importance to betterdevelop training exercises aiming at improving handball-spe-cific physical capacities. On the other hand, handball involvesfrequent body contact and several high-intensity actions aspart of match play, which is not well represented in timemotion data. In this regard, although HR and time motionare considered valuable and relatively sensitive tools to mea-sure exercise intensity, the separate analysis of match HR andactivity data may provide incomplete information, leading toa misinterpretation of the overall physical performance of theplayers. Accordingly, to better characterize the demands ofthe game, it would be useful to combine the 2 analyses.Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to analyzethe physical and physiological demands of elite male handballplayers during matches according to their specific playingposition. We hypothesize that team handball players willshow position-related differences in high-intensity activitiesand also in power-related actions during the match such assprints, stops, turns, and changes of direction that possiblylead to a differential decrease in exercise intensity towardthe end of the match. Depending on the detailed character-ization of match demands, our data will allow the develop-ment of novel training strategies and the design of appropriatephysical tests that consider specific team handball playingpositions.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

In this study, individual maximal HR (HRmax) of topprofessional league handball players of different playingpositions was determined during the Yo-Yo intermittentendurance test–level 2 (5) using Polar Team System (PolarElectro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The players also performedan incremental treadmill (Quasar-Med, Nussdorf, Germany)test (17) until voluntary exhaustion to determine peak oxy-gen consumption. Expired respiratory gas fractions weremeasured using an open circuit breath-by-breath automatedgas-analysis system (Metalyzer 3B; Cortex, Leipzig,Germany). To examine the activity pattern and physiologicaldemands of the handball match, individual HR was moni-tored during official matches, which were video filmed fortime motion analysis. At the time of the evaluations, theplayers were in the middle of their competitive season, per-forming 6–7 training sessions per week and were previouslyfamiliarized with all test protocols. Body mass and fluidloss, environmental temperature, and humidity values were

recorded during matches. Time motion and HR analyseswere performed on 30 outfield male players (10 of each out-field playing position: wings, backcourt players, and pivots),and HR analyses were additionally performed on 10 goal-keepers. Weight and percentage of body fat were measuredusing Tanita Inner Scan digital-BC532 (Tanita, Amsterdam,The Netherlands).

Subjects

A total of 40 elite male players participated in the study (10of each playing position: wings, backcourt players, pivots,and goalkeepers). Anthropometric and physiological char-acteristics of the players according to playing position arepresented in Table 1. The participants had at least 5 years ofexperience in the top Portuguese handball professionalleague. The evaluated teams were regularly involved inEuropean championships for clubs. All subjects were pre-viously informed of the aims and the experimental risks ofthe study and subsequently provided informed written con-sent to participate. Ethical approval was provided by theInstitutional Review Board of the Faculty of Sport of theUniversity of Porto and by the club officials.

Procedures

Match Time Motion Analysis. The players were video filmedduring 10 entire official matches from the top Portuguesehandball professional league to establish game motionpatterns according to the methods previously described(19). Briefly, players’ displacements were coded into 8 loco-motor categories: (a) standing still, (b) walking, (c) jogging,(d) fast running, (e) sprinting, (f ) backwards movement, (g)sideways medium-intensity movement, and (h) sidewayshigh-intensity movement. High-intensity activities equaledthe sum of categories d, e, and h and low-intensity activitieswere the sum of categories a, b, c, f, and g. In addition, 5 typesof specific handball playing actions were also studied: (a)jumps, (b) shots, (c) stops when preceded by high-intensityactivities, (d) changes of direction, and (e) one-on-onesituations. The total duration of the matches and distancecovered were analyzed. For each locomotor category, thepercentage of total time and distance, the duration, distance,and frequency were determined. The recovery time, that is,the time intervals between (a) the maximal intensity activi-ties (i.e., sprints and sideways high-intensity movement) andbetween (b) the high-intensity activities were also analyzed.Because this study aimed to describe the demands of a play-ing position, data were collected from the playing positionand not from individual players (27), which means that whena player was substituted, the camera filmed the substitute.

Heart Rate

Seventy HR recordings of 40 players (27 wings, 23 backcourtplayers, 10 pivots, and 10 goalkeepers) were registered in5-second intervals using Polar Team System (Polar ElectroOy) during 10 official matches. The players were previouslyacquainted with the use of HR monitors during matches.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca.com

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 | 431


Definitions and procedures regarding HR analysis aredescribed elsewhere (19); although, in this study, only effec-tive relative HR (i.e., HR during the time in which the playeris inside the playing court) is presented, as comparisons aremade between different players. The matches were held in themiddle of the competitive season, between 4 and 8 PM and instandard environmental conditions (temperature 17–218 Cand humidity 50–70%). Participants were asked to refrainfrom additional vitamin dietary supplementation, ergogenicsupplements, and alcoholic beverages and not to introduceappreciable deviations from their normal eating habits duringthe evaluation period. For the determination of effective timespent in each HR zone, only the values corresponding to thefirst and second halves were considered.

