The Effects of Differential and Variable Training on the Quality Paremeters of a Handball Throw

8/18/2019 The Effects of Differential and Variable Training on the Quality Paremeters of a Handball Throw

1/18

The effects of differential and variable training

on the quality parameters of a handball throw

HERBERT WAGNER & ERICH MÜ LLER

Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

Abstract

Our aims were to undertake a comprehensive temporal, effective, and practical training study (variableand differential learning) that would offer athletes the opportunity to increase their performance, and toanalyse the effects by measuring kinematics and quality parameters. Two participants of differingstandards – a player of the first Austrian League and an Olympic and World Champion – but of similaranthropometric characteristics were recruited. One of the participants (Austrian League) was tested onfive different occasions (pre-test and four retests) to measure the effects of four different training phasesusing kinematic analysis. The results of the study indicate an increase in ball velocity within thedifferential training phases (first, second, and fourth phases), different proximal-to-distal sequences of the participants, and a change of movement pattern during training measured by the segment velocitiesand the angle–time courses.

Keywords: Differential and variable training, handball throw, motor learning, movement pattern,

proximal-to-distal sequence

Introduction

In elite team handball, shooting on goal is one of the most important aspects of the game. For

a shot to be successful, it requires maximum ball velocity and precision as well as an element

of surprise for the defensive players and goalkeeper. But what factors influence maximal ball

velocity and precision in a handball throw, and what kind of training should be undertaken to

increase ball velocity and precision to optimize the throw?

Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004) reported that 67% of ball velocity at ball release can be

explained by the summation effects from the velocity of elbow extension and internal

rotation at the shoulder. Jöris and colleagues (Jöris, Edwards van Muyen, van Ingen

Schenau, and Kemper, 1985) showed that a high ball velocity depends on an optimalproximal-to-distal sequence, but Fradet et al. (2004) revised this thesis based on their results

with French handball players: maximal linear speed of the shoulder occurred after maximal

linear speed of the elbow. Wagner and colleagues (Wagner, Klous, and Müller, 2006)

measured the kinematics of the upward jumping throw performed by handball players of

varying skill. They found that the main reason why top players produced higher ball

velocities than less proficient players was the velocity of the shoulder, especially shoulder

flexion, together with elbow extension and ulnar deviation at the wrist. When summarizing

ISSN 1476-3141 print/ISSN 1752-6116 onlineq 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14763140701689822

Correspondence: E. Müller, Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Rifer Schlossallee 49, A-5400

Hallein-Rif, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

Sports Biomechanics

January 2008; 7(1): 54–71


2/18

the results of these studies, it is clear that it is important to optimize the movement of the

throwing arm, in particular the velocity of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist.

It is usual for handball-specific training to be used to optimize the throw in handball.

Trainers provide instructions and corrective feedback. They plan handball-specific strength

training by throwing with a lighter/heavier, smaller/larger ball or with an additional weight or

training under game-specific conditions (e.g. against one or more defensive players or with

one or more offensive players).

To determine the training that is most appropriate to optimize ball velocity and precision

for the handball throw, it is important to know the standard at which the athlete performs.

For low-performance athletes, it is important to keep the conditions as constant as possible

to stabilize the movement pattern and to avoid neural overload (cf. Roth, 1989; Schöllhorn,

2000). In contrast, for high-performance athletes, it is important to vary the movement

pattern to ensure adequate reaction to changing conditions and therefore to stabilize themovement. At the elite standard, it is often necessary to develop training methods that offer

athletes the possibility to improve their performance further. Therefore, we chose a method

that offers an athlete individual optimization of certain movement patterns in contrast to the

theory of imitating the movement of a model to improve performance. We selected a variable

training method based on the variability of practice hypothesis (cf. Roth, 1989; Schmidt and

Wrisberg, 2001) and a differential training method modelled on differential learning

(cf. Kelso, 1997b; Schöllhorn, 2000; Zanone and Kelso, 1997). Comparing these training

methods for the handball throw would be useful because little research has been conducted

on the acquisition of team handball skills, apart from a few studies on variable practice (Roth,

1989; Schmidt and Lee, 1999; Wagner, 2005) and differential training (Schöllhorn, 2001,

2003).

Variable training

“The Variability of Practice theory predicts that practicing a variety of movement outcomes

with the same program (i.e., by using a variety of parameters) will provide a widely based set

of experiences upon which a rule or schema can be built” (Schmidt and Lee, 1999, p. 373).

For throw training in handball, the desired schema defined by invariant elements should

involve experience of as many different combinations of parameters as possible that require

changes in variant features within a class of skills to optimize the movement. The athlete

must learn how to alter his or her schema to achieve a particular outcome in different

conditions. That is, following Schmidt (1975, 1976, 1988), for various starting situations

(X) and result conceptions (Z), the appropriate parameters (Y) must be measured. For

throw training in handball, Roth (1989) recommends varying the following programme

parameters: action speed and overall duration, fast or slow throw execution, jump assistance

or handicaps, overall force, and changing the throw strength or spatial parameters such as

point of release or release angle. Therefore, we used lighter or heavier, smaller or larger sport

devices to vary the parameter of absolute force, special training devices to vary the parameter

of movement duration, and the participants were required to throw with different foot

positions, release angles, and different points of release during variable training.

In addition to variation of the programme parameters, the arrangement and sequence of

the exercises relative to contextual interference effects can also play a role in the success of

learning. Lee and Magill (1983) reported that serial or random practice was more effective

than blocked practice for success in a retention test. Similar results were reported by Shea

and Morgan (1979), Shea and colleagues (Shea, Kohl, and Indermill, 1990), and Wulf and

Lee (1993). In a serial or random practice condition, different exercises (e.g. A, B, C, and D)

Differential and variable training in the handball throw 55


3/18

are performed one at a time either in a specific sequence or in a completely random order.

