Search

In tennis, coaches consider balance fundamental for the acquisition of skilled motor performance. However, the potential relationship between balance and tennis expertise and performance has not been explored yet. Therefore, this study assessed the relationship between balance and tennis performance using linear and non-linear parameters through 1) the comparison of tennis players of different ages and levels of expertise, and 2) analyzing the relationship between balance and tennis serving speed and accuracy. One hundred and six recreational and expert male tennis players took part in the study (age range 10–35 years old). Temporal dynamics of postural control during a balance task on an unstable surface were analyzed through the mean velocity and the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFAV) of center of pressure (COP). Tennis serve performance was quantified by measuring accuracy and speed. Traditional variables measuring balance performance only showed differences according to age but not to sport performance. COP showed a reduction of auto-correlated variability (reflected by DFAV) with age but mainly in expert players. COP dynamics was the only balance parameter discriminating sport expertise and it was related to age. Balance dynamics exhibited by expert tennis players DFAV results support the idea that, along the years, sport experience induces balance adaptations characterized by a higher ability to perform postural adjustments. These results also reinforce the use of non-linear analysis to reveal subtle balance adaptations produced by sport practice. Finally, the lack of correlations suggests that balance, measured with scattering variables, in a non-specific task is not a main determinant of sport performance in tennis serve.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that strength training effects (i.e. neural or structural) vary, depending on the total repetitions performed and velocity loss in each training set. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of two training programmes (i.e. one with loads that maximise power output and individualised repetitions, and the other following traditional power training). METHODS: Twenty-five males were divided into three groups (optimum power [OP = 10], traditional training [TT = 9] and control group [CG = 6]). The training load used for OP was individualised using loads that maximised power output (41.7% ± 5.8 of one repetition maximum [1RM]) and repetitions at maximum power (4 to 9 repetitions, or 'reps'). Volume (sets x repetitions) was the same for both experimental groups, while intensity for TT was that needed to perform only 50% of the maximum number of possible repetitions (i.e. 61.1%-66.6% of 1RM). The training programme ran over 11 weeks (2 sessions per week; 4-5 sets per session; 3-minute rests between sets), with pre-, intermediate and post-tests which included: anthropometry, 1RM, peak power output (PPO) with 30%, 40% and 50% of 1RM in the bench press throw, and salivary testosterone (ST) and cortisol (SC) concentrations. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and power output were recorded in all sessions. RESULTS: Following the intermediate test, PPO was increased in the OP group for each load (10.9%-13.2%). Following the post-test, both experimental groups had increased 1RM (11.8%-13.8%) and PPO for each load (14.1%-19.6%). Significant decreases in PPO were found for the TT group during all sets (4.9%-15.4%), along with significantly higher RPE (37%). CONCLUSION: OP appears to be a more efficient method of training, with less neuromuscular fatigue and lower RPE.