European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 91, Issue 4, pp 413–418 | Cite as

Effect of body size and gender in overarm throwing performance

  • Roland van den TillaarEmail author
  • Gertjan Ettema
Original Article


The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between maximum isometric strength, anthropometry and maximum velocity in overarm throwing for male and female experienced handball players. Twenty male and 20 female handball players were tested. The mean ball velocity was 23.2 m s−1 and 19.1 m s−1 for male and female handball players, respectively. For males and females, similar correlations were found between maximal isometric strength and throwing velocity (men, r=0.43, P=0.056; women, r=0.49, P=0.027). Univariate analysis of variance between isometric strength and throwing velocity for men and women showed no significant effect of gender (F 2,36=0.116, P=0.89). Body size had a strong positive effect on the throwing performance and isometric strength. Throwing velocity appeared to be affected by gender when size was expressed by mass or height (P<0.001). However, this dependence was completely explained by size differences when expressed as fat-free body mass (FFM). For strength, no gender effect was found at all, i.e. all gender differences were explained by size differences, irrespective on how this was expressed. The finding that strength and velocity show a gender independent relationship strengthens the notion that gender difference is based on difference in muscle bulk. We conclude that FFM, as an approximation for skeletal muscle mass, is the best measure to express body size when related to physical performance.


Overarm throwing Handball Scaling Body size Gender 


  1. Anderson SM, Coté RW, Coyle EF, Robe FB (1979) Leg power, muscle strength and peak EMG activity in physically active college men and women. Med Sci Sports 11:81–82Google Scholar
  2. Barata J (1992) Changes in ball velocity in the handball free throw, induced by two different speed–strength training programs. Motricidade Humana: Port J Hum Perform Stud 8:45–55Google Scholar
  3. Batterham AM, Vanderburgh PM, Mahar MT, Jackson AS (1999) Modelling the influence of body size onO2peak: effects of model choice and body composition. J Appl Physiol 87:1317–1325Google Scholar
  4. Crowder MJ, Hand DJ (1990) Analysis of repeated measures. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Doodam CS, Vanderburgh PM (2000) Allometric modelling of the bench press and squat: Who is the strongest regardless of body mass? J Strength Cond Res 14:32–36Google Scholar
  6. Durnin JVGA, Womersley J (1974) Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 32:77–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleck SJ, Smith SL, Craib MW, Denahan T, Snow RE, Mitchell ML (1992) Upper extremity isokinetic torque and throwing velocity in team handball. J Appl Sport Sci Res 6:120–124Google Scholar
  8. Hoff J, Almåsbakk B (1995) The effect of maximum strength training on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female team-handball players. J Strength Cond Res 9:255–258Google Scholar
  9. Hollings SC, Robson GJ (1991) Body build and performance characteristics of male adolescent track and field athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 18:178–182Google Scholar
  10. Housh TJ, Thorland WE, Johnson GO, Tharp GD, Cisar CJ (1984) Anthropometric and body build variables as discriminators of event participation in elite adolescent male track and field athletes. J Sports Sci 2:3–11Google Scholar
  11. Jöris HJJ, Edwards van Muyen AJ, van Ingen Schenau GJ, Kemper HCG (1985) Force velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. J Biomech 18:409–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Morrow JR, Dische JG, Ward JG, Donovan TJ, Katch FI, Katch V, Weltman AL, Tellez T (1982) Anthropometric, strength, and performance characteristics of American world class throwers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1:73–79Google Scholar
  13. Norton K, Olds T (1996) Anthropometrica; A textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses. UNSW, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Ohnishi T, Mizukami H, Kawamura L (1980) A study of jumping shoot in handball (abstract). Jpn Soc Phys Educ 31:586Google Scholar
  15. Quinney HA, Pettersen SR, Gledhill N, Jamnik V (1984) Accreditation of élite athlete testing laboratories in Canada. In: Reilly T, Watkins J, Borms J (eds) Kinanthropometry III. E and FN Spon, London, pp 233–238Google Scholar
  16. Ross WD, Marfell-Jones MT (1991) Kinanthropometry. In: Macdougall JD, Wenger HA, Green HJ (eds) Physiological testing of the high performance athlete, 2nd edn. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill., pp 223–308Google Scholar
  17. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling; Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Sidhu LS, Kansal DK, Kanda BS (1975) Anthropometric and roentgenogrammetric assessment of physique and body composition of athletes specialising in throwing events. J Sports Med 15:192–198Google Scholar
  19. Siri WE (1961) Body volume measurement by gas dilution. In: Brozek J, Henschel A (eds) Techniques for measuring body composition. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp 108–117Google Scholar
  20. Toyoshima S, Miyashita M (1973) Force–velocity relation in throwing. Res Q 44:86–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tuma M, Zahalka F (1997) Three-dimensional analysis of jump shot in handball. Acta Univ Carol Kinanthropol 33:81–86Google Scholar
  22. Van den Tillaar R (2003) Effect of different constraints on coordination and performance in overarm throwing. Dissertation, NTNU, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Movement Science Section, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology ManagementNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SogndalNorway

Personalised recommendations