With blocked training, exercise A is repeated several times before moving on to exercise B,

then exercise C, and finally exercise D. To optimize the variable training, it was important to

establish either a serial or a random practice schedule. Therefore, we first arranged the

exercises for variable training under methodical standpoints and then randomized them.

Differential training

“Learning may take the form of a phase-transition process that involves stabilization of the

required pattern as an attractive state of the coordination dynamics” (Kelso, 1997a, p. 175).

This phase transition – that is, the change in movement pattern from one to another stable

state – was demonstrated experimentally using rhythmic finger movements (cf. Kelso, 1981,1984) and transformed into a mathematical model (see Haken et al., 1985) by calculating

the relative phase between the two involved fingers. The most important finding in this

experiment was that by changing a control parameter in line with the movement frequency

starting from a certain critical frequency, the fluctuations increase and system changes are

self-organized. In this case, it is not arbitrary; rather, the change is from one stable state

(attractor; anti-phase ¼ 1808) to another, whereby the second attractor (in-phase ¼ 08) is

more attractive. This effect can be recognized also with complex movements when a newly

learned movement pattern reverts to an old movement pattern during competition. By

increasing movement velocity (i.e. altering the control parameter), the system becomes

unstable and change is self-organized to the more attractive attractor.

The ability to change from a bi-stable to a tri-stable regime of pattern dynamics has been

shown by Zanone and Kelso (1992a, 1992b, 1997). Participants with bi-stable dynamics,

with a stable behaviour at 08 and 1808, were assigned to practise a 908-phase. After 5 days of training, a new attractor (the standard deviation of 908 relative phase decreased) existed,

whereby the stability of this new attractor depended on the pre-existing attractors, according

to Zanone and Kostrubiec (2004). Furthermore, the symmetry pattern (2708 phase) of the

to-be-learned pattern became an attractor state too, although such a pattern had never been

practised, which could be interpreted as a transfer within an effector system. Whether a

transfer between effector systems is also possible was tested by Kelso and Zanone (2001).

They observed that the practised 908 phase of a rhythmic arm movement also became a

stable state for the leg and vice versa, although the legs did not practise such a pattern. This

could be interpreted as a transfer of learning across two effector systems.

To apply the results of these studies to the training methodology of a complex, whole-

body, acyclic, highly dynamic movement such as the handball throw, the following points

need to be considered:

1. The movement velocity during throw training should not be maximal because the

experiments of Zanone and Kelso (1992a, 1992b, 1997) were performed below the

critical frequency.

2. In the view of coordination dynamics, motor learning is associated with the building of a

new attractor. The to-be-learned pattern should reach an attractive and stable state

(Zanone and Kostrubiec, 2004).

3. Non-linear phase transitions play a critical role in the control and learning of purposeful

coordination skills (Walter, 1998).

4. Fluctuations probe the stability of coordinative states and allow the system to discover

new coordinative states (Kelso, 1997b).

H. Wagner & E. Mü ller 56


4/18

It must also be considered that:

1. Temporal stability may be lost when parameters – independent variables in the

language of experimental design – are varied continuously over a sufficiently wide range

(Kelso, 1997b).

2. Motions that phenomenally appear to be isomorphic are never identical (Hatze, 1986).

Therefore, movement variability is part of every training session whether it is desiredor not.

3. Human actions are controlled autonomously (Walter, 1998). Following Wagner and

Blickhan (1999), allowance is made for the peripheral self-organization by the human

system. This means that muscle parameters are set through the selection of exercises for

achieving a specific goal such that the higher areas of the central nervous system are not

recruited.

Coordination training in handball demands varying movement parameters over a

sufficiently wide range (cf. Hertz, Krogh, and Palmer, 1991), focusing mainly on

destabilization of an existing attractor and the building of a new movement pattern.

The differences are selected such that the expected values lie within the chosen extreme

values (principle of interpolation; cf. Figure 1). In this context, Schöllhorn (2000) speaks of

the differential learning approach. According to Schöllhorn (2000), practising with different

exercises also offers the ability to react continuously to new situations in a rapid and

appropriate way.

Variations in the movement pattern of the handball throw (cf. Fradet et al., 2004; Van den

Tillaar and Ettema, 2004; Wagner et al., 2006) and the principles of movement variability in

general (cf. Newell and Corcos, 1993; Schöllhorn, 2000), in the context of the handball

throw, result in the variations and differences listed in Figure 2. These possible variations

serve as a basis for the conception of the individual training units. For the differential trainingapproach, the principle of contextual interference was also used.

Variable and differential training in practice

In previous studies of variable (cf. Catalano and Kleiner, 1984; McCracken and Stelmach,

1977; Roth, 1989) and differential (cf. Schöllhorn, 2001, 2003) training, only low-

performance participants were used and the duration of the training was temporally limited.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive temporal, effective, and

practical training study that would offer athletes the opportunity to increase their

performance, and to analyse the effects by measuring kinematics and quality parameters.

Figure 1. Interpolation of neural systems, demonstratedby the elbow angle at the reverse point. Theexpectedvalues

(optimal ankle) should lie within the chosen extreme values (maximum: 1808; minimum: 458). The dashed line is

equivalent to the position of the arm at the release point.



5/18

To evaluate possible improvements after completing this training, we analysed a world-class

athlete with similar anthropometric characteristics to a training participant for comparison.

In this context, it was of interest to establish if the movement pattern of the training

participant approximated that of the world-class athlete. That is, can the difference between

the actual and desired value of a certain model be reduced?

