Content uploaded by Jaime Fernandez-Fernandez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jaime Fernandez-Fernandez on Dec 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ahead of print DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0142
Effects of resisted vs. conventional sprint training on physical fitness
in young elite tennis players
Manuel Moya-Ramon1, Fabio Yuzo Nakamura2, Anderson Santiago Teixeira3,
Urs Granacher4, Francisco Javier Santos-Rosa5, David Sanz-Rivas6,
Jaime Fernandez-Fernandez6,7
1 Department of Sports Sciences, Miguel Hernandez University, Elche, Spain;
2 Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, "G. d'Annunzio" University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy; The College
of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; Associate Graduate Program in Physical
Education UPE/UFPB, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil;
3 Physical Effort Laboratory, Sports Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis - SC, Brazil; Research
Group for Development of Football and Futsal, Sports Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis -
SC, Brazil;
4 Division of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam,
Germany;
5 Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain
6 Spanish Tennis Federation, Madrid, Spain.
7 Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Universidad de León, Spain.
Corresponding Author:
Jaime Fernandez-Fernandez, Phd
Department of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences.
Universidad de León.
Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 – Spain; Phone: (0034)987293026
E-mail: jaime.fernandez@unileon.es
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to compare the effects of 6-week resisted sprint (RST) versus conventional
(unresisted) sprint training (CG) on sprint time, change of direction (COD) speed, repeated sprint ability
(RSA) and jump performance (countermovement jump (CMJ) and standing long jump (SLJ)) in male young
tennis players. Twenty players (age: 16.5 ± 0.3 years; body mass: 72.2 ± 5.5 kg; body height: 180.6 ± 4.6 cm)
were randomly assigned to one of the two groups: RST (n = 10) and CG (n = 10). The training program was
similar for both groups consisting of acceleration and deceleration exercises at short distances (3-4 m), and
speed and agility drills. The RST group used weighted vests or elastic cords during the exercises. After 6
weeks of intervention, both training regimes resulted in small-to-moderate improvements in acceleration
and sprint ability (5, 10, 20 m), SLJ and CMJ performances, COD pivoting on both, the non-dominant
(moderate effect) and the dominant (small effect) foot, and the percentage of decrement (small effects)
during a RSA test. Between-group comparisons showed that the SLJ (Δ = 2.0%) and 5 m sprint time (Δ =
1.1%) improved more in the RST group compared with the CG group. This study showed that 6 weeks of
RST or unresisted training are time-efficient training regimes for physical improvements in young male
tennis players.
Keywords: Young athletes, sprint performance, tennis, power.
Introduction
Tennis match play is characterized by intermittent whole body efforts with short (2-10 s) bouts of
high-intensity exercise during rallies followed by short (10-20 s) recovery bouts between rallies and a longer
rest period between games (60-90 s). Overall, this results in an average match time of ~1.5 h (Fernandez-
Fernandez et al., 2009; Kovacs, 2006, 2007). After serving the ball with a velocity of 180-200 km·h-1, a tennis
player needs to accelerate not only in a straight line, but also laterally and multi-directionally. In other
words, rapid stop and go movements together with quick change of directions (CODs) constitute major
performance determinants in tennis (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2014). Consequently, the development and
design of training regimes that have the potential to enhance these sport-specific fitness qualities are of
significant interest to tennis coaches as well as strength and conditioning specialists.
