# Walking handball as an exercise alternative to conventional walking and recreational team handball

## TL;DR

Walking handball offers a moderate-intensity workout similar to walking, with more fun and less perceived effort, making it a good alternative for those who can't handle team handball.

## Contribution

Walking handball is proposed as a viable alternative exercise for frail populations who cannot handle the demands of recreational team handball.

## Key findings

- Walking handball elicits similar heart rates to brisk walking but with more accelerations and decelerations.
- Walking handball has lower perceived exertion and higher fun scores compared to conventional walking.
- Recreational team handball provides the highest training stimulus but walking handball is a suitable entry-level alternative.

## Abstract

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.

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.

WH mean relative HR (67 ± 7%HRmax) was similar (p > 0.05) to SPBW (65 ± 7% HRmax) and BW (69 ± 7%HRmax), with RTH (78 ± 9%HRmax) showing higher values (p < 0.05) than all walking modalities, as well as more time spent >90% HRmax (RTH: 12 ± 18%; SPBW, BW, WH: 0 ± 0%–2%, p < 0.05). Likewise, RTH blood lactate was higher (3.5 ± 1.6 mmol·L−1, p < 0.05) than all walking modalities, with no differences between them (2.0–2.2 mmol·L−1, p > 0.05). Distance covered was higher (p < 0.05) in SPBW (4,543 ± 429 m) and BW (4,656 ± 383 m) vs. WH (2,561 ± 405 m), although WH elicited a higher number (p < 0.05) of accelerations and decelerations across most thresholds. Conversely, fun scores were higher (p < 0.05) in WH (7.5 ± 2.2 AU) and RTH (8.3 ± 1.6 AU) vs. SPBW (6.1 ± 2.4 AU) and BW (5.8 ± 2.3 AU), while all RPE scores were lower (p < 0.05) in WH vs. SPBW, BW and RTH.

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.

Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07011290, identifier NCT07011290.