Fluid Loss and Intake

Because dehydration and hyperthermia during a match caninfluence HR values (11), changes in body mass and fluidloss were recorded for all players. To determine sweat lossduring a match, the players were weighed wearing dryshorts, immediately before and after the matches using a dig-ital balance (Tanita Inner Scan digital–BC532). The playerswere allowed to drink water ad libitum during the matchesand water intake was recorded. Weight and fluid loss (abso-lute and relative to body mass) during the match were cal-culated according to Andersson et al. (2).

Measurement Reliability

Reliability of all variables was estimated using a test-retestprocedure after 7 days, with a random sub-sample of 12 subjects(4 of each playing position). The reliability of the anthropomet-ric measurements was determined by the coefficient of variation(,5%), whereas the intraclass correlation coefficient was usedfor the time motion and physiological variables (R . 0.80).

Statistical Analyses

Results are presented as mean 6 SD and range. Differencesbetween HR and time motion variables during the 2 halveswere assessed by Student’s paired t-test. Differences betweenhigh- and low-intensity activities, attack and defense phases,and total and effective HR were determined by Student’sindependent t-test. Differences between playing positionswere determined by 1-way analysis of variance. When a sig-nificant difference was detected, post hoc analysis was per-formed using the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons tocheck for specific differences by playing positions. StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc, version 20.0,IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all analyses. Statisti-cal significance was set at p # 0.05.

RESULTS

Activity Profile During Matches

The number of occurrences, total time spent, and distancecovered (absolute and relative values) for each locomotorand intensity category of the analyzed outfield playingpositions during the match are presented in Table 2. The

TABLE1.Anthropometric

andphysiological

charac

teristic

softheplayers

acco

rdingto

playing

positio

n.*

Playing

positio

nAge(y)

Weight

(kg)

Height

(cm)

Wings,

(N=10)

24.6

62.8

(21–29)

80.5

66.1z§

jj(71.4–92.4)

177.3

65.0z§

jj(171.0–186.0)

Bac

kcourtplayers,(N

=10)

25.7

64.1

(19–35)

89.8

67.4¶(73.7–102.2)

191.0

65.6¶(178.0–202.0)

Pivots,(N

=10)

24.4

63.9

(20–29)

98.6

64.9¶(92.6–105.7)

192.0

62.7¶(188.0–195.0)

Goalkeep

ers,

(N=10)

26.2

64.1

(22–33)

87.4

68.7¶(78.0–100.2)

189.8

62.2¶(187.0–193.0)

Playing

positio

nFat

mass(%

)HRmax†(b$m

in21)

V_O2pea

k(m

l$min$kg21)

Wings,

(N=10)

10.5

63.2

(7.0–16.0)

1936

7(176–202)

57.9

63.0

(53.0–63.0)

Bac

kcourtplayers,(N

=10)

8.9

61.5

(6.0–11.3)

1916

11(172–206)

53.4

65.9

(47.0–64.0)

Pivots,(N

=10)

10.0

62.4

(7.0–12.0)

1856

6(179–206)

53.8

62.4

(50.0–56.0)

Goalkeep

ers,

(N=10)

10.0

60.8

(9.0–11.0)

1886

8(182–200)

55.0

63.7

(49.0–58.0)

*Value

sarepresented

asmea

n6

SD

andrang

e.†HR=he

artrate.

zSignifican

tlydifferen

t(p

#0.01)from

bac

kcourtplayers.

§From

pivots.

jjFrom

goalkeep

ers.

¶Significan

tlydifferen

t(p

#0.02)from

wings.

Team Handball’s Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions



TABLE 2. Activity profile of team handball players during the match according to playing position.*

Playing position†

Locomotor categories

Standing Walking Jogging FR Sprint

WingsFreq (N) 293 6 70 263 6 71 78 6 13z 41 6 16§ 25 6 9z§Freq (%) 34.8 6 2.9z 31.1 6 2.2 9.5 6 1.3z 4.9 6 1.7§ 2.9 6 1.0§Duration (s) 6.8 6 7.4 5.6 6 4.7z§ 3.7 6 2.0§ 3.2 6 1.4§ 3.0 6 1.0z§Distance (m) 7.4 6 6.1z§ 9.8 6 5.2§ 17.3 6 7.2§ 19.1 6 6.4z§Fraction of total time (%) 45.7 6 5.6z 34.1 6 3.7z 6.6 6 1.0z 3.0 6 1.2§ 0.6 6 0.4z§Fraction of total distance (%) 46.2 6 6.2z 18.2 6 2.1z 16.4 6 5.2§ 3.9 6 2.4§Total time (s) 1990 6 274 1485 6 182 290 6 46 132 6 49 26 6 16Total distance covered (m) 1939 6 237 768 6 122 702 6 262 168 6 102