The training programme should involve three different phases. In the first phase,

preferable differentiated exercises should allow the system the possibility to optimize

Figure 2. Possible variations and differences in handball throws (translated from Wagner, 2005, S. 141).



6/18

self-organization of a movement pattern. This movement pattern could be a new one or a

stabilized old one with the positive effect of an increasing movement quality. In the second

training phase, the dynamic of the movement should be improved by changing the external

conditions as well as increasing ball velocity. Since in this phase both external and internal

forces will vary during the movement, this training allows the athlete to improve the internal

forces to optimize the movement. In this context, Bernstein (1967) speaks of the highest

stage of movement coordination that can only be realized by top-class athletes. In the final

training phase, the contents of the preceding training phases should be combined to increase

the chances of improving performance.

Methods

Participants

Two right-handed athletes of differing ability but similar anthropometric characteristics

(training participant: age 30 years, mass 91 kg, stature 1.85 m; model participant: age 34

years, mass 91 kg, stature 1.83 m) were recruited for the present study. The training

participant had been a runner-up in the First Handball League of Austria (first league),

whereas the model participant was a Olympic Champion, World Champion, and twice

World Handball player of the Year. The training participant was tested on five different

occasions (pre-test and four retests). Both participants were familiar with traditional

handball training, but had no practical experience with differential or variable training in

handball.

Training intervention and testing

As previously explained, the main aim of this study was to conceive a training programme

that would noticeably improve ball velocity and accuracy of a high-standard athlete within

one year. To measure the effects of the individual training methods, the training intervention

was divided into four phases (see Figure 3). We chose four phases instead of three because we

divided the first phase into two further phases. In the first of these phases accuracy was the

focus, whereas the second was used to increase ball velocity. The length of the individual

training phases (at least 6 weeks) was selected in such a way that a change of the

measured parameters after finishing the training phase could be ascribed to that phase.

Figure 3. Design of programme for the training participant. T phase 1 ¼ differential training for maximum

accuracy; T phase 2: differential training for maximum ball velocity; T phase 3: variable training for maximum ball

velocity; T phase 4: complex differential training for maximum accuracy and ball velocity. The model participant

undertook one test session (MP: pre-test) only.



7/18

It must be considered that the effects of the completed training phase could influence the

following phase; however, because of the length of the training phases, this influence should

play a minor role.

In the first two training phases, the principle of differential learning was applied with the

aims of maximizing accuracy (first training phase) and ball release speed (second training

phase). The third phase of the training intervention was pursued according to the principle of

variable training with the goal of increasing ball velocity. The fourth and final training phase

was aimed at maximizing accuracy but also ball velocity by means of a very complex

structured training method based on the principle of differential learning. In the following

sections, the four training phases are explained in detail.

First training phase ( goal: maximize accuracy). Müller and Loosch (1999) examined the

connection between remark variability and result stability using a dart throw. The results

from these investigations were transferred to the handball throw and from this the condition

factors for aiming accuracy were obtained:

. the coordinates of ball release point (x -, y-, and z-coordinates)

. vertical ball release angle

. horizontal ball release angle

. ball velocity

In addition to the possible variations in these condition factors (throwing position, throwing

direction, ball release position, and movement velocity), the following were varied in this

phase (Figure 1): stated foot position, step sequence, non-throwing position, joint position,

and joint movement. In terms of differential training (Schöllhorn, 2000), it was also

necessary not to repeat a movement, which meant that one exercise (e.g. ball reception abovehead level) was combined with a second exercise (e.g. with different step sequences) and thus

during each trial new initial conditions were accomplished (cf. Figure 4). To create a further

difference, all throws were randomized within a training unit (approx. 50–60). The ten

training units in the first training phase provided a total of 498 different throws.

So as not to strain the capacity of the central nervous system, attention was paid at the

beginning of all training phases to accomplish separate individual exercise forms and to

combine them only in further consequence.

Second training phase ( goal: maximize ball velocity). To distinguish this phase of training from

the first training phase, all throws were executed against a neutral wall to exclude visual

perception of aiming accuracy; that is, the variations in the ranges of throwing position and

direction in this phase were not accomplished. In contrast, the range of movement rhythm

was integrated into the training, for example a slow arm cocking with a fast acceleration

Figure 4. Combination of two different exercises (overhead throw with four different step sequences).



8/18

phase or vice versa. Since this training phase focused on increasing ball velocity, it was alsovaried within the range of movement velocity; that is, a slow extension of the elbow joint with

an explosive inflection of the wrist in the final phase of the throw. Also, the complexity of the

task was continuously increased: up to three different exercises were combined and, as in the

first training phase, all throws within a training unit were randomized. In this second training

phase, 15 training units were completed for a total of 788 throws.

Third training phase ( goal: maximize ball velocity). In this phase of the training, specially

developed training devices were introduced that supported the throw movement in the sense

of the theory, with the aim of increasing velocity speed without changing the essential

structure. Using a throwing slingshot training device, the throwing arm was additionally

accelerated in the arm acceleration phase to reduce the overall duration, or restrained to

increase overall force (cf. Figure 5). For the additional acceleration and inhibition of wrist

flexion, a wrist cuff with a similar function to the throwing slingshot was used. In this phase of training, different balls were also used. In contrast to the differential training, a throwing

movement was accomplished several times within one training unit in the variable training.

Furthermore, a serial rather than randomized methodology was selected. In this phase of

training, two training blocks, each lasting 6 weeks, resulted in 2450 throws.

Fourth training phase ( goal: maximize ball velocity and accuracy). The aim of this fourth and last

training phase was to maximize both ball velocity and accuracy. For this reason, the exercises

from the first two training phases were combined (up to five different exercises) and thus the

complexity of the task increased. In the fourth training phase, 2374 different throws were

accomplished within 40 training units.

