Enhancing Performance and Promoting Sustainability in Female Handball: The Impact of Olympic Movement Training on Jumping, Throwing, Sprinting, and Change of Direction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is generally well written and easy to read; a slight spell-check is required. Although the results of the study are interesting, I have some methodological and other concerns that the authors need to address before acceptance and publication. 

 

Abstract

What is the gap that you’re trying to fill with your work?

Line 16: Twenty-one female handball players were divided or allocated into two groups: an experimental group (abbreviation, n°, age + SD, BMI) and a control group (abbreviation, n°, age + SD, BMI).

Line 18: insert in brackets the test used after each variable measured (i.e. jump height (Abalakovtest) )

keywords usually should be different from that used in the main title.

 

Introduction

The literature on the subject is sufficiently well summarised.

 

Methods

The methods section is sufficiently well described.

How did you randomized the groups?

Olympic Movements Training: While the text mentions the training protocol for the control group, it would be helpful to provide more details about the Olympic movements training for the intervention group. Specify the types of Olympic movements included, the progression of intensity, and how the movements were taught to ensure consistency in the intervention.

You mention that the intervention lasted six weeks, which is deemed sufficient for observing improvements. Providing a brief rationale for choosing this duration could enhance the understanding of why six weeks were considered appropriate.

Validity of the findings

although it is stated that the absence of an untrained control group makes it difficult to assess whether the observed improvements are specific to Olympic movement training or simply the result of regular physical activity, this is a crucial point of the work, especially for the generalization of the results obtained. I would suggest that the conclusion be rephrased with this limitation in mind.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for the time invested in improving this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your suggestions.

 

Point 1. In the abstract, what is the gap that you’re trying to fill with your work?

Authors: Thank you. It has been added in the manuscript.

“The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of Olympic movements on the performance in women handball players and to determine whether significant improvements occur in jumps, throws, sprints, and changes of direction. This will not only improve their athletic performance but will also adopt a more sustainable and holistic approach to overall health and well-being.”

 

Point 2. Also in the abstract, you must specify the two groups like this: “Twenty-one female handball players were divided into two groups: an experimental group (abbreviation, n°, age + SD, BMI) and a control group (abbreviation, n°, age + SD, BMI).”

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified to the manuscript.

 

Point 3. Also in the abstract, insert in brackets the test used after each variable measured (i.e. jump height (Abalakov test))

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified to the manuscript.

 

Point 4. Keywords usually should be different from that used in the main title.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified to the manuscript.

 

 

Point 5. In the methods section, how did you randomize the groups?

Authors: Thank you for your comment. This point has been further detailed in the methods section.

“Each player was assigned a number. Each player was assigned a number. These numbers were assigned to EG or CG in a 1:1 ratio by block-balanced randomization generated by the software Computer Program for Epidemiologists (WINPEPI) (Abramson, 2011)”

Abramson, J. H. (2011). WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, 8(1), 1-9.

 

Point 6. Also, in the methods section. Olympic Movements Training: While the text mentions the training protocol for the control group, it would be helpful to provide more details about the Olympic movements training for the intervention group. Specify the types of Olympic movements included, the progression of intensity, and how the movements were taught to ensure consistency in the intervention.

Authors: Thank you. It has been added in the manuscript.

“The players who were part of the intervention group were taught the Olympic movements that the training sessions consisted of with pikes and eight-kilogram bars in several sessions before beginning the intervention.”

         “For each proposed exercise, the participants had to perform three sets of eight repetitions with a rest of one minute between sets and two minutes between exercises. The intensity varied from 20% of their body weight to 30%. In the first two weeks of the intervention, corresponding to the first four sessions, an intensity of 20% of each player’s body weight was used. In the four subsequent sessions, an intensity of 25% of their body weight was used. In the last four sessions, the training was carried out with an intensity of 30% of their body weight. The players were instructed that the movements should be performed at maximum speed.

Monday’s training designed for the EG consisted of four exercises, which had to be performed in this order: hang clean, shoulder press, hang power clean and jerk, and dumbbell power snatch.

Wednesday’s training also consisted of four exercises that had to follow the order detailed below: hang power clean, unilateral shoulder press, hang clean and jerk, and dumbbell power snatch.”

 

Point 7: Also, in materials and methods, you mention that the intervention lasted six weeks, which is deemed sufficient for observing improvements. Providing a brief rationale for choosing this duration could enhance the understanding of why six weeks were considered appropriate.

