Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc. 2026;25(2):e255665

doi: 10.33233/rbfex.v25i2.5665

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of performance-related physical fitness and nutritional status in youth indoor and beach volleyball athletes

Comparação da aptidão física relacionada ao desempenho e do estado nutricional em atletas juvenis de voleibol indoor e de praia

Marcelo Pedrotti, Mauro Rogério dos Reis, Daniela dos Santos, Jorge Luiz Velasquez, Rafael Antonio Bianchi, Ricelli Endrigo Ruppel da Rocha, Diego André Bridi

Universidade do Alto Vale do Rio do Peixe Caçador, Santa Catarina, Brasil

Received: June 15, 2026 ; Accepted: October 16, 2026

Correspondence: Diego André Bridi, dbridi@gmail.com

How to cite

Pedrotti M, Reis MR, Santos D, Velasquez JL, Bianchi RA, Rocha RER, Bridi DA. Comparison of performance-related physical fitness and nutritional status in youth indoor and beach volleyball athletes. Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc. 2026;25(2):e265665. doi: 10.33233/rbfex.v25i2.5665

Abstract

Introduction: Volleyball is one of the most widely practiced sports worldwide and is characterized by high technical, tactical, and physical demands. Objective: Evaluate and compare performance-related physical fitness and nutritional status among youth indoor and beach volleyball athletes. Method: A study was conducted involving 14 under-20 (U20) beach and indoor volleyball athletes. Participants underwent assessments of nutritional status and performance-related physical fitness using the following tests: flexibility (Sit-and-Reach Test), lower-limb power (Countermovement Jump Test), reaction speed (Ruler Drop Test), and upper-limb strength (Handgrip Strength Test). Data were presented as means and standard deviations, and statistical differences were analyzed using Student’s t-test. Results: U20 beach volleyball athletes exhibited no significant differences in nutritional status or performance-related physical fitness when compared with their indoor volleyball counterparts (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Despite the distinct characteristics of beach and indoor volleyball, there are no significant differences between these modalities regarding nutritional status or performance-related physical fitness in youth athletes.

Keywords: volleyball; physical fitness; nutritional status; athletic performance.

Resumo

Introdução: O voleibol é uma das modalidades esportivas mais praticadas em todo o mundo, sendo um esporte de alta demanda técnica, tática e física. Objetivo: Avaliar e comparar a aptidão física relacionada ao desempenho e o estado nutricional entre atletas juvenis de voleibol indoor e de praia. Método: Foi realizado um estudo com 14 atletas de voleibol de praia e indoor de categoria sub20. Os atletas foram submetidos a avaliações de estado nutricional e aptidão física relacionada ao desempenho através de testes do teste de flexibilidade (Sit-and-Reach Test), salto com contramovimento (Countermovement Jump Test), teste de velocidade de reação (Ruler Drop Test) e força de membros superiores (Handgrip Strength Test). Os dados encontrados foram apresentados através de média, desvio padrão e diferença significativa através do teste T – The Students. Resultados: Os atletas sub20 das modalidades de voleibol indoor e voleibol de praia não apresentaram diferenças significativas em relação ao estado nutricional ou aptidão física relacionada ao desempenho (p < 0,05). Conclusão: Apesar das características diferentes entre o voleibol de praia e o voleibol indoor, não existem diferenças significativas entre as modalidades quanto ao estado nutricional ou à aptidão física relacionada ao desempenho em atletas juvenis.

Palavras-chave: voleibol; aptidão física; estado nutricional; desempenho atlético.

Introduction

Indoor volleyball is one of the most popular sports in the world, with approximately 800 million practitioners [1]. The modality is characterized by rapid changes of direction, accelerations, multidirectional movements, and explosive efforts interspersed with short rest intervals, which requires players to be agile and capable of making quick decisions under pressure, in addition to well-developed technical, emotional, and strategic skills [2,3,4,5].

Studies indicate that, on average, a player performs 21 to 36 complex movements per match, 50 to 60% of which consist of jumps, 27 to 30% of rapid changes of direction, and 12 to 16% of dives and falls, in addition to 100 to 120 attacks and blocks [2,4].