Both before and after each respective training phase, movement technique and quality

were assessed using kinematic analysis. This allowed a connection to be made between the

training phases and their effects on the execution of movement using time-series

representation.

Apparatus

For determining the image coordinates, we used two NTSC 180-Hz (640 £ 480) high-

speed cameras (HSC-250, Motion Analysis Co.). The cameras were positioned at an angle of

908 to one another and at a distance of approximately 10 m to the right side of the training

participant. The two cameras were interfaced to a computer and automatically synchronized.

For the measurement of accuracy, a third camera was used (JVC 120 Hz digital camera) to

film the instant of ball– target contact. This third camera was positioned behind the

participant. For image processing and evaluation of the video recordings, SIMI Motion was

Figure 5. Sequence of a throw forced by the throwing slingshot (the arm was forced by a rubber cord to reduce the

overall duration).



9/18

used and for calibration a 26 pass point cube (2.5 £ 2.5 £ 2.5 m; PEAK Company) was

utilized. To check the accuracy of the systems used, an error analysis of point appointment,

repeated digitizing, and segment length appointment was conducted. Precision of point

appointment (eight selected control points) to determine the accuracy of the coordinates of

the cube yielded a mean deviation of 3 mm in all three spatial dimensions. The reliability of

the point determination was calculated using 5 £ digitization of a selected trial yielding over

all 22 segments a mean absolute error of 2.5 mm (s ¼ 3) for the space coordinates and 2.58

(s ¼ 1.5) for the segment angle. For final validation of the kinematic data, segment length

determination was performed whereby for five selected trials the calculated segment lengths

for the total course of motion were compared with the anthropometrically (upper arm:

360 mm; forearm: 288 mm; pelvis: 394 mm; thigh: 459 mm; shank: 428 mm; foot: 300 mm)

obtained segment lengths and thereby an in-medium mean absolute error of ,10 mm was

determined.

Task and procedures

Of the multiple complex throwing motions in Olympic handball, the 7-m throw was selected.

This allowed comprehensive empirical investigation under standardized conditions. The 7-m

throw involves a complex form of movement whereby the total movement consists, for the

most part, unconscious elements of motion given its short duration, predominantly without

direct correction by neural reaction, and comprising through its spatial extension a large

number of possible degrees of freedom.

For each scheduled test, the kinematic characteristics, accuracy, and initial velocity for 17–

20 throws were recorded. The training participant completed all five test sessions, before and

after each training phase, while the model participant completed only one test session. As

explained earlier, the model participant served only for comparative purposes. For eachexecuted throw, the participants first took their starting position, which was the same as in

competition. Then, the measurement equipment was switched into record mode and the

command to throw wasgiven, which was comparable to thewhistle of a referee in competition.

The participant then had the task of throwing the ball at a target 7 m away at maximal speed

and with the highest possible precision. The goal for all throws of both participants was to hit

thecentre of the target. As in competition, the fixed foot was allowed to move only after release

of the ball. A further restriction during the throws was that the release should occur at the

highest possible point. Deviations of up to 100mm, which were measured with SIMI Motion,

were tolerated to allow for the natural variation in execution of this motion. This default was

important to ascribe possible variability to movement variability and not to another throwing

technique. In this context, the abduction of the throwing arm could be interpreted as a change

in technique of shoulder throw. Subsequent evaluation used only those throws (the first ten

throws) that met the above criteria, whose deviation from the centre of the target in the x- and

y-directions was less than 0.5 m, and for which all data were available. At the end of the test

series, the participants were able to view the completed throws on a screen but there was no

possibility of checking the quality of the result.

Data analysis

The angle, angular velocity, and segment velocity time-courses were calculated (see

Appendix) using the Peak Motus 9.0 analysis system, after digitization and data filtering with

a low-pass Butterworth filter at a cut-off frequency of 8 Hz. Dorsal flexion of the wrist, elbow

flexion, and shoulder abduction were calculated as the vector angle between three points



10/18

from one to the other bordering segment. External shoulder rotation was defined as the angle

between the forearm and the anterior direction of the shoulder in the transverse plane of the

upper arm, according to Fleisig and colleagues (Fleisig, Nicholls, Elliott, and Escamilla,

2003): “Because external rotation is calculated indirectly by the forearm’s angular motion

about the upper arm, the accuracy of the calculation may diminish as the forearm and upper

arm segments approach parallel to each other” (p. 54). To provide comparability between the

individual measurements, all throws were time-normalized over the reverse point of the

elbow segment (a ¼ 0m/s2) and the release point identified as the last contact between finger

and ball. The beginning of the motion was determined as the point in time 100 ms before the

reverse point and the end-point of the motion was set exactly five frames after the release

point. Further normalization of the data series was performed using a spline function

(Quintic Spline) at 50 intervals (t ¼ 50).

The quality of the motion is defined using ball velocity (V Ball) and accuracy (P Target). Ballvelocity was defined as the value of the arc velocity curve at the release point and, like the

angle and angular velocity paths, was calculated using three-dimensional video analysis.

Accuracy was calculated by the normal distance of the impact point from the centre point

and determined by a two-dimensional video analysis.

Differences in the characteristics of the individual training phases of the training

participant were calculated using analysis of variance and an independent samples t -test

(training participant vs. model participant).

