ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Walking handball as an exercise alternative to conventional walking and recreational team handball.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recreational team handball (RTH) improves overall health in inactive men and women, yet certain frail populations may be unable to cope with its demands. For them, walking handball (WH) may be a more appropriate alternative. Thus, this study examined the physical and physiological demands and perceived experience of WH, compared with conventional walking modalities [self-paced brisk walking (SPBW) and brisk walking (BW)] and RTH, in middle-aged-to-older men with previous RTH experience. Methods: A randomized crossover design was applied where twenty-two participants (71 ± 4 years) performed 8 sessions comprising a 10 min warm-up followed by 5 min of rest and 3 × 15 min periods of either SPBW, BW, WH or RTH (2 sessions each), interspersed with 2-3 min breaks. WH and RTH consisted of 5v5 and 6v6 matches on a 40 × 20 m court. Heart rate (HR), blood lactate, activity profile, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and fun scores were assessed. Results: WH mean relative HR (67 ± 7%HR Conclusions: WH elicits moderate-intensity internal load, comparable to conventional walking modalities, with lower total distance covered, but higher frequency and magnitude of accelerations and decelerations, while showing lower RPE, and higher fun scores. This supports its potential to enhance cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, while fostering long-term exercise adherence. RTH provides the strongest overall training stimulus for fitness and health improvements, with high fun scores, whereas WH may be an alternative or entry pathway for individuals who cannot cope with RTH demands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.