Beach volleyball, derived from indoor volleyball, is a relatively recent sport and is characterized by alternation between maximal efforts, such as attacks, and submaximal efforts, such as positioning [6]. Speed and muscle power are essential for performance due to the rapid movements and frequent explosive vertical jumps required [7]. Studies show that players perform between 52 and 85 jumps per match, approximately one jump every 42 seconds, rallies lasting an average of 8.5 seconds, a total of 78 to 96 rallies per game, and match durations between 30 and 64 minutes [6].

Indoor volleyball and beach volleyball, despite sharing common features, present clear differences in the number of players, court dimensions, rules, and physical, tactical, and technical demands [8]. In beach volleyball, energy expenditure during running or walking on sand is about 20% higher due to more challenging environmental conditions, including exposure to sun, wind, and weather variations [6,9,10,11]. Furthermore, beach volleyball rules are designed to make scoring more difficult and to prolong the active phase of play, resulting in shorter matches, with an average duration of about 51 minutes, whereas an indoor volleyball match lasts approximately 100 minutes, including intervals between sets [9].

Physical fitness refers to the capacity of the different organ systems of the human body to respond to the specific demands of the sport, encompassing essential qualities such as strength, speed, endurance, and flexibility [12]. When properly trained, physical fitness, including the assessment of body composition, neuromuscular strength, aerobic and anaerobic capacities, agility, and flexibility, contributes positively to the development and performance of volleyball athletes across different age groups [3,13].

Despite available evidence regarding adult athletes, there is a scarcity of comparative studies involving youth athletes, especially when simultaneously considering physical fitness variables and nutritional status, which justifies the present study.

In this context, this study aims to evaluate and compare performance-related physical fitness and nutritional status between youth indoor and beach volleyball athletes.

Methods

Sample

The study was conducted with 14 male and female athletes practicing beach and indoor volleyball, affiliated with teams or clubs in the under-20 category in the city of Caçador, Santa Catarina, Brazil. The study included: a) athletes who had participated in regional competitions for at least 6 months; b) athletes who had been training volleyball for at least 2 years; and c) athletes who correctly completed the Informed Consent Form (ICF). Athletes undergoing rehabilitation or with recent injuries were excluded. The study was conducted after approval by the ethics committee under opinion no. 7,798,789 and CAAE: 90488025.3.0000.0259, in compliance with the guidelines of Resolution No. 466/2012 of the National Health Council.

Procedures

Initially, the project was presented to the coaching staff of the under-20 volleyball team of the municipality of Caçador for testing during the team's pre-season. Following ethics committee approval, athletes who agreed to participate in the study were selected. Assessments of body composition and performance-related physical fitness (power, flexibility, reaction speed) were conducted at the Health and Human Performance Assessment Laboratory (LABEM) located at the University of Alto Vale do Rio do Peixe.

Body composition

Body composition was evaluated based on body mass, height, and BMI (Body Mass Index). Body mass was measured using a mechanical scale (Filizola Beyond Technology®, Brazil) and height using a stadiometer. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by height squared (kg/m²) [4].

Lower-limb power

To evaluate lower-limb power, the Countermovement Jump test was applied. The test was performed on a jump platform (Multisprint®), on which the participant, with hands on hips, performed a vertical jump with knees bent at 90°, performing a countermovement to jump as high as possible. Three attempts were performed, and the highest value was recorded [3].

Flexibility

To evaluate flexibility, the Sit-and-Reach test was used. The participant sat with legs extended forward along the measuring line, with feet placed against a standardized box for the test. With hands parallel, the participant pushed a wooden bar forward as far as possible without bending the knees. Both hands remained parallel to the measuring line on the sit-and-reach box, and the position was held for at least two seconds [3]. Each participant performed three attempts, and the highest value in centimeters was recorded.