Results

Quality of movement

Increasing the quality of the movement (i.e. ball velocity and accuracy) was one of the maingoals of the training intervention. The results of measuring these parameters are shown as a

bar diagram (mean values and standard deviations) in Figure 6. Repeated-measures analysis

of variance with time as the main factor yielded highly significant differences between retests

1 and 2 (P ¼ 0.002**) and retests 3 and 4 (P ¼ 0.000**). There was only a tendency for the

remaining phases of the training participant (pre-test, retest 1, and retest 3) to be

differentiated (pre-test to retest 1: P ¼ 0.273; pre-test to retest 2: P ¼ 0.738; retest 1 to 2:

P ¼ 1.000). For ball velocity, there were significant differences between the training and

model participant at all measurement times (P ¼ 0.000**) except the post-test

(P ¼ 0.042*). This exception is attributable to the training participant increasing

performance during the course of training by more than 10%, or the gradient from pre-

test to post-test (retest 4) in comparison to the model participant diminished from 16% to

5%. In contrast to ball velocity, no significant differences were observed for accuracy, the

second characteristic of interest. A tendency for increased accuracy of the model participantcompared with the training participant was evident. Also, retest 1 and the post-test were

different to the other phases for the training participant.

Proximal-to-distal sequence

Following Jöris et al. (1985), the handball movement passes through a kinematic chain

involving the whole body. The impulse should be transferred from one segment to the next

(proximal-to-distal) so that the ball finally reaches maximal speed. Figure 7 shows the speed

profile of the hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist, middle hand, finger, and ball of the training

participant’s fastest shot. As shown in Figure 7A, maximal speed increases from one segment



11/18

to the next in a continuous fashion. In addition, the instant in time where each segment

reaches its maximum increases from proximal to distal. Whereas this transfer can be noted

for all shots (only the maximum speed differs; see Table I) of the training participant, the

model participant does not show this transfer in any shot. The elbow reaches maximum

speed after the shoulder segment.

Maximal joint velocity

To assess optimal execution of the movement on the basis of movement quality, the maximal

joint velocities of the finger, middle hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, and hip were calculated (see

Table I). For the training participant, a global significant difference between phases for the

factor time was observed for all joints (finger: P ¼ 0.006**; middle hand: P ¼ 0.000**; wrist:

P ¼ 0.000**; elbow: P ¼ 0.001**; shoulder: P ¼ 0.000**) except the hip (P ¼ 0.223). For

the training participant, maximal joint velocity was highest when ball velocity was highest

(post-test), which could be dueto an optimal proximal-to-distal sequence. Lower maximal joint

velocities (significant differences for the finger: P ¼ 0.029*; middle hand: P ¼ 0.002**; elbow:

P ¼ 0.003**; shoulder: P ¼ 0.003**) were observed for retest 2 than retest 1, although the ball

velocity was higher (P ¼ 0.001**). Comparing the throws of the model participant and all

Table I. Maximum speeds of selected joints and ball (m/s) (mean ^s)

Ball Finger Middle hand Wrist Elbow Shoulder Hip

Pre-test 21.1^ 0.4 17.5 ^ 0.6 14.7 ^ 0.3 11.5 ^ 0.2 9.1 ^ 0.2 4.2 ^ 0.2 2.1 ^ 0.1

Retest 1 21.7 ^ 0.6 19.5 ^ 1.0 17.0 ^ 0.6 13.6 ^ 0.2 9.1 ^ 0.2 4.5 ^ 0.1 2.2 ^ 0.2

Retest 2 22.5 ^ 0.5 18.6 ^ 0.8 15.7 ^ 0.6 13.0 ^ 0.2 9.6 ^ 0.3 5.0 ^ 0.2 2.2 ^ 0.2

Retest 3 21.6 ^ 0.6 19.3 ^ 1.3 16.0 ^ 1.0 13.1 ^ 0.5 9.6 ^ 0.3 5.0 ^ 0.2 2.3 ^ 0.2

Pos t- test 23. 6^ 0.6 19.7 ^ 1.1 16.5 ^ 0.7 13.9 ^ 0.4 9.8 ^ 0.2 5.3 ^ 0.2 2.1 ^ 0.2

Test (MP) 25.1^ 0.8 22.9 ^ 0.9 19.1 ^ 1.0 15.3 ^ 0.7 10.1 ^ 0.4 5.5 ^ 0.5 2.4 ^ 0.2

MP ¼ model participant.

Figure 6. Mean values (standard deviations) for the training participant (pre-test, retests 1, 2, 3, and post-test) and

the model participant (pre-test).



12/18

throws of the training participant, significant differences were observed for ball velocity as well

as maximal joint velocityof thefinger, middlehand,and wrist (P ¼ 0.000**). In contrast,for the

elbow, shoulder (between the model participant and post-test of the training participant:

P ¼ 0.084 and P ¼ 0.394 respectively), and hip (between model participant and retest 3 of

training participant: P ¼ 0.323), no significant differences were observed. Since no significant

differences between the tests of the training participant could be determined for maximal

joint velocity of thehip, calculation of theangle andangular velocity time courseswere limitedto

the joints located distal from the hip (shoulder, elbow, and wrist of the throwing arm).

Angle ranges

As the aim of the acquisition phase was to optimize the joint movement (flexion–extension,

abduction–adduction, internal–external rotation) we analysed the angle ranges to show thiseffect. For the training participant, a globally significant difference between tests for the

factor time was observed for all angle ranges (elbow extension: P ¼ 0.000**; shoulder

abduction: P ¼ 0.005**; shoulder external rotation: P ¼ 0.000**) except dorsi-flexion of the

wrist (P ¼ 0.236). As shown in Table II, the higher range of elbow flexion (retest 2: 99 ^ 68;

post-test: 104 ^ 108) of the training participant might have had a positive effect on ball

velocity (retest 2: 22.5^ 0.5 m/s; post-test: 23.6 ^ 0.6m/s), although the values of the

model participant (53 ^ 98) are at odds with this notion. The range of external shoulder

rotation increased significantly from the pre-test (95 ^ 288) to retest 1 (318 ^ 428), after

which it settled down to that of the model participant (204 ^ 68) (retest 2: 241 ^ 218; retest

3: 240 ^ 118; post-test: 209 ^ 128). For dorsal wrist flexion, no significant differences were

observed between tests of the training participant or between the training participant and

model participant.

