1. IntroductionBeach handball is characterized by motor characteristics such as accelerations, sprints or jumps, as well as rapid changes of direction and a high number of physical collisions [1,2]. The nutritional requirements of beach handball players, as seen in other team sports [3], will be variable throughout the season, affecting the intake of macronutrients, micronutrients and total energy. Currently, carbohydrate recommendations are between 5 and 12 g/kg body weight for moderate- to high-intensity exercise (duration of 1–4 h) [4], decreasing to 3–5 g/kg body weight for low-intensity exercise of up to one hour in duration [4]. Regarding proteins, with the objective of helping with muscle protein synthesis and recovery, recommendations of 1.2–2 g/kg body weight are established. As for micronutrients, female athletes have higher requirements, highlighting the importance of B vitamins [5], iron, calcium and vitamin D in athletes with a low caloric intake. The estimation of energy requirements in female beach handball players is a considerable challenge, as requirements may increase or decrease depending on age, general level of daily activity, training conditions and body composition [6]. In this sense, in the field of sport, the assessment of body composition is fundamental because it is one of the factors that can determine athletic potential and the probability of success in a particular sport, in combination with technical/tactical, physical, functional and psychosocial factors [7,8]. Body composition involves the analysis of the human body based on the fragmentation of total body mass. For beach handball, body fat should be monitored, as adequate fat levels allow players to move more efficiently during training and matches. Lean mass—in particular, muscle mass—should also be controlled, as inadequate training loads (excessive or insufficient) can lead to changes in physique which could affect performance factors such as speed, strength, power and injury risk [9,10].In terms of bone mass, an article was recently published in which reference was made to the bone quality of these players [11]. It was observed that, after assessment of bone quality using a heel ultrasound densitometer, the broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and speed of sound (SOS) values of female beach handball players were higher than those of both long- and short-distance runners [12,13,14], gymnasts [13] and powerlifters [15]. It seems, therefore, that the practice of this sport in the sand, as well as the repeated impacts after jumps, turns and sprints, favors the development and bone quality of the growing skeleton.Bone is a highly dynamic tissue that adapts to changes in systemic signals, including hormones, as well as to mechanical stresses induced by physical activity [16]. Fatty acid intake is associated with increased bone mineral density, even reducing the risk of fracture [17]. In the case of female athletes, in order to maintain bone health, there are situations that may be relevant; including low energy availability, low carbohydrate availability, protein intake, vitamin D and dermal losses of calcium and sodium [18]. This highlights the critical role that properly planned and personalized nutrition plays in the bone health of female athletes and the necessity of a nutritional assessment of each athlete. This permits the determination of whether the required amounts of key nutrients are being consumed to support both bone health and optimal athletic performance. In fact, some morphological factors related to bone mass, such as leg length, have been found to regulate stride length, thus contributing to sprint performance [19]. Although previous studies described the anthropometric profile of beach handball [11,20,21] and handball players [22,23,24,25,26,27], none provided a complete and detailed description of all the bone diameters, lengths and body heights that are included in the complete ISAK (International Society for Advancement in Kinanthropometry) profile [28]. This is of particular interest to respond to different performance results, detect sporting talent and establish the athletic characteristics of athletes.

The main objective of this study was to describe and compare the dietary intake, anthropometrics, body composition, somatotypes and proportionality profiles of female professional beach handball players, according to age category (junior vs. senior) and playing position. Additional objectives were to correlate the different anthropometric variables with the results of the 5, 10 and 15 m sprints and provide data that can be useful in detecting sports talent.

The hypothesis proposed is that senior players consume higher-quality diets since they are more aware of the importance of nutrition due to the length of time they have been practicing sports. It is also expected that protein consumption will be related to muscle mass, and high consumption of saturated fats to fat mass. In terms of body composition, senior female players will present a larger muscular compartment. Considering playing position, it is expected that goalkeepers will have the highest fat compartment. Speed results are expected to correlate with anthropometric characteristics rather than age category.