Authors: Thank you. It has been added in the manuscript.

“Once the data for all variables had been collected, the intervention began, lasting six weeks. This specific period has been decided to adjust to the current situation of amateur team sports players. The time available to adequately develop strength and power in this type of player is very limited, since training focuses on technical and tactical improvement of the sport in question. For this reason, efficient power training be-comes essential in these cases. Additionally, it has been shown that six weeks of training are sufficient to significantly improve performance in recreational level team athletes.”

Point 8: Validity of the findings. Although it is stated that the absence of an untrained control group makes it difficult to assess whether the observed improvements are specific to Olympic movement training or simply the result of regular physical activity, this is a crucial point of the work, especially for the generalization of the results obtained. I would suggest that the conclusion be rephrased with this limitation in mind.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified to the manuscript.

“Thanks to the regular strength training conducted by the CG, we can generalize the results obtained.”

 

Thank you very much for your consideration and for your contributions to the improvement our research.

Kind Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 

 

The abstract is well written

 

Introduction 

 

The introduction lists many numerical values. Overall, the introduction should be very smooth. Writing precise values does not add value to the section, significance would be enough. I would suggest that the authors simplify the numbers reported in the section.

 

Line 68: Jumping ability is also an important performance indicator: Giustino V. et al showed results in line with your findings and also hypothesized that an integrated postural exercise program might lead to a more balanced muscle efficiency inducing athletes to obtain a higher VJ performance (Giustino, V.; et al. A. Effects of a Postural Exercise Program on Vertical Jump Height in Young Female Volleyball Players with Knee Valgus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073953).

 

Line 94: I agree that strength performances correlate with changes in directions. Specific training programs have shown improvements in performance; Patti et al. showed higher improvements on agility, vertical jump, and speed performances in favor of a specific program. The researchers hypothesized the long-term benefits on eccentric strength (Patti, A. et al. Effects of 5-Week of FIFA 11+ Warm-Up Program on Explosive Strength, Speed, and Perception of Physical Exertion in Elite Female Futsal Athletes. Sports 2022, 10, 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10070100)

 

Methods 

 

Has the sample power been calculated?

 

Maybe I missed it, but it would be useful for the authors to better describe how the sample was recruited, how it was divided between the groups, whether the groups were blinded, whether the researchers were blinded. The methods require more information about the study participants - were they matched controls? How were they recruited?

 

Results: The statistical analysis and reporting of results could be improved. Include confidence intervals and effect sizes, not just p-values. Add units to the outcome measures in Table 5.

 

Inserting a correlation analysis between tests could highlight the relationship between the tests and the correlated improvements. I would suggest the authors consider including a Pearson analysis

 

 

Discussion 

The discussion is generally well-written but some statements about implications are speculative given the small sample size.

I would suggest rephrasing to say "This pilot study raises the possibility that..."

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for the time invested in improving this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your suggestions.

 

Point 1. The introduction lists many numerical values. Overall, the introduction should be very smooth. Writing precise values does not add value to the section, significance would be enough. I would suggest that the authors simplify the numbers reported in the section.

Authors: Thank you. It has been modified in the manuscript.

 

Point 2. Line 68: Jumping ability is also an important performance indicator: Giustino V. et al showed results in line with your findings and also hypothesized that an integrated postural exercise program might lead to a more balanced muscle efficiency inducing athletes to obtain a higher VJ performance (Giustino, V.; et al. A. Effects of a Postural Exercise Program on Vertical Jump Height in Young Female Volleyball Players with Knee Valgus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073953).

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript.

 

Point 3. Line 94: I agree that strength performances correlate with changes in directions. Specific training programs have shown improvements in performance; Patti et al. showed higher improvements on agility, vertical jump, and speed performances in favor of a specific program. The researchers hypothesized the long-term benefits on eccentric strength (Patti, A. et al. Effects of 5-Week of FIFA 11+ Warm-Up Program on Explosive Strength, Speed, and Perception of Physical Exertion in Elite Female Futsal Athletes. Sports 2022, 10, 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports10070100).

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript.

Point 4. In the methods section, has the sample power been calculated?

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript.

“The G power 3.9.6 program was used to calculate the minimal sample size needed in our study, with Z_1-β = 1.07 (power = 85%) and Z_α/2=2 = 1.97 (alpha = 5%)”

 

Point 5. Also, in the methods section. Maybe I missed it, but it would be useful for the authors to better describe how the sample was recruited, how it was divided between the groups, whether the groups were blinded, whether the researchers were blinded. The methods require more information about the study participants - were they matched controls? How were they recruited?

