| Literature DB >> 24668377 |
Julien D Périard1, Sébastien Racinais, Wade L Knez, Christopher P Herrera, Ryan J Christian, Olivier Girard.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the thermal, physiological and perceptual responses associated with match-play tennis in HOT (∼34°C wet-bulb-globe temperature (WBGT)) and COOL (∼19°C WBGT) conditions, along with the accompanying alterations in match characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: Fatigue; Thermoregulation
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24668377 PMCID: PMC3995247 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Sports Med ISSN: 0306-3674 Impact factor: 13.800
Figure 1Rectal temperature, thigh skin temperature and heart rate during 20 min of effective match-play tennis (2×10 min) in COOL and HOT conditions. *Significantly different from COOL, p<0.05.
Figure 2Ratings of perceived exertion (arbitrary units: 6–20), thermal comfort (arbitrary units: 1–7) and thermal sensation (arbitrary units: 1–7) during 20 min of effective match-play tennis (2×10 min) in COOL and HOT conditions. *Significantly different from the COOL condition, p<0.01.
Body mass variations on match days
| Match | Measurement time | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Condition | Morning | Prematch | Midmatch | Postmatch | |
| Body mass (kg) | COOL | 80.9±9.4 | 81.2±9.6 | 81.0±9.6 | 80.9±9.8 |
| HOT | 80.5±9.7 | 80.7±9.6 | 80.3±9.8 | 80.2±10.3 | |
No significant differences were observed, p>0.05.
Figure 3Duration of playing time required to complete 20 min of effective match-play tennis (2×10 min) in COOL and HOT conditions. *Significant difference between play in the HOT and COOL conditions, p<0.05.
Point duration, time between points and effective playing percentage during 20 min of effective match-play tennis (2×10 min) in COOL and HOT conditions
| Match | Match | Effective playing time (min) | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Condition | 0–10 | 10–20 | Mean |
| Point duration (s) | COOL | 7.1±1.7 | 6.6±1.2 | 6.8±1.4 |
| HOT | 7.4±0.8 | 7.5±1.1 | 7.4±0.5 | |
| Between point duration (s) | COOL | 17.3±4.0 | 18.6±5.0 | 18.0±4.2 |
| HOT | 27.2±4.2* | 27.9±4.0* | 27.6±2.8* | |
| Effective playing (%) | COOL | 20.9±4.7 | 19.6±3.5 | 20.3±4.0 |
| HOT | 17.1±1.4* | 16.7±1.5* | 16.9±1.4* | |
*Significantly different from COOL, p<0.05.
Match characteristics during 20 min of effective match-play tennis (2×10 min) in COOL and HOT conditions
| Match | Match | Effective playing time (min) | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Condition | 0–10 | 10–20 | Total/mean |
| Number of points played | COOL | 91.0±23.0 | 94.7±17.0 | 185.7±38.7 |
| HOT | 83.7±10.6 | 82.8±11.0 | 166.5±10.5 | |
| Number of games played | COOL | 14.2±3.5 | 14.3±3.5 | 28.4±6.9 |
| HOT | 12.0±2.3 | 12.4±1.4 | 24.4±1.9 | |
| Aces (% of points) | COOL | 2.2±2.7 | 3.1±3.1 | 2.7±2.5 |
| HOT | 1.6±1.7 | 2.2±2.1 | 1.9±1.6 | |
| Double faults (% of points) | COOL | 2.6±1.8 | 2.1±1.2 | 2.4±1.3 |
| HOT | 2.8±2.4 | 1.8±1.8 | 2.3±1.5 | |
No significant differences were observed, p>0.05.
Figure 4Frequency distribution in percentage (%) of points within a 5 and 2 s range during 20 min of effective match-play tennis in COOL and HOT conditions.