There is evidence in the literature that different training protocols are effective in improving jump,
sprint and COD performances (Loturco et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been reported that training-induced
enhancements in muscle strength and power translate into sprint and COD performances (Cormie et al.,
2011). Of note, specific strength exercises have been implemented in sprint training routines. This is also
known as resisted sprint training (RST) (Hrysomallis, 2012; Petrakos et al., 2016). Previous research has
shown that RST improves maximum strength and sprint performances (Cottle et al., 2014; Martínez-Valencia
et al., 2015). However, findings in the literature are controversial. A recent systematic review showed no
additional effects of RST on linear sprint speed compared with conventional or unresisted sprint training
regimes (Petrakos et al., 2016). The observed discrepancies in previous research are most likely due to the
large methodological heterogeneity with regard to the included resistive sprint devices. While some studies
used weighted sleds or weighted vests (Carlos-Vivas et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2010), others used parachutes
or elastic cables (Gil et al., 2018; Loturco et al., 2017). In addition, ineffective overload principles were
implemented in the respective training regimes (Gil et al., 2018). Despite this controversy in the literature,
there are few studies with tennis players that illustrate the positive effects of conventional sprint (i.e.,
repeated sprint) training on physical fitness (i.e., linear sprint speed, jump and COD performances) in junior
elite (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2015) or moderately trained tennis players (Fernandez-Fernandez et al.,
2012). However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has analyzed the effects of RST compared
with unresisted sprint training on physical fitness in young tennis players.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to contrast the effects of RST versus conventional (i.e.,
unresisted) linear sprint training on linear sprint and COD performances as well as lower-limb power (i.e.,
countermovement jump and standing long jump) in young tennis players. Based on the study of Gil et al.
(2018), we hypothesized that RST would be more effective in improving specific physical fitness compared
with the unresisted sprint training in tennis players.
Methods
Participants
Twenty competitive male junior tennis players (mean ± SD; age: 16.5 ± 0.3 years; body mass: 72.2 ±
5.5 kg; body height: 180.6 ± 4.6 cm) with an international ranking between 150 and 300 (International Tennis
Federation ranking) participated in this study. Players were divided into a resisted training group (RST; n =
10; mean ± SD; age: 16.7 ± 0.1 years; body mass: 72.0 ± 5.2 kg; body height: 181.6 ± 4.8 cm) and a conventional
group (CG; n = 10; mean ± SD; age: 16.4 ± 0.3 years; body mass: 71.1 ± 7.2 kg; body height: 179.9 ± 4.4 cm).
The mean training background of the players was 9.0 ± 2.6 years, which focused on tennis-specific training
(i.e., technical and tactical skills), aerobic and anaerobic training (i.e., on- and off-court exercises), and basic
strength training. They were all free of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases and were not taking any
medication. Written informed consent was obtained from players and their parents/legal representatives.
The study was approved by the institutional Research Ethics Committee (Coaches Education and Research
Area, Spanish Tennis Federation (RFET); reference: RFET2019-RS1), and conformed to the recommendations
of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Measures
Sprint Test
Running speed was evaluated using the 20-m linear sprint test from a standing start with 5 and 10 m
split times (Time It; Eleiko Sport, Halmstad, Sweden). Each sprint was initiated from an individually chosen
standing position, 50 cm behind the photocell gate, which started a digital timer. Each player performed 3
maximal 20-m sprints, separated by at least 2 min of passive recovery. The best performance was recorded
for further analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the time of this sprint test was 0.87.
Modified 5-0-5 Agility Test (COD test)
The abilities of athletes to perform a single, rapid 180° change of direction over a 5 m distance was
measured using a modified version (stationary start) of the 5-0-5 agility test (Gallo-Salazar et al., 2017).
Players started in a standing position with their preferred foot behind the starting line. Thereafter they
accelerated in a forward direction without a racket at maximal effort. One trial pivoting on both the
dominant (505 DOM) and the non-dominant limb (505 ND) was completed and the best time recorded to the
nearest 0.01 s (Time It; Eleiko Sport, Halmstad, Sweden). Two minutes of rest were allowed between trials.
The ICC of this test was 0.92.
Vertical Jump Test
The vertical jump is a common action in many sports. Biomechanically it is similar to game-related
dynamic and vertical movements (Girard et al., 2005; Markovic et al., 2004). Thus, it is important to include
some type of vertical-jump assessment to evaluate explosive power in tennis. Accordingly, a
countermovement jump (CMJ) without an arm swing was performed on a contact platform (Ergojump®,
Finland). Each player performed 3 maximal CMJs interspersed with 45 s of passive recovery, and the best
trial with highest jump height was used for further analysis (Markovic et al., 2004). The ICC of the jump
height for this test was 0.92.