Backcourt playersFreq (N) 218 6 76 278 6 71 122 6 33§ 30 6 20 22 6 11§Freq (%) 26.2 6 4.3§ 33.9 6 3.1 15.1 6 3.9§ 3.6 6 2.3 2.6 6 0.8Duration (s) 7.1 6 8.0 6.6 6 5.3§ 3.8 6 1.9§ 2.9 6 1.1§ 2.6 6 1.0Distance (m) 8.6 6 6.9§ 10.0 6 5.0§ 15.3 6 5.7§ 16.4 6 6.6§Fraction of total time (%) 34.6 6 5.9§ 40.9 6 4.5§ 10.5 6 4.3 1.9 6 1.2 0.3 6 0.2¶Fraction of total distance (%) 48.5 6 7.1§ 24.6 6 7.3 8.8 6 4.6 1.9 6 1.3Total time (s) 1552 6 305 1826 6 234 462 6 163 87 6 55 15 6 11Total distance covered (m) 2385 6 306 1225 6 433 461 6 292 97 6 69

PivotsFreq (N) 292 6 97 242 6 53 94 6 18z 21 6 11¶ 19 6 8z¶Freq (%) 36.1 6 4.4z 30.5 6 4.4 11.9 6 1.9z 2.5 6 1.0¶ 2.4 6 0.6¶Duration (s) 7.2 6 9.2 5.3 6 4.0z¶ 4.2 6 2.0z¶ 3.3 6 1.2z¶ 2.8 6 1.3Distance (m) 7.0 6 5.3z¶ 11.2 6 5.4z¶ 17.7 6 6.6z¶ 17.8 6 8.2z¶Fraction of total time (%) 48.7 6 9.3 29.9 6 7.3z 9.2 6 2.0 1.5 6 0.7¶ 0.2 6 0.2¶Fraction of total distance (%) 42.9 6 7.7z 26.9 6 4.2 9.3 6 4.3¶ 1.5 6 1.4¶Total time (s) 2117 6 461 1287 6 303 396 6 76 68 6 34 9 6 8Total distance covered (m) 1681 6 396 1049 6 203 362 6 183 57 6 49

Playing position

Locomotor categories Intensity categories

SideMI SideHI Back High Low

WingsFreq (N) 53 6 30z 15 6 13z 92 6 29z 81 6 22 762 6 190kFreq (%) 6.2 6 2.8z§ 1.7 6 1.3 10.8 6 1.8z§ 9.6 6 1.4 90.4 6 1.4kDuration (s) 2.6 6 1.2z§ 2.0 6 8.9z§ 3.0 6 1.4Distance (m) 3.5 6 1.7z§ 7.7 6 3.4z§ 6.0 6 2.8

(continued on next page)

JournalofStrengthand

Conditioning

Researchthe

TM

|www.nsca.com

VOLUME28

|NUMBER

2|FEBRUARY

2014

|433


Fraction of total time (%) 3.1 6 1.7z§ 0.7 6 0.5 6.2 6 1.7§ 4.3 6 1.1z§ 95.7 6 1.1kFraction of total distance (%) 3.9 6 1.8§ 2.8 6 2.2 8.6 6 1.8z 23.2 6 5.2z§ 76.8 6 5.2zkTotal time (s) 135 6 71z 30 6 23z 271 6 80 188 6 49 4170 6 275kTotal distance covered (m) 170 6 90 117 6 88 370 6 110 987 6 277 3247 6 412k

Backcourt playersFreq (N) 84 6 22 16 6 12 73 6 44§ 68 6 36 759 6 206kFreq (%) 10.3 6 2.4 1.8 6 1.3 8.5 6 2.7§ 8.2 6 3.8 91.8 6 3.8kDuration (s) 3.2 6 1.6 2.7 6 1.1§ 3.0 6 1.3Distance (m) 4.4 6 2.2 10.3 6 4.1§ 6.0 6 2.6Fraction of total time (%) 6.0 6 2.3 0.9 6 0.7 4.8 6 2.3 3.2 6 2.0¶ 96.8 6 2.0kFraction of total distance (%) 6.9 6 2.8 3.1 6 2.2 6.2 6 3.3§ 13.8 6 7.4 86.2 6 7.4k¶Total time (s) 269 6 105 42 6 34 216 6 108 143 6 92¶ 4325 6 244kTotal distance covered (m) 340 6 133 161 6 130 295 6 148 719 6 456 4245 6 351§k¶

