Limits...
Tennis Play Intensity Distribution and Relation with Aerobic Fitness in Competitive Players.

Baiget E, Fernández-Fernández J, Iglesias X, Rodríguez FA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Moderate to high positive correlations were found between VT1, VT2 and VO2max, and the percentage of playing time spent in zone 1 (r = 0.68-0.75), as well as low to high inverse correlations between the metabolic variables and the percentage of time spent in zone 2 and 3 (r = -0.49-0.75).Players with better aerobic fitness play at relatively lower intensities.We conclude that players spent more than 75% of the time in their low-intensity zone, with less than 25% of the time spent at moderate to high intensities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sport Performance Analysis Research Group, University of Vic, Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT
The aims of this study were (i) to describe the relative intensity of simulated tennis play based on the cumulative time spent in three metabolic intensity zones, and (ii) to determine the relationships between this play intensity distribution and the aerobic fitness of a group of competitive players. 20 male players of advanced to elite level (ITN) performed an incremental on-court specific endurance tennis test to exhaustion to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1, VT2). Ventilatory and gas exchange parameters were monitored using a telemetric portable gas analyser (K4 b2, Cosmed, Rome, Italy). Two weeks later the participants played a simulated tennis set against an opponent of similar level. Intensity zones (1: low, 2: moderate, and 3: high) were delimited by the individual VO2 values corresponding to VT1 and VT2, and expressed as percentage of maximum VO2 and heart rate. When expressed relative to VO2max, percentage of playing time in zone 1 (77 ± 25%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than in zone 2 (20 ± 21%) and zone 3 (3 ± 5%). Moderate to high positive correlations were found between VT1, VT2 and VO2max, and the percentage of playing time spent in zone 1 (r = 0.68-0.75), as well as low to high inverse correlations between the metabolic variables and the percentage of time spent in zone 2 and 3 (r = -0.49-0.75). Players with better aerobic fitness play at relatively lower intensities. We conclude that players spent more than 75% of the time in their low-intensity zone, with less than 25% of the time spent at moderate to high intensities. Aerobic fitness appears to determine the metabolic intensity that players can sustain throughout the game.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of playing time (%) spent in the three differentiated intensity zones.Intensity zones defined by the VTs zones method (below VT1 (Zone 1), between VT1 and VT2) (Zone 2), and over VT2 (Zone 3)) and defined by the HR zones method (below 70% HRmax (Zone 1), between 70 and 85% HRmax (Zone 2), and over 85% HRmax (Zone 3)). Mean ± SD values and standard deviations. **p < 0.001 for VTs zone 1 vs both VTs zones 2 and 3; *p < 0.05 for VTs zone 2 vs VTs zone 3. $ p < 0.001 for HR zone 3 vs both HR zones 1 and 2. # p < 0.001 for HR vs VTs zones 1 and 2.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476777&req=5

pone.0131304.g003: Comparison of playing time (%) spent in the three differentiated intensity zones.Intensity zones defined by the VTs zones method (below VT1 (Zone 1), between VT1 and VT2) (Zone 2), and over VT2 (Zone 3)) and defined by the HR zones method (below 70% HRmax (Zone 1), between 70 and 85% HRmax (Zone 2), and over 85% HRmax (Zone 3)). Mean ± SD values and standard deviations. **p < 0.001 for VTs zone 1 vs both VTs zones 2 and 3; *p < 0.05 for VTs zone 2 vs VTs zone 3. $ p < 0.001 for HR zone 3 vs both HR zones 1 and 2. # p < 0.001 for HR vs VTs zones 1 and 2.

Mentions: Significant differences were found between the intensity zones defined by the two methods (VTs vs. HR zones) for zones 1 and 2 (p < 0.001) (Fig 3), with large effect sizes (0.99 and 1.24, respectively). If we consider the intensity zones defined by the VTs, during most of the playing time, players were at zone 1 (low intensity) (22:14 ± 08:26 min:s), with a shorter time spent at zone 2 (moderate intensity) (07:14 ± 09:25 min:s), and achieving zone 3 (high intensity) only for a very short period of time (01:00 ± 01:55 min:s). Mean % time spent in each of the three intensity zones are shown in Fig 3. Significant differences were found between % time in zone 1 (77.1 ± 24.5%) and % time in zones 2 (20.0 ± 21.2%) and 3 (2.9 ± 4.7%) (p < 0.001) and between % time in zone 2 and % time in zone 3 (p < 0.05), all of them with large effect sizes (2.4, 3.2 and 0.8, respectively). If we consider the intensity zones defined by the HR zones method (Fig 3), no differences were found between the time spent at zone 1 (low intensity) (13:40 ± 07:18) and at zone 2 (moderate intensity) (13:00 ± 08:09) (p > 0.05), and there was a moderate effect size (0.5). Significant differences were found between % time in zone 3 (high-intensity) (04:10 ± 09:25; 9.1 ± 17.0%) and % time in zones 1 (49.6 ± 27.5%) and 2 (41.3 ± 17.7%) (p < 0.001), with large effect sizes (2.3 and 1.9, respectively).