3. ResultsA total of 33 players (18 juniors and 15 seniors) of the Spanish Beach Handball National Team participated in the present study. Following quantitative evaluation of the players’ diets, as shown in Table 1, no significant differences were found between junior and senior players. Therefore, diet was not a confounding factor when analyzing the rest of the variables studied. However, if the results are compared with the dietary reference intakes (DRIs) for the Spanish population [42], the female players in the present study had lower intakes of most micronutrients than they should. When considering macronutrients [43], it seems that, in general, female players have a low carbohydrate (CH) intake compared to the recommendations, 5–7 g/kg/day. The same is true for proteins; it is estimated that sportswomen should consume between 1.6 and 1.8 g/kg/day, and the average coincided with these values. After the same analysis was performed by playing position, only one tendency (p = 0.052) was observed for the % CH variable; however, following the post hoc analyses, no significant differences were observed.Regarding basic anthropometric measurements, the mean age was 16.7 ± 0.50 for the junior players and 24.8 ± 4.71 for the senior players. The descriptive data (mean ± standard deviation) and the ANOVA to test for differences between the basic measurements (wingspan, height, sitting height, weight and BMI), depending on the category, are shown in Table 2. There were no significant differences in any of the variables.If these variables are analyzed according to playing position (goalkeepers, wings, specialists, pivots, and defenders), significant differences are observed in both wingspan and height (Table 3). There was a tendency (p = 0.053) for pivots to have a greater variable wingspan than wings. The same occurred for the height variable; however, in this case, the difference was significant (p = 0.014).Table 4 and Table 5 show the following body composition variables: sum (∑) of six skinfolds (mm), ∑ of eight skinfolds (mm), fat mass with the Carter, Faulkner and Withers + Siri equations, both in percentage and kilograms, muscle mass (Lee et al. 2000 Equation), bone mass (Rocha’s Equation) and residual mass. Table 4, which shows the total statistics and those by age category, presents a significant difference (p = 0.013) in the variable kilograms of muscle mass, with the senior group reporting higher values (24.7 ± 1.83 kg) than the junior group (22.9 ± 1.96 kg).Consideration of the playing positions changes the results. As shown in Table 5, there were significant differences in the variable fat mass (both in % and in kilograms) calculated with the Faulkner formula (p = 0.018 and p = 0.025, % and kilograms, respectively) and in the variable kilograms of bone mass (p = 0.049). Following the post hoc analyses, fat mass was observed to differ between goalkeepers and wings (p = 0.031) and between goalkeepers and specialists (p = 0.034), with fat mass being higher in goalkeepers in both cases.

For bone mass, following post hoc analysis, significant differences were observed between wings and pivots (p = 0.010) and between specialists and pivots (p = 0.021). The pivots had the highest bone mass (10.0 ± 0.627 kg), followed by the specialists (9.10 ± 0.653 kg) and the wings (9.03 ± 0.793 kg).

Following the correlation of these variables with dietary intakes (Table 1), in senior female players, positive correlations were observed between fat mass and animal-protein intake, both in % (r = 0.569; p = 0.027 and r = 0.552; p = 0.033 with the Faulkner and Withers formulas, respectively) and in kilograms (r = 0.590; p = 0.021 and r = 0.577; p = 0.024). Muscle mass (kg) was also positively correlated with grams of polyunsaturated fatty acids ingested (r = 0.636; p = 0.011). Bone mass (kg) was positively related with total grams of protein ingested (r = 0.593; p = 0.020), grams of protein/kg body weight and day (r = 0.584; p = 0.022) and monounsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.531; p = 0.042). No relevant correlations were found for junior players.Regarding somatotype, Figure 1 shows the mean somatotypes of the players by age category and playing position. There were no significant differences between the values obtained from junior and senior players in any of the three components: endomorphy (3.57 ± 1.12 vs. 3.16 ± 1.14, junior and senior, respectively), mesomorphy (2.48 ± 0.90 vs. 2.78 ± 0.951) and ectomorphy (2.66 ± 1.04 vs. 2.74 ± 1.17).

Regarding playing position, a significant difference was observed in the endomorphic component (p = 0.047). However, in the post hoc analysis with a Bonferroni correction, no significant differences were observed between any group. Following the analysis of this variable without correction, significant differences were observed between the position’s goalkeepers and wings (p = 0.014), goalkeepers and pivots (p = 0.013), and goalkeepers and defenders (p = 0.010), with endomorphy values decreasing in the following order: goalkeepers (4.55 ± 1.21) > wings (3.17 ± 1.14) > pivots (2.98 ± 0.88) > defenders (2.56 ± 0.75).