Maximal angular velocity

During the acceleration phase of the throw, internal shoulder rotation (for external rotation

we observed negative values, thus we chose internal rotation) results in movement of the

throwing arm in the direction of motion and thereby the final phase of the throw up to ball

release. As shown in Table III, the model participant realized very high values

(v ¼ 8130 ^ 12008/s), which exceeded those of top Austrian players (v ¼ 5610 ^ 9308/s;

see Wagner et al., 2006) as those of professional baseball players (v ¼ 7240^ 10908/s; see

Fleisig, Barrentine, Zheng, Escamilla, and Andrews, 1999). Conversely, the training

participant recorded much lower values (v ¼ max. 3620^ 9908/s) and the differences

between the model participant and all values of the model participant were highly significant

Table II. Angle range of selected angle time courses (mean ^s)

Wrist angle [8]

(dorsal flexion)

Elbow angle [8]

(flexion)

Shoulder angle [8]

(abduction)

Shoulder angle [8]

(external rotation)

Pre-test 54^ 4 59^ 5 73^ 10 95 ^ 28

Retest 1 49 ^ 6 62^ 4 64 ^ 7 318 ^ 42

Retest 2 51 ^ 10 99 ^ 6 52 ^ 9 241 ^ 21

Retest 3 50 ^ 11 76 ^ 10 51 ^ 7 240 ^ 11

Post-test 55 ^ 18 104 ^ 10 31 ^ 11 209 ^ 12

Test (MP) 49^ 5 53 ^ 9 59^ 10 204 ^ 6




13/18

(P ¼ 0.000**). For shoulder abduction and dorsal flexion of the wrist there were no

significant differences between the pre-test of the model participant and those of the training

participant except shoulder abduction for retest 1 (P ¼ 0.009**) and dorsal wrist flexion for

the pre-test (P ¼ 0.010*). The highest maximal angular velocity of elbow flexion was

measured in the post-test of the training participant (v ¼ 1820 ^ 2108/s). This value is

much higher than those of the model participant (v ¼ 1070 ^ 1808/s) and the difference

between them was also highly significant (P ¼ 0.000**).

Discussion and implications

Quality of movement

The main focus of the training intervention was to increase ball velocity. In each training

phase, ball velocity increased continuously from the pre-test (21.1 ^ 0.4 m/s) to post-test

(23.6^ 0.6 m/s) of the training participant, except retest 3 (21.6 ^ 0.6 m/s). This dramaticincrease in performance (more than 10% increase in ball velocity) of a high-standard athlete

is remarkable. Therefore, the applied training method is very effective for this complex,

acyclic, highly dynamic movement. However, considering the wave-like course of ball

velocity of the training participant over the complete training period and the decreased ball

velocity seen at retest 3 after variable training practice, it could be interpreted that this type of

training would be counterproductive for this participant. Since the method of variable

training arose from schema theory (cf. Schmidt, 1975, 1976, 1988), these results are

comparable to those of Schöllhorn (2001, 2003), who suggested differential training is more

effective than traditional training. But in this context we should clarify the limitations of the

study. Because only one participant was used during training, we were able to create a

practical study that involved intensive continuous training at a high standard over one year.

We are unable, however, to categorically whether differential training is more effective than

variable training in general. This question should be addressed in future research.

Proximal-to-distal sequence and maximal joint velocity

Jöris et al. (1985) showed that a high ball velocity depends on an optimal proximal-to-distal

sequence. This proximal-to-distal sequence was seen in all throws of the post-test of the

training participant. The maximal speed and the instant in time at which each segment

reached its maximum increased from one segment to the next in a continuous fashion.

It would appear that the training participant produced great trunk torsion due to a tension

that is resolved in the acceleration phase, and thus transfers the impulse from segment

to segment. The advantage of this shooting technique is a relatively high end speed due

Table III. Maximal angular velocities of selected angular velocity time courses (mean ^s)

Wrist angle [8/s]

(dorsal flexion)

Elbow angle [8/s]

(flexion)

Shoulder angle [8/s]

(abduction)

Shoulder angle [8/s]

(internal rotation)

Pre-test 1840^ 300 1260 ^ 140 520 ^ 40 1860 ^ 1400

Retest 1 1300 ^ 110 1470 ^ 130 440 ^ 30 3620 ^ 990

Retest 2 1400 ^ 210 1600 ^ 190 480 ^ 60 1910 ^ 370

Retest 3 1500 ^ 300 1680 ^ 340 450 ^ 110 3150 ^ 880

Post-test 1530^ 500 1820 ^ 210 480 ^ 100 2110 ^ 230

Test (MP) 1440^ 330 1070 ^ 180 540 ^ 90 8130 ^ 1200




14/18

F i g u r e 7 .

V e l o c i t y c o u r s e s o f s e l e c t e d j o i n t s a n d b a l l v e l o c i t y c o u r s e ( A : T r a i n i n g p a r t i c i p a n t : p o s t - t e s t , 6 t h t h r o w ; B : M o d e l p a r t i c i p a n t : p r e - t e s t , 6 t h t h r o w )



15/18

to a longer acceleration distance. The relative time to the reverse point is about 400 ms (cf.