Authors: Thank you for your comment. This point has been further detailed in the methods section.

         “The groups were blinded and did not know whether they belonged to the control or the intervention group. The researchers were also blinded and did the tests and pretests without knowing to which group each participant belonged.”

 

Point 6. In the results section. The statistical analysis and reporting of results could be improved. Include confidence intervals and effect sizes, not just p-values. Add units to the outcome measures in Table 5.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript.

 

Point 7. Also, in the results section. Inserting a correlation analysis between tests could highlight the relationship between the tests and the correlated improvements. I would suggest the authors consider including a Pearson analysis.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. The use of Student's t-test in the results section is justified when the aim is to directly compare two groups in terms of significant differences in a variable of interest, especially when working with categorical and continuous variables. On the other hand, inserting a correlation analysis, such as the Pearson correlation coefficient, may not be appropriate if the primary focus is on group comparisons rather than establishing specific relationships between two continuous variables. The choice between these statistical approaches depends on the research objectives, the type of data, and the specific questions being addressed in the study.

 

Point 8. In the discussion section. The discussion is generally well-written but some statements about implications are speculative given the small sample size. I would suggest rephrasing to say "This pilot study raises the possibility that..."

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified in the manuscript.

 

Thank you very much for your consideration and for your contributions to the improvement our research.

Kind Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper examining the difference between strength training using Olympic movements compared to regular strength training. This research provides some insight into different strength training methods that coaches may use with their European Handball players. 

Detailed comments are in the attached PDF.

Abstract 

The final sentence in the abstract needs to be more reflective of the overall results.

Introduction

Overall the introduction provides a good explanation of the past research related to the current student and provides satisfactory justification.  Some statements are made that are either factually incorrect or need further elaboration. 

Methodology and Results

Well written, however the following is required:

- Overview / description of the training program used by the intervention group in a table.

- Outline of how the sample size was determined.

- Table 5 has an anomaly i.e., $ = ?

Discussion

Lines 319 - 333 need further clarification.  See my comment in the PDF.

Limitations and Conclusion

Satisfactory.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see my comments in the PDF. For example;

- the word gesture has been misused in the introduction.

- first paragraph the context of training needs to be clearer, e.g. strength training.

- sport specific terms such 'winger' needs explanation. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for the time invested in improving this manuscript. We have carefully reviewed all considerations in the document provided by you. Enclosed you will find our detailed answers to your suggestions.

 

Point 1. The final sentence in the abstract needs to be more reflective of the overall results.

Authors: Thank you. It has been modified in the manuscript.

 

Point 2. Overall, the introduction provides a good explanation of the past research related to the current student and provides satisfactory justification.  Some statements are made that are either factually incorrect or need further elaboration.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been modified in the manuscript.

 

Point 3. In Materials and Methods section, the following is required: how was sufficient power and sample size determined for this research study? Please provide details.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript.

 

Point 4. Also, in Materials and Methods. Overview / description of the training program used by the intervention group in a table.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has been added to the manuscript in the table 3.

 

Point 5. In Results section, table 5 has an anomaly i.e., $ = ?

Authors: Thank you for your comment. It has modified in the manuscript. Also, Table 5 was numbered wrong, so now it is Table 4. An anomaly has been corrected.

 

Point 6. In Discussion, lines 319 - 323 need further clarification. 

Authors: Thank you. It has been modified in the manuscript.

 

Thank you very much for your consideration and for your contributions to the improvement our research.

Kind Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done an excellent study. I suggest acceptance of the manuscript

Author Response

Thank you for your support and for contributing to the enhancement of our work through your valuable insights.

Kind regards,

 

The authors. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for all the revisions. I only have one further change needed, "In this context, training with strength Olympic movements and their derivatives improves the development of strength, power, and speed, which are determinants of performance in team sports." Please update the sentence so it reads as follows; "In this context, strength training with Olympic movements and their derivatives improves the development of strength, power, and speed, which are determinants of performance in team sports."

 

Kindest regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and assistance in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We have amended the sentence in our manuscript as suggested. It now reads: "In this context, strength training with Olympic movements and their derivatives improves the development of strength, power, and speed, which are determinants of performance in team sports."

We appreciate your attention to detail and guidance, which has undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of our work.

Kind regards,

The authors.