The anthropometric dimensions and proportionality profile (of the 21 measurements that correspond to the restricted ISAK profile) of all the players and separated by age category are shown in Figure 2. After the analysis, no significant differences were observed in any of the variables.In addition to skinfolds and perimeters, lengths, heights and large bone diameters were also collected. By age category, significant differences (p = 0.015) were only observed in the case of tibiale-laterale height, which was greater in senior players (46.3 ± 1.91) than in juniors (44.4 + 2.38). The descriptive data and differences for each of these variables, depending on the playing position, are shown in Table 6. Significant differences were observed in the variables iliospinale height (p = 0.032), biacromial diameter (p = 0.021), bimalleolar diameter (p = 0.025), mesosternal perimeter (p = 0.035) and hip perimeter (p = 0.014). Following the post hoc analyses, in the case of the iliospinale height, the female defenders had higher values than the female wings (p = 0.042). For biacromial and bimalleolar diameters, mesosternal perimeter and biceps skinfold, no significant differences were found after the post hoc analysis. Hip circumference was significantly higher in specialist players than in defenders (p = 0.023), and abdominal fold was significantly higher in goalkeepers than in wings (p = 0.040) and defenders (p = 0.016). Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the results by age category and playing position, respectively. As can be seen in the figure, there were significant differences for the 5 m (p = 0.018), 10 m (0 = 0.020) and 15 m (p = 0.022) sprint, with the senior players being faster than the juniors in all cases. No significant differences were observed according to playing position (Figure 4). The results of a Pearson p-correlation analysis between the sprints and the different anthropometric variables showed significant positive correlations between the different tests of sprints and weight (r = 0.521; p = 0.002 and r = 0.576; pr = 0.390; p = 0.025 and r = 0.442; p = 0.010), neck perimeter (r = 0.390; p = 0.025 and (r = 0.420; p = 0.015), relaxed arm perimeter (r = 0.402; p = 0.020 and r = 0.427; p = 0.013), mesosternal perimeter (r = 0.452 and 0.455; p = 0.008 in both cases), waist (r = 0.445; p = 0.010 and r = 0.487; p = 0.004), hip (r = 0.586 and r = 0.582; pr = 0.463; p = 0.007 and r = 0.452; p = 0.008).

The same occurred for the antero-posterior chest diameter (r = 0.426; p = 0.013, r = 0.510; p = 0.002 and r = 0.473; p = 0.005 for 5, 10 and 15 m, respectively), ∑ of six and eight skinfolds (mm), and % of fat mass (kg), with all the formulas used, in the case of 5 m p < 0.005 and for 10 and 15 m p < 0.001. It should be noted that there were also negative correlations between 5 m and 10 m sprints with trochanterion height (r = −0.423; p = 0.014 and r = −0.347; p = 0.048, respectively); therefore, those female players with a greater trochanterion height were faster. A similar pattern occurred with respect to % muscle mass and % bone mass. Significant negative correlations were observed with the 5 m sprint (r = −0.403 and r = −0.428 for muscle mass and bone mass, respectively; p = 0.013 in both cases), 10 m (r = –0.555; p < 0.001 and r = –0.529; p = 0.002) and 15 m (r = −0.586; p < 0.001 and r = −0.537; p = 0.001); therefore, the players with more muscle mass and more bone mass had faster results in the speed tests.

4. Discussion

The objectives of this research were to describe and compare the dietary, anthropometric, body composition, somatotype and proportionality profiles of professional female beach handball players according to age category (junior and senior) and playing position. Different anthropometric variables were also correlated with speed results (5, 10 and 15 m sprints).