PivotsFreq (N) 87 6 54 30 6 29 36 6 10z 70 6 37 736 6 192kFreq (%) 10.7 6 4.6¶ 3.3 6 2.4 4.6 6 1.4z¶ 8.7 6 2.5 91.3 6 2.5kDuration (s) 3.2 6 1.9¶ 2.3 6 1.0z¶ 2.8 6 1.4Distance (m) 4.3 6 2.6¶ 9.0 6 3.8z¶ 5.7 6 2.9Fraction of total time (%) 6.4 6 4.2¶ 1.6 6 1.3 2.3 6 0.9¶ 3.4 6 1.5¶ 96.6 6 1.5kFraction of total distance (%) 8.8 6 4.8¶ 7.1 6 5.5 3.5 6 1.2z 17.9 6 7.8¶ 82.1 6 7.8kTotal time (s) 279 6 174 70 6 57 102 6 40 147 6 70 4180 6 286kTotal distance covered (m) 352 6 219 270 6 222 139 6 55 689 6 311 3222 6 588zk*Values are presented as mean 6 SD.†Freq = frequency; back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways high-intensity movement.zSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from backcourt players.§From pivots.kSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from high-intensity movements.¶From wings.

TeamHandball’s

PhysiologicalDem

andsofSpecific

PlayingPositions

434


Conditioning

Researchthe

TM


TABLE 3. Game actions during the match and in each half according to playing position.*

Game total First half vs. second half

Game actions Wings Backcourt players Pivots Wings Backcourt players Pivots

Jumps 8.2 6 2.9†z 19.1 6 5.2z 14.0 6 3.9†§ 3.8 6 1.4 4.4 6 2.2 9.7 6 4.1 9.4 6 2.5 7.7 6 3.1 6.2 6 2.4Throws 4.3 6 1.8† 10.3 6 4.4z 5.4 6 2.1† 1.7 6 1.0 2.6 6 2.1 5.0 6 3.0 5.3 6 2.2 2.8 6 1.5 2.6 6 1.7Stops in the attack 7.7 6 4.0†z 19.0 6 5.1 14.0 6 4.2§ 4.4 6 2.7 3.3 6 2.5 11.0 6 3.2 8.0 6 3.0k 7.0 6 3.2 7.0 6 2.5Stops in the defense 11.7 6 4.1z 19.2 6 1.0 22.7 6 8.8§ 5.8 6 3.6 5.9 6 2.5 10.4 6 6.8 8.8 6 4.2 12.3 6 4.5 10.4 6 5.4Total stops 19.1 6 6.9†z 38.2 6 9.2 36.8 6 11.1§ 10.2 6 4.3 8.9 6 4.4 21.4 6 6.1 16.8 6 5.1k 19.4 6 7.1 17.4 6 5.4Changes of direction in the attack 7.4 6 3.7†z 19.0 6 5.1z 13.1 6 3.3†§ 4.4 6 2.4 3.0 6 2.5 11.0 6 3.3 8.0 6 3.1k 6.4 6 2.0 6.7 6 2.5Changes of direction in the defense 11.2 6 4.4z 19.2 6 10.0 22.0 6 9.3§ 5.7 6 3.7 5.5 6 2.7 10.4 6 6.9 8.8 6 4.3 11.4 6 5.3 10.6 6 5.2Total changes of direction 18.4 6 6.7†z 37.9 6 9.2 35.4 6 11.1§ 9.9 6 4.2 8.5 6 4.6 21.0 6 6.1 16.9 6 5.2k 18.2 6 6.8 17.2 6 5.5One-on-one situations in the attack 1.6 6 1.1z 6.3 6 3.7z 16.8 6 10.3†§ 1.1 6 1.0 0.5 6 0.7 3.5 6 2.5 2.8 6 2.8 8.7 6 3.9 8.1 6 6.9One-on-one situations in the defense 4.1 6 2.5†z 12.9 6 6.6 19.3 6 8.9§ 1.9 6 2.0 2.2 6 1.2 8.1 6 4.5 4.8 6 2.6k 10.0 6 4.7 9.3 6 4.7Total one-on-one situations 5.6 6 2.3†z 18.9 6 6.6z 36.4 6 16.2†§ 3.1 6 2.0 2.5 6 1.3 11.3 6 5.0 7.6 6 4.0 18.0 6 7.9 17.6 6 9.0

*Values are presented as mean 6 SD.†Significantly different (p # 0.05) from backcourt players.zFrom pivots.§From wings.kSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from the first half of the match.


