Unilateral or Bilateral Training to Improve Amateur Female Handball Players’ Sprint Acceleration and Change of Direction Ability : A Quantitative Study Comparing Two Training Methods

Abstract: Aim The aim of the study was to identify the difference between unilateral and bilateral training and their effect on female handball players sprint acceleration and change of direction (COD) ability. The research question was “What differences are there between the effect of combined training performed unilaterally and training performed bilaterally on female handball players’ sprint acceleration ability and COD ability?” Method 60 female (age: 20 ± 5yr) handball players participated in the study, 30 in each group. A loss of 30 subjects occurred, leaving total of 30 subjects finished the study, 15 in each group. The subjects performed two tests before initiating a combined training protocol, inducing strength and plyometric exercises. The first test consisted of a 10-meter straight sprint that was also divided into a 5-meter split, which measured their sprint acceleration by using Ivar Run System. The second test was a modified version of Spasic’s (2015) handball specific COD assessor. After the baseline-test, the subjects participated in a six-week long training protocol, one plyometric workout a week and one strength workout a week. Once the six weeks were completed, the same tests were performed. The data was recorded in Microsoft Excel (2016, Seattle, USA) and analyzed in IBM SPSS (2013, version 22.0, New York, USA).  Results Statistically, unilateral training has proven to be a more effective training method to improve the first 5-meters (p=0,013) of the 10-meter sprint acceleration test and not the other areas. Whilst bilateral training has proven to be more effective training method to improve the total time of the 10-meter sprint acceleration test (p=0,035). Both groups have statistically shown no significant difference in the COD-ability test. Conclusion Crucial standardization errors were made during this study, which in turn could have impaired the results greatly. A cautious approach to a solid conclusion should be considered, due to the standardization errors and the fact, that the subjects were not used to a training protocol being systematically structured. More research with a similar perspective has to be brought about, focusing on the long-term effect and maybe even on elite players.