Tennis Play Intensity Distribution and Relation with Aerobic Fitness in Competitive Players.

Baiget E, Fernández-Fernández J, Iglesias X, Rodríguez FA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Comparison of playing time (%) spent in the three differentiated intensity zones.Intensity zones defined by the VTs zones method (below VT1 (Zone 1), between VT1 and VT2) (Zone 2), and over VT2 (Zone 3)) and defined by the HR zones method (below 70% HRmax (Zone 1), between 70 and 85% HRmax (Zone 2), and over 85% HRmax (Zone 3)). Mean ± SD values and standard deviations. **p < 0.001 for VTs zone 1 vs both VTs zones 2 and 3; *p < 0.05 for VTs zone 2 vs VTs zone 3. $ p < 0.001 for HR zone 3 vs both HR zones 1 and 2. # p < 0.001 for HR vs VTs zones 1 and 2.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476777&req=5

pone.0131304.g003: Comparison of playing time (%) spent in the three differentiated intensity zones.Intensity zones defined by the VTs zones method (below VT1 (Zone 1), between VT1 and VT2) (Zone 2), and over VT2 (Zone 3)) and defined by the HR zones method (below 70% HRmax (Zone 1), between 70 and 85% HRmax (Zone 2), and over 85% HRmax (Zone 3)). Mean ± SD values and standard deviations. **p < 0.001 for VTs zone 1 vs both VTs zones 2 and 3; *p < 0.05 for VTs zone 2 vs VTs zone 3. $ p < 0.001 for HR zone 3 vs both HR zones 1 and 2. # p < 0.001 for HR vs VTs zones 1 and 2.
Mentions: Significant differences were found between the intensity zones defined by the two methods (VTs vs. HR zones) for zones 1 and 2 (p < 0.001) (Fig 3), with large effect sizes (0.99 and 1.24, respectively). If we consider the intensity zones defined by the VTs, during most of the playing time, players were at zone 1 (low intensity) (22:14 ± 08:26 min:s), with a shorter time spent at zone 2 (moderate intensity) (07:14 ± 09:25 min:s), and achieving zone 3 (high intensity) only for a very short period of time (01:00 ± 01:55 min:s). Mean % time spent in each of the three intensity zones are shown in Fig 3. Significant differences were found between % time in zone 1 (77.1 ± 24.5%) and % time in zones 2 (20.0 ± 21.2%) and 3 (2.9 ± 4.7%) (p < 0.001) and between % time in zone 2 and % time in zone 3 (p < 0.05), all of them with large effect sizes (2.4, 3.2 and 0.8, respectively). If we consider the intensity zones defined by the HR zones method (Fig 3), no differences were found between the time spent at zone 1 (low intensity) (13:40 ± 07:18) and at zone 2 (moderate intensity) (13:00 ± 08:09) (p > 0.05), and there was a moderate effect size (0.5). Significant differences were found between % time in zone 3 (high-intensity) (04:10 ± 09:25; 9.1 ± 17.0%) and % time in zones 1 (49.6 ± 27.5%) and 2 (41.3 ± 17.7%) (p < 0.001), with large effect sizes (2.3 and 1.9, respectively).

Bottom Line: Moderate to high positive correlations were found between VT1, VT2 and VO2max, and the percentage of playing time spent in zone 1 (r = 0.68-0.75), as well as low to high inverse correlations between the metabolic variables and the percentage of time spent in zone 2 and 3 (r = -0.49-0.75).Players with better aerobic fitness play at relatively lower intensities.We conclude that players spent more than 75% of the time in their low-intensity zone, with less than 25% of the time spent at moderate to high intensities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sport Performance Analysis Research Group, University of Vic, Barcelona, Spain.

ABSTRACT
The aims of this study were (i) to describe the relative intensity of simulated tennis play based on the cumulative time spent in three metabolic intensity zones, and (ii) to determine the relationships between this play intensity distribution and the aerobic fitness of a group of competitive players. 20 male players of advanced to elite level (ITN) performed an incremental on-court specific endurance tennis test to exhaustion to determine maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1, VT2). Ventilatory and gas exchange parameters were monitored using a telemetric portable gas analyser (K4 b2, Cosmed, Rome, Italy). Two weeks later the participants played a simulated tennis set against an opponent of similar level. Intensity zones (1: low, 2: moderate, and 3: high) were delimited by the individual VO2 values corresponding to VT1 and VT2, and expressed as percentage of maximum VO2 and heart rate. When expressed relative to VO2max, percentage of playing time in zone 1 (77 ± 25%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than in zone 2 (20 ± 21%) and zone 3 (3 ± 5%). Moderate to high positive correlations were found between VT1, VT2 and VO2max, and the percentage of playing time spent in zone 1 (r = 0.68-0.75), as well as low to high inverse correlations between the metabolic variables and the percentage of time spent in zone 2 and 3 (r = -0.49-0.75). Players with better aerobic fitness play at relatively lower intensities. We conclude that players spent more than 75% of the time in their low-intensity zone, with less than 25% of the time spent at moderate to high intensities. Aerobic fitness appears to determine the metabolic intensity that players can sustain throughout the game.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus