↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Playing vs. Nonplaying Aerobic Training in Tennis: Physiological and Performance Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Playing vs. Nonplaying Aerobic Training in Tennis: Physiological and Performance Outcomes
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0122718
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Pialoux, Cyril Genevois, Arnaud Capoen, Scott C. Forbes, Jordan Thomas, Isabelle Rogowski

Abstract

This study compared the effects of playing and nonplaying high intensity intermittent training (HIIT) on physiological demands and tennis stroke performance in young tennis players. Eleven competitive male players (13.4 ± 1.3 years) completed both a playing and nonplaying HIIT session of equal distance, in random order. During each HIIT session, heart rate (HR), blood lactate, and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored. Before and after each HIIT session, the velocity and accuracy of the serve, and forehand and backhand strokes were evaluated. The results demonstrated that both HIIT sessions achieved an average HR greater than 90% HRmax. The physiological demands (average HR) were greater during the playing session compared to the nonplaying session, despite similar lactate concentrations and a lower RPE. The results also indicate a reduction in shot velocity after both HIIT sessions; however, the playing HIIT session had a more deleterious effect on stroke accuracy. These findings suggest that 1) both HIIT sessions may be sufficient to develop maximal aerobic power, 2) playing HIIT sessions provide a greater physiological demand with a lower RPE, and 3) playing HIIT has a greater deleterious effect on stroke performance, and in particular on the accuracy component of the ground stroke performance, and should be incorporated appropriately into a periodization program in young male tennis players.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 18%
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 37 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 65 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 45 32%