Upper limb strength

To evaluate strength, the Handgrip Strength test was used. The test was performed using a dynamometer (Jamar®), with participants maintaining an upright posture, the tested arm abducted at the shoulder and the elbow flexed at 90°, while the forearm and wrist remained in a neutral position and the hand remained aligned with the forearm while gripping the dynamometer, which was adjusted for each individual. Each participant performed three maximum voluntary contractions lasting 5 seconds on each side, squeezing the dynamometer with maximum force. The equipment scale displayed handgrip strength in kilograms (kg), and the highest result was recorded [4].

Reaction speed

Reaction speed was evaluated using the Ruler Drop Test. The participant stood with the elbow flexed at 90°. The evaluator positioned the ruler vertically, aligning the zero mark with the top of the thumb and index finger. The participant was instructed to catch the ruler as quickly as possible after its release. Three attempts were conducted, and the best performance in centimeters was recorded [14].

Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis, means and standard deviations were calculated, normality was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and comparisons between groups were performed using Student's t-test. Jamovi software version 2.7.6 was used for the analyses.

Results

The athletes' characteristics are presented in Table I. There were no statistically significant differences in age, body mass, height, and BMI between indoor and beach volleyball athletes (p > 0.05).

Table I - Characteristics of indoor and beach volleyball athletes

The performance-related physical fitness results are presented in Table II. No statistically significant differences were found between indoor and beach volleyball athletes in any of the variables assessed (p > 0.05).

Table II - Physical fitness of indoor and beach volleyball athletes

Discussion

The results presented indicate that there were no statistically significant differences between indoor and beach volleyball athletes regarding the nutritional profile and the physical fitness variables evaluated. Although these modalities are practiced in distinct contexts, the data suggest that, in the youth category analyzed, the physical demands may produce similar adaptations between groups. This finding may reflect the fact that both modalities require a high level of neuromuscular performance, particularly in vertical jumping, upper-limb strength, and rapid changes of direction, which are developed through comparable training methods and volumes. Furthermore, the anthropometric homogeneity observed between groups (Table I) reinforces that the athletes started from similar morphological baselines, allowing physical performance to be compared without major confounding effects related to body size.

In a study conducted with 12 professional indoor and beach volleyball athletes over six months, no significant differences were identified in external load parameters, such as total distance covered and number of accelerations and decelerations. However, the authors observed that beach volleyball athletes exhibited higher energy consumption and spent more time in elevated heart rate zones (90–100% HRmax), indicating greater acute physiological demand during practice [10]. These findings suggest that, although the external load may be similar between modalities, internal load can differ, partly due to the greater metabolic cost imposed by locomotion on sand. This distinction is relevant for the interpretation of the present study, since performance variables such as strength and power may remain similar when assessed in standardized conditions, even when the physiological stress experienced during actual practice differs.

However, Hank et al. [11] found significant differences in distance covered and external load among elite female athletes, with a larger displacement volume in beach volleyball. These findings suggest that, at higher competitive levels, environmental specificities may have a more significant impact on physical demands. The discrepancies between studies may be explained by differences in competitive level, sex, and measurement protocols: at the elite level, rallies tend to be longer and more intense, which can amplify the effects of the playing surface on movement volume. In the present study, the youth competitive level and the mixed-sex sample may help to explain why such differences were not replicated.

When evaluating lower-limb muscle activation during the Countermovement Jump (CMJ) test in adult athletes, Dal Bello et al. [8] also observed no significant differences in jump height or muscle activation between modalities. This result converges with the findings of the present study, reinforcing the hypothesis that neuromuscular capabilities may remain similar across modalities when training levels are equivalent. It is worth noting that the CMJ test is typically performed on a rigid surface, which standardizes the mechanical conditions and removes the influence of the playing environment. Thus, when power is evaluated outside the specific context of the sport surface, the similarities between modalities become more evident.

A study of youth female indoor volleyball players on different surfaces identified a reduction in jump height on sand, alongside changes in movement mechanics. This indicates that the environment can alter motor pattern execution, although it does not necessarily alter overall muscle power levels when evaluated outside the specific surface context [15]. Sand imposes greater energy dissipation and postural instability, which changes take-off mechanics and reduces jump height when measured directly on that surface. However, when the same athletes are assessed on stable ground — as performed in the present study — muscle power may express itself similarly regardless of the usual playing surface, which is consistent with the absence of significant differences found here.