Figure 7A). This movement in handball is preferred in particular in jump shots from a

distance and is similar to the tennis serve (cf. Fleisig et al., 2003). The model participant, in

contrast, rotated his trunk quickly in the movement direction which led to a high torque of

the shoulder joint. This external rotation in the shoulder results in an acceleration of the

shooting arm in the direction of motion. Therefore, the instant of maximum speed is

delayed. In relation to the shoulder, the time of the whole movement is shortened (300 ms;

cf. Figure 7B). This form of execution is usually undertaken for shots from the back court

when the circumstances afford a fast shot, or to surprise the defence (in accord with the

results of Fradet et al., 2004). It can thus be concluded that the two participants prefer

different throwing techniques to reach maximal ball velocity. It must be noted that, during

training, the training participant was never given instructions about which throwing

technique he should use. This occurred on a self-organized basis.The maximal segment speeds (hip, shoulder, elbow, wrist, middle hand, finger) and ball

velocities of both participants (cf. Table I) accentuate the need to reach a maximal segment

speed from proximal to distal to release the ball as fast as possible, independently of

performance standard (high values for the model participant as well as versus the post-test of

the training participant). These findings are in line with those of other studies of handball

(Fradet et al., 2004; Jöris et al., 1985, Van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2004; Wagner et al.,

2006). But some of the currect data (retest 1) also suggest higher joint velocities do not

automatically produce a faster ball velocity. The transfer of the impulse from the fingers to

the ball might not be optimal. It could be that the ball scrolls over the fingers, which occurs

during competition if the players do not use sufficient glue.

Angle range and maximal angular velocity

Regarding the increasing range of external shoulder rotation and elbow flexion from pre-test

(shoulder rotation: 95^ 288; elbow flexion: 59^ 58) to post-test (shoulder rotation:

209 ^ 128; elbow flexion: 104^ 108), our results show the importance for the training

participant to increase these joint amplitudes to increase movement quality. The increase in

range of elbow flexion might correspond to an individually optimal movement solution for

the training participant because it is at odds with that of the model participant. However, this

was purposefully provoked by the exercises during the differential training phases, especially

by the variation in joint movement. The decreasing range of elbow flexion after retest 3

(variable training) might be the cause of the observed reduction in ball velocity at retest 3.

The discussion thus far has demonstrated increasing ball velocity with training for the

training participant. But what were the differences between the two participants? The answer

lies in the values for maximal angular velocity, especially that of internal shoulder rotation of

the model participant, which was markedly higher (more than 100%) than that of the

training participant. These maximal angular velocities might be the main reason for the

higher ball velocities of the model participant versus the training participant. Furthermore,

there were no significant differences for dorsal wrist flexion, elbow flexion or shoulder

abduction. These results are similar to those of Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004), who

emphasized the need for maximal internal shoulder rotation to realize a high ball velocity,

and Wagner et al. (2006), who pointed out that optimal coordination of the shoulder is the

most important factor for high ball velocity of top-class players versus inefficient players.

Interpreting the results of this study and the results of Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004)

and Wagner et al. (2006), it can be concluded that increasing the maximal angular velocity of

internal shoulder rotation should produce an increase in ball velocity. But to increase internal



16/18

shoulder rotation requires many years of training with a combination of different training

methods such as handball-specific coordination and strength training.

The training participant, however, achieved a high ball velocity through fast elbow flexion

(same results for the angle range), because at the post-test, where ball velocity was highest

(23.6 ^ 0.6 m/s), the maximal angular velocity of elbow flexion was also highest

(1820^ 2108/s). The angular velocity of shoulder abduction and internal rotation might

have played a subordinated role for the training participant (cf. Table III). For maximal

angular velocity of dorsal wrist flexion and shoulder abduction, no significant differences

were observed between the throws of the model participant and those of the training

participant. To identify a connection between the training intervention and the measured

variables, it should be noted that maximal angular velocity of elbow flexion increased

significantly between retest 1 and 2; but during this second training phase (differential

training to increase ball velocity), maximization of elbow flexion angular velocity was alsopurposefully trained.

Practical implications and recommendations for coaches

Based on the results of this study, we suggest introducing differential training into the normal

training process. To obtain optimal results, it makes sense to train the differential method

separately; but, it is also possible that this training method could be part of another training

session as long as one does not overstrain the athletes. The authors recommend two training

sessions of 6–8 weeks (2–3 sessions per week with a maximum of 60 repetitions). In the first

training session, not more than two skills should be combined. Only in the second session

can more than two skills be combined. The athlete, however, should be relaxed. As with

other training modes of specific coordination training, a systematic structure, from easy tocomplex skills, is necessary to enable correct execution of all exercises. Because there are no

clear guidelines for the execution of this training method, as there is for endurance or

strength training, success is – apart from the athlete’s desire – strongly linked to the

knowledge of the exact movement sequence by the trainer. The role of the trainer changes

from one of observer (fixing and controlling lactate, heart rate, and time limits) to an active

and central role in training.

Conclusion

Differential training can be recommended as a mode of training to increase the throwing

ability of high-performance athletes, whether elite handball athletes or athletes in other

sports where optimal coordination behaviour determines the standard of performance.

References

Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movement . Oxford: Pergamonn Press.

Catalano, J. F., and Kleiner, B. M. (1984). Distant transfer in coincident timing as a function of practice variability.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58 , 851–856.

Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Zheng, N., Escamilla, R. F., and Andrews, J. R. (1999). Kinematic and kinetic

comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal of Biomechnaics, 12, 207–224.

Fleisig, G., Nicholls, R., Elliott, B., and Escamilla, R. (2003). Kinematics used by world class tennis players to

produce high-velocity serves. Sport Biomechanics, 1, 51–71.