Previous research has evaluated anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and body composition in beach handball players [9]; however, this study is the first to analyze the dietary intake of female players and to show the complete anthropometric profile of beach handball players as a function of playing position. These data were necessary, as this information could be of great help, together with fitness measurements, to determine physical preparation for competition and to monitor the effects of training and dietary interventions on body composition status and vice versa. However, in reference to the junior category, the players may be at different stages of development, and this should be taken into account to facilitate an effective transition of performance between the different categories (junior to senior) on the pathway to talent [44]. However, our analysis of the results indicated that the differences between categories (junior through senior) are not so great; therefore, these junior players may be close to the level of development of an elite senior female player.One of the main findings following the quantitative dietary assessment was that carbohydrate intake was below the recommendations for players performing moderate training of approximately one hour per day (5–7 g/kg body weight) [4]: 3.33 ± 0.89 g/kg body weight in the case of juniors and 3.29 ± 0.797 in seniors. However, protein intake was indeed in line with current recommendations (1.2–2 g/kg body weight) [4], being 1.69 ± 0.36 and 1.69 ± 0.36 in juniors and seniors, respectively. Mean energy intake was 1684.85 ± 355.21 in juniors and 1701.39 ± 307.36 in seniors, lower than the 1870.46 ± 576.24 previously estimated in female soccer players [45] and 2073.13 and 2512.19 kilocalories observed in other team sports (soccer, tennis, basketball, football, golf, lacrosse, baseball and hockey) [46,47].Considering that the mean intake of calcium and iron is 1000 mg/day and 18 mg/day, respectively, in both cases, the intake was lower: 595.26 ± 268.64 and 13.56 ± 5.16 mg/day in juniors and 613.64 ± 222.06 and 13.01 ± 4.24 mg/day in seniors, respectively. The vitamin D intake of the female players was 3.73 ± 6.02 and 4.35 ± 5.17 μg in juniors and seniors, complying with the current recommendations for vitamin D intake in female athletes, i.e., 5 μg [43]. The sodium intake of the players in the present investigation was slightly higher than the recommendations [43]. Considering the climatic conditions in which handball training sessions are held, this was to be expected, since 90% of the players reported consuming sports drinks before, during and after training. There is no concrete recommendation for sodium intake in female athletes, as there is some degree of interindividual variability, depending on sweat rates and individual sweat sodium concentrations [48].In addition, in female athletes, menstruation, together with high-intensity training, can affect the status of other micronutrients, such as zinc and vitamin B12 [3]. The intakes of the players in the present investigation complied with both zinc (8 mg/day) and vitamin B12 (2 μg/day) recommendations, being 8.28 ± 2.36 and 4.69 ± 2.42 μg, respectively, in juniors and 10.68 ± 4.43 mg and 5.65 ± 2.33 μg, respectively, in seniors.As for basic anthropometric measurements, the elite junior handball players showed a mean height of 167 ± 4.90 cm and a mean weight of 62.4 ± 7.29 kg, while in the senior players, these were 169 ± 5.31 cm and 64.9 ± 7.87 kg. As observed in male players [49], it seems that these differences are caused by the different age groups of players being in different stages of the maturation process. If these results are compared to those of the 32 senior players (25.3 ± 4.8 years) who were competing in the 2017 European Championship [1], both weight and height are slightly lower; 168 ± 3.86 cm and 60.78 ± 3.87 kg. In a study by Pueo et al. [9], both height 169.1 ± 5.1 and weight 62.9 ± 5.3 were more similar in the case of female players (24.1 ± 4.7 years).Regarding these variables by playing position, an adequate comparison cannot be performed, since in the previous literature, players were grouped according to three playing positions [9]: goalkeepers (mesomorphic endomorph), wing-specialists (mesomorph-endomorph) and pivot-defenders (balanced ectomorph), with the latter two being categorized as the same position, despite their differences in specific training characteristics. However, similarly, the players in the present study had a balanced endomorphic anthropometric profile.With the results obtained by playing position, it is possible to confirm the conclusion reached in a previous systematic review in female indoor handball players [10] that the weight and height values of wings are lower than those of other positions (Table 2). It seems that the reason for this finding is that wings need faster and lighter bodies, as they must be able to make rapid changes in speed and direction to cover as much of the field as possible.

In the body-composition variables, significant differences (p = 0.013) were only observed in the variable muscle mass (kg), which was greater in the senior group (24.7 ± 1.83 kg) with respect to the junior group (22.9 ± 1.96 kg). However, after dividing the sample by playing position, significant differences were observed in fat mass calculated with the Faulkner formula, both in percentage (p = 0.018) and in kilograms (p = 0.025). Goalkeepers had significantly higher % fat mass (22.6 ± 3.86%) than wings (17.4 ± 3.53%) and greater fat mass (16.2 ± 4.84 kg) than specialists (11.1 ± 1.91 kg). This could be due to the goalkeepers’ own role in the team, as they move less than the other players and therefore have a lower energy expenditure. Differences were also observed in bone mass (p = 0.049); however, following the post hoc analysis with a Bonferroni correction, no significant differences were observed between positions.