Conditioning

Researchthe

TM

|www.nsca.com

VOLUME28

|NUMBER

2|FEBRUARY

2014

|435


Figure 1. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the first and second halves of the match for wings (A), backcourt players (B), and pivots (C). Valuesare presented as mean 6 SD. FR = fast running; Back = backwards movement; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways high-intensity movement; *indicates significantly different (p = 0.03) from the first half of the match.




duration and distance covered in each locomotor categoryare also shown.

Match duration was 73 6 4 minutes, and total distancecovered was 4.44 6 0.70 km. Backcourt players covered 15and 21%, respectively, more (p # 0.02) total distance thanwings and pivots (4.96 6 0.64 vs. 4.23 6 0.52 and 3.91 60.51 km), whereas wings covered the highest relative distan-ces and spent the highest time in high-intensity activities(p # 0.01). Backcourt players (122.9 6 17.0) and pivots(126.8 6 33.0) performed more physically demanding play-ing actions per game than wings (54.6 6 15.6) (p , 0.001)(Table 3). Backcourt players showed a higher number ofjumps, throws, and changes of direction (p # 0.02), whereaspivots performed more one-on-one situations in the attackand in total match time (p # 0.01). Locomotor profile of the

different playing positions in both halves of the match ispresented in Figure 1.

Pivots spent less time conducting high-intensity activitiesin the second half of matches (4.1 6 2.4 vs. 2.7 6 0.9%; p #

0.01), and backcourt players showed a decrease in severalhigh-demanding playing actions (p # 0.05) in the secondhalf of matches (Table 3).

In the attack phase, wings spent the highest fraction oftotal match time executing high-intensity activities (3.7 61.1 vs. 2.9 6 1.9 vs. 2.0 6 0.8%; p # 0.03, for wings, back-court, and pivots, respectively; Figure 2). No significantdifferences were observed in the defense phase (5.1 62.0 vs. 3.5 6 2.1 vs. 4.6 6 2.2%; p # 0.03, wings, backcourt,and pivots, respectively). Pivots spent 2-fold more timeperforming high-intensity activities in the defensive phase

Figure 2. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the attack (A) and defense (B) phases of the match according to playing position. Values arepresented as mean 6 SD. Back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways high-intensitymovement; *indicates significantly different (p # 0.04) from backcourt players; #, from pivots; §, from wings.


| www.nsca.com



than in the offensive phase (4.6 6 2.2 vs. 2.0 6 0.8%;p , 0.001).

For all outfield playing positions, in 60% of the occur-rences, the time between maximal intensity activities was.90 seconds, and 48–63% of the recovery periods includedlow-intensity activities (Figure 3). In almost half of the recov-ery time, the players were standing still, with backcourt play-ers reporting the lowest values (p , 0.01). The time betweenhigh-intensity activities was frequently ,30 or $90 seconds.No position-dependent differences were observed in the

time intervals distribution separating both maximal andhigh-intensity activities.

In both halves, there were no significant differences in thetime between maximal intensity activities in all outfield playingpositions. Additionally, only recovery periods between 30 and60 seconds showed a significant decrease in the second half forbackcourt players (20.56 13.0 vs. 17.4 6 6.5%; p = 0.04). Also,the activity pattern between maximal intensity activities didnot show significant differences between both halves of thematch in any of the analyzed playing positions.

Figure 3. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the periods between maximal intensity activities according to playing position. Values are presentedas mean 6 SD. Back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; *indicates significantly different (p # 0.05)from backcourt players; #, from pivots; §, from wings.

Figure 4. Average and maximal relative effective heart rate (HR) during the first and second halves and total match time according to playing position. Data arepresented as mean6 SD. Relative to individual maximal HR values are shown. *indicates significantly different (p# 0.03) from backcourt players; #, from pivots;§, from wings; †, from goalkeepers; ƒ, Significantly different (p # 0.01) from the first half of the match.




Match Heart Rate Analysis

Wings had mean (79 6 10% HRmax) and peak (95 6 4%HRmax) HR values lower than backcourt players (84 6 9and 96 6 4% HRmax) and pivots (83 6 9 and 98 6 2%HRmax) (p, 0.001; Figure 4). During the second half, meanHR decreased for backcourt players and pivots andincreased for the goalkeepers (p # 0.01) when comparedwith the first half. Goalkeepers present the lowest meanand peak HR values during the match (70 6 11 and 90 67% HRmax) (p , 0.001; Figure 4).

Backcourt players and pivots spent the highest fraction ofeffective match time (.53%) in intensities .80% HRmax(p # 0.01; Figure 5). The percentage of effective match timespent by the goalkeepers in this HR zone was 31–58% lowerthan for the outfield playing positions (p # 0.01). The per-centage of effective match time spent in different HR zonesfor both halves and for each playing position is presented inFigure 5.