Fradet, L., Botcazou, M., Durocher, C., Cretual, A., Multon, F., Prioux, J. et al. (2004). Do handball throws always

exhibit a proximal-to-distal segment sequence? Journal of Sports Sciences, 5 , 439–447.



17/18

Haken, H., Kelso, J. A., and Bunz, H. (1985). A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand

movements. Biological Cybernetics, S1, 347–356.

Hatze, H. (1986). Motion variability. Its definition, quantification and origin. Journal of Motor Behavior , 18 , 5–16.

Hertz, J., Krogh, A., and Palmer, R. G. (1991). Introduction to the theory of neuronal computation. New York: Addison

Wesley.

Jör is, H. J. J., Edwards van Muyen, A. J., van Ingen Schenau, G. J., and Kemper, H. C. G. (1985). Force, velocity

and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. Journal of Biomechanics, 6 , 409–414.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1981). On the oscillatory basis of movement. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18 , 63.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1984). Phase transitions and critical behaviour in human bimanual coordination. American Jour nal of

Physiology, 15 , 1000–1004.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1997a). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior (2nd edn.). Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1997b). Relative timing in brain and behaviour: Some observations about the generalized motor

program and self-organized coordination dynamics. Human Movement Science, 16 , 453–460.

Kelso, J. A. S., and Zanone, P. G. (2001). Coordination dynamics and transfer across different effector systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28 , 776–797.

Lee, T. D., and Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor skill acquisition. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9 , 730–746.

McCracken, H. D., and Stelmach, G. E. (1977). A test of the schema theory of discrete motor learning. Journal of

Motor Behavior , 9 , 193–201.

Müller, H., and Loosch, E. (1999). Functional variability and an equifinal path of movement during targeted

throwing. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 36 , 103–126.

Newell, K. M., and Corcos, D. M. (1993). Variability and motor control . Chicago: Human Kinetics.

Roth, K. (1989). Taktik im Sportspiel (Tactics in the sport game). Schorndorf: Hofmann.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill-learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225–260.

Schmidt, R. A. (1976). The schema as a solution to some persistent problems in motor learning. In G. E. Stelmach

(Ed.), Motor control: Issues and Trends (pp. 41–66). New York: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral analysis. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Schmidt, R. A., and Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning . Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Schmidt, R. A., and Wrisberg, C. A. (2001). Motor learning and performance: A problem-based learning approach

(2nd edn.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Schöllhorn, W. (2000). Practical consequences of systems dynamic approach to technique and strength training.

Acta Academiae Olympique Estonia, 8 , 25–37.

Schöllhorn, W. (2001). Discrete and continuous effects of traditional and differential sprint training. In J. Mesters,

G. King, H. Strüder, E. Tsolakidis, and A. Osterburg(Eds.), Book of abstracts of the 6th ECSS Congress in Cologne

(p. 311). Cologne: ECSS.

Schöllhorn, W. (2003). Coordination dynamics and its relevance to sport and exercise. In E. Müller,

H. Schwameder, G. Zallinger, and V. Fastenbauer (Eds.), Book of abstracts of the 8th ECSS Congress in Salzburg

(p. 170). Salzburg: ECSS.

Shea, C. H., Kohl, R., and Indermill, C. (1990). Contextual interference: Contribution of practice. Acta

Psychologica, 73, 145–157.

Shea, J. B., and Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention and transfer of a

motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 5 , 179–187.

Van den Tillaar, R., and Ettema, G. (2004). Force-velocity relationship and coordination patterns in overarm

throwing. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, 3, 211–219.

Wagner, H. (2005). Optimierung komplexer Bewegungsmuster bei Wurfbewegungen. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.

Wagner, H., and Blickhan, R. (1999). Stabilizing functional of skeletal muscle: An analytical approach. Journal of

Theoretical Biology, 199 , 163–179.

Wagner, H., Klous, M., and Müller, E. (2006). Kinematics of the upward jumping throw in handball: Comparison

of players with different level of performance. In H. Schwameder, G. Struzenberger, V. Fastenbauer,

S. Lindinger, and E. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIV International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports

(pp. 161–164). Salzburg: Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Austria.

Walter, C. (1998). An alternative view of dynamical systems concepts in motor control and learning. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 4, 326–333.

Wulf, G., and Lee, T. D. (1993). Contextual interference in movements of the same class: Differential effects on

program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior , 25 , 254–263.

Zanone, P. G., and Kelso, J. A. S. (1992a). Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning: Nonequilibrium phase

transitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18 , 403–421.



18/18

Zanone, P. G., and Kelso, J. A. S. (1992b). Learning and transfer as dynamical paradigms for behavioral change.

In G. E. Stelmach and J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behaviour (pp. 563–582). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Zanone, P. G., and Kelso, J. A. S. (1997). The coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: Collective and

component levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , 23, 1454–1480.

Zanone, P. G., and Kostrubiec, V. (2004). Searching for (dynamic) principles of learning. In V. K. Jirsa and

J. A. S. Kelso (Eds.), Coordination dynamics: Issues and trends (pp. 57 –89). Berlin: Springer.

Appendix: Variables selected for kinematic analysis

Based upon the digitized points shown in Figure 8, joint angles were calculated for the

shoulder (abduction and external rotation), elbow (flexion), and wrist (dorsal flexion) of the

right arm, and the velocity time courses for the finger (second distal phalanx), middle hand

(head of the second metatarsal), wrist, elbow, shoulder (right arm), and hip segments.

Figure8. Markerlocations andjoint angles(wrist: dorsal flexion; elbow:extension; shoulder: abductionand externalrotation) of the upper body.


Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	toni-kallio
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

The Effects of Differential and Variable Training on the Quality Paremeters of a Handball Throw

Documents