When the results of the present research were compared with those previously mentioned, it was affirmed that the players in the present research showed slightly higher fat mass, 18.9 ± 4.92%, compared to 15.4 ± 3.7% [9], calculated in both cases with the Withers + Siri formula. Following a correlation analysis of body composition variables with dietary intake, for senior female players, the consumption of animal protein was positively correlated with fat mass. The current evidence suggests that higher intakes of animal protein, i.e., in the quantities recommended for athletes, are unlikely to be adverse to bone health, assuming that the amount of calcium ingested is adequate [50]. However, it seems to have a negative effect on the accumulation of the fat-mass component, probably because the quality of the products chosen is inadequate, resulting in an increase in the intake of saturated fats [51]. In addition, correlations were found between bone mass (kg) and protein intake. This confirms previous findings [50], which suggested that protein may have an indirect effect on bone not only through its support of muscle mass and function but also through increasing circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which has an anabolic effect on bone. When compared with those of female indoor handball players [10], the sum of six skinfolds (tricipital + subscapular + supraspinal + abdominal + thigh + leg) was slightly higher in female indoor players (93.81 mm vs. 84.5 mm). However, muscle mass was also greater in the case of the players on the national handball team [45], being 26.2 ± 2.6 kg, compared with 23.7 ± 2.07 kg in the players of the present investigation.The female beach handball players in the present investigation showed a balanced endomorphic somatotype (endomorphy was dominant, while mesomorphy and ectomorphy were similar, not differing by more than 0.5), in both junior (3.6–2.5–2.7; endomorphy–mesomorphy–ectomorphy, respectively) and senior (3.2–2.8–2.7) players. These results do not coincide with those obtained by Pueo et al. [9], where the players presented an average mesomorphic–endomorphic somatotype (3.5–3.3–2.6). Although the endomorphy and ectomorphy components coincided, the mesomorphy of the players in the present study was slightly lower. However, the results are more similar to the results for indoor handball players (3.1–2.5–2.6) in a study by Marijana Cavala et al. [52]. This makes sense, since many of the players who play beach handball in the summer season are also indoor handball players during the winter. Nevertheless, this is not always the situation, as Ferragut et al. [45] observed, after analyzing the players of the Spanish national handball team, that the top elite women (26.4 ± 4.5 years) presented a slightly higher mesomorphic component than those reported previously (3.8–4.2–2.3). Regarding the playing position, although in the present research post hoc analyses with a Bonferroni correction did not show significant differences, the endomorphic component was higher in goalkeepers with respect to the rest of the positions: 4.55 ± 1.21 (goalkeepers), 3.17 ± 1.14 (wings), 3.40 ± 0.87 (specialists), 2.98 ± 0.88 (pivots) and 2.56 ± 0.75 (defenders).

Regarding proportionality, the profiles of both groups (junior vs. senior) were similar, with no significant differences in any of the variables. Because this is the first research showing a proportionality analysis in female beach handball players, it is not possible to compare our results with those of previous studies. The same is true for the variables large bone diameter, length and height. It is important to highlight the negative correlation between trochanterion height (vertical distance from the trochanterion mark to the ground) and the results of the 5 and 10 m sprints; a greater leg length was related to greater running speed. The same was true for muscle mass and bone mass; players with more muscle and bone mass were the fastest.

If these sprint results are compared with those of handball players from previous research [53], the players in the present study are faster (1.11 ± 0.07 and 2.01 ± 0.11 vs. 1.25 ± 0.06 and 2.19 ± 0.05 for 5 and 10 m, respectively). The same occurs in a comparison with beach handball players [54]; 1.17 ± 0.06 and 2.04 ± 0.08 s, for 5 and 10 m, respectively.

As in all research, reference should be made to the strengths and limitations presented. This is the first study to show the results of lengths, heights and proportionality of female beach handball players, contributing a complete data set to the literature. This provides useful data for recruiting and selecting players with an optimal anthropometric profile to improve performance and, consequently, team results. However, it is important to emphasize that, when comparing the results by playing position, caution should be exercised, since the groups did not have the same number of participants. It would be of great interest, in addition to obtaining the complete anthropometric profile, to use the gold-standard instrument DXA for the measurement of body composition. Although a quantitative analysis of the players’ intake was carried out, it would be necessary to carry out a qualitative analysis over a longer period, at least 7 days. In addition, the size of the sample and subsamples must be considered, so these data should be interpreted with caution. However, it should be recalled that beach handball is not considered a mass sport, despite its exponential growth in the last decade, especially in the women’s category, as is the case in other sports. However, in order to conduct this study, we had the opportunity to analyze the players of the Spanish Beach Handball National Team, i.e., world-class players, since in the last IHF Women’s Beach Handball World Championship—ninth edition—and in the IHF Women’s Youth Beach Handball World Championship (U18)—second edition—held in Greece in 2022, Spain won the silver medal and the gold medal, respectively. Therefore, the authors understand that the sample has a very exclusive value due to the difficulty accessing this type of population. Along these lines and for future research, players of different nationalities and a larger sample should be considered. Finally, it should be noted that this is a cross-sectional study, so it is not possible to establish causal relationships.

Practical Implications

The present results can be used by coaches and fitness trainers in the creation of a high-performance plan for beach handball, as well as in the design of a talent discovery program. In this way, training can be specifically oriented to each type of female player, a fundamental aspect of elite performance.