Author(s): RAASCH, K., EDEL, A., FERRAUTI, A., Institution: FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCE, RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM, Country: GERMANY, Abstract-ID: 808

INTRODUCTION:
Studies on respiratory patterns in tennis are rare and there is no evidence regarding the relation between stroke production, breathing patterns and oxygen uptake. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare respiratory patterns and gas exchange during a standardized tennis protocol with corresponding measures during continuous treadmill running at a similar oxygen uptake.
METHODS:
15 female and male competitive tennis players (women n= 7: age: 22.6 ± 2.4 years, weight: 69.7 ± 11.9 kg, height: 172.6 ± 8.0 cm; men n= 8: age: 25.5 ± 3.1 years, weight: 83.4 ± 8.2 kg, height: 187.4 ± 6.8 cm) completed three experimental parts on separate occasions. A standardized tennis protocol (TP, Day 1), a treadmill-based incremental running test (RT, Day 2) and a standardized running protocol metabolically matched to TP (RP, Day 3). TP (Day 1) included low or high running loads (RL, RH) and low or high stroke velocities (SL, SH) which were combined in four stages (TP1: RL+SL; TP2: RL+SH; TP3: RH+SL; TP4: RH+SH). RT (Day 2) was used to determine the running velocity matching the oxygen consumption during each stage of TP (TP1-TP4). RP (Day 3) included four stages with identical length and oxygen consumption as during TP. Oxygen uptake (VO2), energy expenditure (EE), tidal volume (VT), breathing frequency (bf), minute ventilation (V’E), inspiration (tI) and expiration time (tE) as well as stroke velocity (SV) were compared between TP and RP. Number (NP) and duration of breathing Plateaus (DP) were calculated from VT. A plateau was defined as a minimum of 0.2 s with no air exchange and constant VT. TP was recorded by video and synchronized to respiratory data. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare TP and RP on each stage.
RESULTS:
Mean VO2 (p<.001), EE (p<.001), and RER (p<.001) increased significantly between stage 1 to 4 but did not differ between TP and RP. TP corresponded to mean running velocities of 3.2±0.2 m/s (RP1), 3.5±0.4 m/s (RP2), 3.8±0.5 m/s (RP3) and 4.2±0.5 m/s (RP4). Regarding respiration parameters, NP was significantly higher in TP compared to RP on stages TP2 (5.9±3.8vs.0.4±0.5,p<.001), TP3 (2.6±2.7vs.0.3±0.6,p=0.04) and TP4 (4.6±4.1vs.0.3±0.6,p<.001). No significant differences were observed for VT, bf, V’E, tI and tE between TP and RP. Specifically in tennis, VT (1.8±0.4 vs. 2.9±0.7 L/s,p<.001), bf (36.2±7.7vs.44.3±6.6 b.min-1,p<.001) and V’E (52.9±11.3vs.85.0±18.4L/min,p<.001) increased from TP1 to TP4, whereas tI (0.9±0.2vs.0.8±0.1s,p<.001) and tE (0.9±0.2vs.0.7±0.1s,p<.001) decreased. NP was higher in TP2 (p<.001) compared to TP1, whereas no differences were found between TP3 and TP4 and DP.
CONCLUSION:
Respiration patterns differ significantly between tennis and running. Breathing plateaus occur exclusively in tennis during a time window around the hitting point and can be attributed to a higher hitting power. These specific demands might come along with challenges for coaches since powerful strokes can be accompanied with individual respiratory disturbances.