The percentage of time spent at exercise intensities .80%HRmax decreased during the second half for all outfieldplaying positions (Figure 5; p # 0.03). The opposite wasobserved for the goalkeepers.

Fluid Loss and Intake

The body mass loss during the matches was 0.8 6 0.5 (0.0–1.4 kg) corresponding to 0.9 6 0.34 (0.0–1.3%) of their bodymass, and their fluid intake was 1.2 6 0.3 (0.6–1.5 L). Thus,the fluid loss during matches was 2.1 6 0.4 (1.4–2.9 L)

corresponding to 2.3 6 0.4 (1.9–3.1%) of the body mass.No significant differences were observed in these fluid lossendpoints between playing positions.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to provide detailed information on themovement patterns and cardiovascular strain of elite malehandball players of different playing positions during the 2halves and different phases of the game. Differences in themotor activity profile and physiological demands of thedifferent playing positions were observed. Backcourt playerscovered the longest total distances, whereas wings showedthe highest fraction of total time spent and distance coveredin high-intensity activities. Backcourt players and pivotsperformed the highest number of high-demanding actionsand spent the highest percentage of time at intensities .80%HRmax. Exercise intensity evaluated by both time motionand HR decreased in the second half of the match only forthese players, although all outfield players spent less time atintensities .80% HRmax in the second half of the match. Inopposition, goalkeepers showed higher HR values in thesecond half of the match. Position-specific differences werealso observed in the activity profile related to defensive andoffensive play phases.

In opposition to Sibila et al. (24), but accordingly toMichalsik et al. (15), time motion analysis showed that back-court players covered the longest total distances, althoughwings showed the highest fraction of time spent and distance

Figure 5. Percentage of effective match time spent at different interval percentages of players’ maximal heart rate (HR) in the first and second halves of thematch for wings (A), backcourt players (B), pivots (C) and goalkeepers (D). Values are presented as mean6 SD. *indicates significantly different (p# 0.03) fromthe first half of the match.


| www.nsca.com



covered in high-intensity activities, in accordance with whatwas previously reported (15,24). In other intermittent teamsports such as soccer, high-intensity running during thematch has been suggested as a more accurate and key indi-cator of the physical stress imposed by the match than thetotal distance covered (4,13). However, high-intensity run-ning distance does not include high-demanding actions suchas jumps, stops, turns, and one-on-one situations, which arestressful conditions imposed that should be recognized asintense moments of the match. Backcourt players and pivotsperformed double as many high-demanding actions thanwings and exercised for longer periods of time at intensities.80% HRmax, which suggests that total distance coveredmay not be the best indication of game demands for pivots.This might be related to the fact that pivots perform a con-siderable amount of high-intensity work during the matchwithout covering a great distance, namely in one-on-onesituations as shown by the present data in which pivotsperformed the highest number of these actions (Table 3).No significant differences were observed between the out-field playing positions in the time spent and distance coveredin low-intensity activities, in opposition to observations fromother team sports (6).

Wings showed the highest number and length of sprints,a fact that is probably related to their position on the playingcourt. The handball playing area is longer in the outer aislesthan the central domain of the court because of the designof the goal areas, enabling wing players to cover largerdistances. Additionally, wings are also frequently involved infast breaks that might also account for the highest amount ofhigh-intensity work, namely sprints, performed by theseplayers during the match (Table 2).

Sideways movements occurred more frequently andaccounted for a greater fraction of total time in backcourtplayers and pivots (Table 2) in opposition to previous studiesthat have reported no differences between playing positionsin this locomotion category (15). When analyzing only thedefensive phase, in which these types of movements aremore frequently performed (19), backcourt players and piv-ots spent twice as much time with sideways-medium inten-sity movements than wings. Backcourt players and pivots areoften required to play in the center of the defensive systemsin which the frequency of these events are high, but thedistance to be covered is low, whereas wings often defendin the outer positions or in front of the defense, where thedistance to be covered is higher.

Differences were found between the playing positions inthe specific time motion categories of the defensive andoffensive phases of the handball match. As in previousstudies (15), wings spent the greatest proportion of totalmatch time in high-intensity activities in the attack phase,which, as aforementioned, may be related to number ofsprints performed during the fast breaks. Regardless ofthe distinct defensive playing actions between backcourtand pivot players and wings, and in opposition to

Michalsik et al. (15), no significant differences were observedin the defense phase between the outfield playing positions inthis intensity category. Backcourt players spent less time stand-ing in the attack phase, when compared with pivots, whoperformed most of the offensive work without covering longdistances, and wings, who were usually stationary while wait-ing for a scoring opportunity near the outer goal line. Duringthe defensive phase, wings spent twice as much time withbackwards running, which may be related to the initial phaseof the defense, when trying to stop a fast break of the oppo-nents. In the offensive phase, pivots spent one-third of the totalmatch time with backwards running, which is much morethan the other outfield players. This is probably a consequenceof pivots operating frequently in the core of the opposite teamdefensive system placed backwards to the goal area. Pivotsspent twice as much time with high-intensity activities in thedefensive phase than in the offensive phase, which highlightsthe importance of this playing position in the defensive phase.Maximal intensity activities were frequently interspersed byperiods frequently lasting longer than 90 seconds, and morethan half of the recovery periods were of active nature (Figure3), which is known to accelerate recovery between short dura-tion, high-intensity exercises (25). Nonetheless, for almost halfof the recovery time, the players were standing still, althoughbackcourt players showed the lowest values. This may bebecause of the fact that backcourt players both in the attackand defensive playing phases (especially, during the organizedphase) play in the central area of the playing court, with a high-er frequency of ball and player movements. Although pivotsalso operate in this area, the above-mentioned specificity oftheir actions, particularly in the attack phase, can differentiatethem from backcourt players.

No studies have so far analyzed the cardiovasculardemands in handball considering the playing positions.Heart rate measurement is a commonly used method toestimate exercise intensity (14,20,23), despite the known var-iation in HR attributed to several intrinsic and extrinsic fac-tors (1,8). Effective and total HR refers to HR responsesduring the time in which the player is inside the playingcourt and the total game time, respectively. Although, thisdistinction is important to address when analyzing data,since we are comparing playing positions, only data regard-ing effective HR were presented. Goalkeepers clearly presentdistinct values compared with outfield players, which is inaccordance with time motion data (24). Backcourt playersand pivots showed the highest average HR values and per-centage of total match time at intensities .80% HRmax.Backcourt players also covered the highest distances in thematch, followed by wings and pivots. This shows that theisolated evaluation of distances covered at different speedsmay not be the most suitable method for describing thematch intensity, particularly for pivots. In fact, accompany-ing information from high-demanding playing actionsshowed that both pivots and backcourt players performedthe highest number of these actions during the match.




Therefore, a more sensitive marker of physical demands maybe needed to accurately determine the intensity of workduring match play for pivot position players. The notion thatmeasurements of HR and movement pattern can be usedcomplementary is supported by the observation that wingsshowed the highest distance covered and time spent in high-intensity activities, but the lowest average HR values andpercentage of total match time at intensities .80% HRmaxof all outfield playing positions.

Time motion analyses and HR data showed that theexercise intensity decreased in the second half of the matchonly for backcourt players and pivots, which may be becauseof the fact that these players performed the highest number ofhigh-demanding actions and spent the highest percentage oftime at intensities .80% HRmax, contributing to increasedneuromuscular fatigue. A decrease in exercise intensity in thesecond half, evaluated as lowered HRs, and less high-intensityrunning and total distance covered, has also been reported inother field sports such as soccer (6,7,12,16,22,26,28). In oppo-sition, goalkeepers showed higher HR values in the secondhalf of the match. Considering that fluid loss did not differbetween game halves (data not shown) and that fatigue doesnot occur for goalkeepers during the game because of theextended recovery times between actions, other noncon-trolled/evaluated influencing factors might be present in thesecond half that contribute to explain this finding. However,further studies are needed to better understand the physiolog-ical and physical strains related to the possible development offatigue during elite male handball matches.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The present study shows that physical performance and HRresponse and, therefore, the physical and physiologicaldemands of the players during a handball match are highlydependent on the positional role within the team. Specificlocomotor high-demanding actions and HR profile duringthe match provide combined useful information for bettercharacterizing the demands of the game for each playingposition. The decrement in performance observed in thesecond half of the match differentiates between playingpositions. Hence, training strategies should consider intenseposition-specific exercises aiming at improving the ability ofthe players to sustain high exercise intensities throughoutthe game. It is also possible that the results obtained could beuseful in the future design of physical tests to specificallyevaluate the performance of handball players in differentplaying positions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thankfully acknowledge to all the elite handball playersand coaches who participated in this study. We also thankLuke Conolly for editing the manuscript. No sources offunding were used to assist in the preparation of thismanuscript. The results of the present study do not reflectany endorsement by the National Strength and Conditioning

Association. S. C. A. Povoas, A. A. M. R. Ascensao, andJ. Magalhaes are supported by grants from the PortugueseFoundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/38148/2007, SFRH/BPD/4225/2007, SFRH/BPD/66935/2009).