In contrast, Soh et al. [16] reported higher agility in beach volleyball athletes and greater lower-limb strength in male athletes, regardless of modality. It is worth noting that differences related to sex, competitive level, and biological maturation can significantly influence results and should be considered when comparing studies. In the present investigation, the sample comprised male and female athletes in the under-20 category, and no sex-stratified analyses were conducted. Given that biological maturation can profoundly affect strength, speed, and power during adolescence, the mixture of sexes and maturational stages within the groups may have contributed to the absence of significant differences between modalities.

Such differences are also highlighted in the study by Camacho-Villa et al. [4], who, when evaluating the handgrip strength of elite adult volleyball athletes, found significantly higher strength levels than the control group composed of recreational athletes. These results emphasize that training level, rather than the modality itself, may be the primary determinant of strength performance. In the present study, both groups consisted of athletes with similar competitive backgrounds and training experience, which may explain why no significant differences in upper-limb strength were observed between indoor and beach volleyball athletes.

Similarly, the study by Tessutti et al. [13], conducted with children and youth female indoor volleyball athletes, aimed to identify potential anthropometric and performance-related physical fitness differences across age groups and playing positions. It was found that playing position had no influence on the variables; however, the 14–17 age group presented significantly superior results in jump and speed tests compared with the group under 14 years of age. These findings reinforce the strong influence of age and maturation on physical performance during youth. In the present study, the similar mean ages of the groups (17.2 ± 2.4 vs. 17.0 ± 1.7 years; p = 0.883) indicate that maturational variability was likely comparable between modalities, which may explain the homogeneity observed in the physical fitness variables.

Overall, the findings of the present study indicate that, in the youth category analyzed, physical adaptations between indoor and beach volleyball athletes appear similar, possibly due to similar training volumes and methods, as well as the maturational development phase of the athletes. However, as the small sample size may have limited the statistical power of the analysis, it is recommended that the results be interpreted with caution. Future studies should consider larger samples, sex-stratified analyses, and the assessment of internal training load, in order to clarify whether the similarities observed here are maintained across different competitive levels and stages of biological maturation.

Conclusion

In summary, these findings suggest that, in the under-20 category analyzed, physical adaptations resulting from training in both modalities may be similar, possibly due to similar training volumes and methods, as well as the maturational stage of the athletes. Thus, it is recommended that future research expand the number of participants, include analyses stratified by sex and maturational stage, and incorporate additional physiological variables, such as oxygen consumption, heart rate, and internal training load.

It is recommended that sports development programs consider the periodic assessment of physical fitness and nutritional status as a strategic tool for monitoring performance and injury prevention, regardless of the modality practiced. In this way, the implementation of standardized evaluation protocols can contribute to the development of physically and technically better-prepared athletes, promoting sustainable long-term sports development.

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors have conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study received financial support from the Research Support Fund (FAP) of the University of Alto Vale do Rio do Peixe (UNIARP), through a scientific grant awarded to author Marcelo Pedrotti.

Authors' contributions

Study conception and design: Pedrotti M, Bridi DA; Data acquisition: Pedrotti M, Bianchi RA, Bridi DA; Data analysis and interpretation: Pedrotti M, Bridi DA; Statistical analysis: Bianchi RA, Rocha RER; Funding acquisition: Rocha RER, Bridi DA; Manuscript drafting: Pedrotti M, Bridi DA; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Reis MR, Santos D, Velasquez JL, Rocha RER.