REFERENCES

1. Achten, J and Jeukendrup, AE. Heart rate monitoring: Applicationsand limitations. Sports Med 33: 517–538, 2003.

2. Andersson, H, Raastad, T, Nilsson, J, Paulsen, G, Garthe, I, andKadi, F. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in elite female soccer:Effects of active recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 372–380, 2008.

3. Anti, T, Kada, A, Quintin, E, Delafuente, O, Petreski, T, andBasny, Y. Quelle attaque place dans le jeu qui s’accelere? Approchesdu Handball 96: 16–23, 2006.

4. Bangsbo, J. Anaerobic energy yield in soccer: Performance of youngplayers. Sci Football 5: 24–28, 1991.

5. Bangsbo, J. Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach.Bagsvaerd, Denmark: HO & Storm, 1994.

6. Bangsbo, J. The physiology of soccer—With special reference to intenseintermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 619: 1–155, 1994.

7. Bangsbo, J, Norregaard, L, and Thorso, F. Activity profile ofcompetition soccer. Can J Sport Sci 16: 110–116, 1991.

8. Buchheit, M, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Quod, MJ, Poulos, N, andBourdon, P. Determinants of the variability of heart rate measuresduring a competitive period in young soccer players. Eur J ApplPhysiol 109: 869–878, 2010.

9. Canayer, P. Les tendances de la montee de balle de la LNH auniveau europeen. Approches du Handball 102: 41, 2007.

10. Constantini, D. Les evolutions et principes generaux de la monteede balle. Approches du Handball 102: 38–40, 2007.

11. Coyle, EF. Fluid and fuel intake during exercise. J Sports Sci 22: 39–55, 2004.

12. Ekblom, B. Applied physiology of soccer. Sports Med 3: 50–60, 1986.

13. Krustrup, P and Bangsbo, J. Physiological demands of top-classsoccer refereeing in relation to physical capacity: Effect of intenseintermittent exercise training. J Sports Sci 19: 881–891, 2001.

14. McLellan, CP, Lovell, DI, and Gass, GC. Performance analysis ofelite rugby league match play using global positioning systems.J Strength Cond Res 25: 1703–1710, 2011.

15. Michalsik, LB, Aagaard, P, and Madsen, K. LocomotionCharacteristics and Match-Induced Impairments in PhysicalPerformance in Male Elite Team Handball Players. Int J Sports Med34: 590–599, 2013.

16. Mohr, M, Krustrup, P, and Bangsbo, J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development offatigue. J Sports Sci 21: 519–528, 2003.

17. Noakes, TD. Implications of exercise testing for prediction of athleticperformance: A contemporary perspective. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20:319–330, 1988.

18. Osgnach, C, Poser, S, Bernardini, R, Rinaldo, R, and di Prampero, PE.Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: A new matchanalysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 170–178, 2010.

19. Povoas, SC, Seabra, AF, Ascensao, AA, Magalhaes, J, Soares, JM,and Rebelo, AN. Physical and Physiological Demands of Elite TeamHandball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 3365–3375, 2012.

20. Rebelo, AN, Ascensao, AA, Magalhaes, JF, Bischoff, R,Bendiksen, M, and Krustrup, P. Elite futsal refereeing: Activityprofile and physiological demands. J Strength Cond Res 25: 980–987,2011.

21. Reilly, T and Thomas, V. A motion analysis of work-rate in differentpositional roles in professional football match-play. J Hum Mov Stud2: 87–97, 1976.


| www.nsca.com



22. Reilly, T and Thomas, V. Estimated daily energy expenditures ofprofessional association footballers. Ergonomics 22: 541–548, 1979.

23. Russell, M, Rees, G, Benton, D, and Kingsley, M. An Exercise Protocolthat Replicates Soccer Match-Play. Int J Sports Med 32: 511–518, 2011.

24. Sibila, M, Vuleta, D, and Pori, P. Position-related differences involume and intensity of large-scale cyclic movements of maleplayers in handball. Kinesiology 36: 58–68, 2004.

25. Signorile, JF, Ingalls, C, and Tremblay, LM. The effects of active andpassive recovery on short-term, high intensity power output. Can JAppl Physiol 18: 31–42, 1993.

26. Sirotic, AC, Coutts, AJ, Knowles, H, and Catterick, C. A comparisonof match demands between elite and semi-elite rugby leaguecompetition. J Sports Sci 27: 203–211, 2009.

27. Spencer, M, Lawrence, S, Rechichi, C, Bishop, D, Dawson, B, andGoodman, C. Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey, withspecial reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Sports Sci 22: 843–850,2004.

28. Waldron, M, Highton, J, Daniels, M, and Twist, C. Preliminaryevidence of transient fatigue and pacing during interchanges inrugby league. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8: 157–164, 2013.




Documents

Póvoas Et Al 2014