References

1. Keoliya AA, Ramteke SU, Boob MA, Somaiya KJ. Enhancing volleyball athlete performance: a comprehensive review of training interventions and their impact on agility, explosive power, and strength. Cureus. 2024;16(1):e53273. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53273 [Crossref]
2. Buu HH, Trung VM, Tai DX, Son HH, Trang NTH, Thuc CT, et al. Current status of specialized physical fitness in male volleyball athletes of the Vinh Long University of Technology Education, Vietnam. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Sci. 2025;12(7):80-90. doi: 10.46827/ejpe.v12i7.6111 [Crossref]
3. Cherouveim E, Tsolakis C, Ntozis C, Apostolidis N, Gkountas K, Koulouvaris P. Anthropometric and physiological characteristics of 13-14-year-old female volleyball players in different playing positions. J Phys Educ Sport. 2020;6:3642-50. doi: 10.7752/jpes.2020.06491 [Crossref]
4. Camacho-Villa MA, Hurtado-Alcoser J, Jerez AS, Saavedra JC, Paredes Prada, Merchán JA, et al. Handgrip strength and upper limb anthropometric characteristics among Latin American female volleyball players. J Funct.Morphol Kinesiol. 2024;9(3):168. doi: 10.3390/jfmk9030168 [Crossref]
5. Cereda F. Physical fitness profile of elite female volleyball players: An observational study correlating bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) with field-based testing. J Sci Sport Exerc. 2025. doi: 10.1007/s42978-025-00340-0 [Crossref]
6. Palao JM, Valadés D, Manzanares P, Ortega E. Physical actions and work-rest time in men’s beach volleyball. Motriz: Rev Educ Fís. 2014;20(3):257-61. doi: 10.1590/S1980-65742014000300003 [Crossref]
7. Oliveira WK, Jesus K, Andrade AD, Nakamura FY, Assumpção CO, Medeiros AI. Monitoring training load in beach volleyball players: a case study with an Olympic team. Motriz: Rev Educ Fís 2018;24(1):e1018155. doi: 10.1590/S1980-6574201800010004 [Crossref]
8. Dal Bello F, Aedo-Muñoz E, Moreira DG, Brito CJ, Miarka B, Navarro Cabello E. Beach and indoor volleyball athletes present similar lower limb muscle activation during a countermovement jump. Hum Mov. 2020;21(2):42-50. doi: 10.5114/hm.2020.89913 [Crossref]
9. Đurković T, Babok D, Rešetar T. Differences in game dynamics between high-level volleyball and beach volleyball matches. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2024;9(1):28. doi: 10.3390/jfmk9010028 [Crossref]
10. Figueira B, Vincėlovič AA, Batalha N, Paulauskas R. Comparative analysis of external and internal loads in preparation male volleyball and beach volleyball matches. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2025;17(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s13102-025-01302-3 [Crossref]
11. Hank M, Cabell L, Zahalka F, Mi?átský P, Cabrnoch B, Mala L, et al. Differences in external load among indoor and beach volleyball players during elite matches. Peer. 2024;12:e16736. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16736 [Crossref]
12. Xu Y, Zhang L. Physical fitness training of volleyball players based on scientific theory. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2023;29:1-4. doi: 10.1590/1517-8692202329012022_0296 [Crossref]
13. Tessutti LS, Aguiar SS, Costa GCT, Clemente FM, Lima RF, Neves VP, et al. Body composition and performance variables differences in female volleyball players by age-group and playing position. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2019;21:e60131. doi: 10.1590/1980-0037.2019v21e60131 [Crossref]
14. Ferreira S, Raimundo A, Del Pozo-Cruz J, Leite N, Pinto A, Marmeleira J. Validity and reliability of a ruler drop test to measure dual-task reaction time, choice reaction time and discrimination reaction time. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2024;7;36(1):61. doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02726-6 [Crossref]
15. Giatsis G, Panoutsakopoulos V, Frese C, Kollias IA. Vertical jump kinetic parameters on sand and rigid surfaces in young female volleyball players with a combined background in indoor and beach volleyball. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2023;8(3):115. doi: 10.3390/jfmk8030115 [Crossref]
16. Soh KG, Yusof AB, Soh KL, Omar Fauzee MS, Moh HK. Agility and leg power comparison between university indoor and beach volleyball players. Asian Journal of Physical Education & Recreation. 2012;18(1):31-5. doi: 10.24112/ajper.181858 [Crossref]