Standing Long Jump (SLJ) Test
For the SLJ, players stood behind a starting line with feet shoulder width and placed together. They
pushed off vigorously and jumped forward for maximal distance. The distance was measured from the take-
off line to the point where the back of the heel nearest to the take-off line landed on the ground. The best (in
cm) out of 2 trials was used for subsequent statistical analysis (Castro-Piñero et al., 2010). The ICC of the
jump distance for this test was 0.78.
Repeated-Sprint Ability (RSA) Shuttle Test
To measure RSA, we used a test consisting of ten 21-m shuttle sprints (i.e., 5 m + 11 m + 5 m), which
was designed to measure both repeated sprint and COD abilities. The test was conducted in accordance with
a previous study (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2012). Players stood with their racket in a frontal position in
the middle of the baseline focusing the net. Upon an acoustic signal, players turned sideway and ran to the
prescribed backhand (left) or the forehand (right) corner. Players were instructed to run forward in a straight
line and turn around (180º) as their feet touched the line of the turning point and their racket a cone on the
line. After having touched the first cone with the racket, athletes returned to the opposite side of the court by
running forward. There they touched the second cone with the racket, turned around and ran to the starting
position. After 15 s of passive recovery, players started again. Each shuttle sprint time was measured using a
photocell system (Time It; Eleiko Sport, Halmstad, Sweden). The mean time and the percent decrement score
during the RSA test were calculated. Each player completed a preliminary single shuttle sprint test, which
was used as a criterion score for the subsequent shuttle sprint test. After the first preliminary single shuttle
sprint, players rested for 5 min before the start of the RSA test. If performance during the first RSA trial was
worse than the criterion score (i.e., 2.5% longer time to complete the test), the test was immediately
terminated and athletes were asked to repeat the RSA test at maximum effort after a 5-min rest period
(Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2012; Spencer et al., 2005). ICC values for best RSA time (RSAbest), mean RSA
time (RSAmean), and percentage of decrement (%Dec) were 0.81, 0.73 and 0.49, respectively.
Design and procedures
The 20 tennis players involved in the study were matched and allocated into a RST and a
conventional group (CG) and were tested before and after a 6-week specific conditioning program. The
intervention took place at the beginning of the summer competition season (April to May). Single and
double tennis matches were played every weekend during the experimental period. After appropriate
familiarization (i.e., completion of a full testing session 1 week before pretests), the physical fitness tests were
completed 1 week before and after the training period. During the intervention period, both groups, RST and
CG, performed 2 training sessions per week in addition to their regular training regimes for 6 consecutive
weeks. Sessions were separated by 48 h to allow sufficient recovery time. RST and CG sprint training was
conducted at the beginning of the training session after a short standardized 8 to 10-min dynamic warm-up
and prior to the tennis-specific session.
To reduce the interference of uncontrolled variables, all participants were instructed to maintain
their habitual lifestyle and normal dietary intake before and during the study. Players were told not to
exercise on the day before a test and to consume their last (caffeine-free) meal at least 2 hours before the
scheduled test time. Physical fitness tests were conducted at the same time of day during pre- and post-tests.
Participants had to complete at least 85% of the training sessions and all tests were included in the final data
analyses.
Specifically, the training program consisted of a combination of acceleration and deceleration
movements at short distances (3-4 m) and speed/agility drills (8-10 s) without any additional load/resistance
(CG) or using weighted vests (WVs) (Kettler, Germany) and elastics cords (ECs) (SKLZ, Durham, USA)
(RST). Due to the complexity of supervising the tennis-specific training program, coaches organized weekly
meetings to assign similar tennis training loads to both RST and CG groups (i.e., number of exercises,
technical/tactical aims). Both groups completed the same training (consisting of forward, backward and
multidirectional sprints, with 1 to 6 changes of directions [COD]), interspersed with 25 s of active recovery
between repetitions and 2-3 min rest intervals between sets) (Table 1). The only difference between the two
interventions was that the RST group performed the exercises requiring more CODs with a weighted vest
that corresponded to 10-15% of each individual’s body mass (a moderate load according to a prior study;
Petrakos et al., 2016). The RST group additionally used a medium resistance elastic cord which was fixated
around the athletes’ waist offering resistance during exercises requiring less CODs. Following a previous
study (Gil et al., 2018), the overload in the latter training mode reduced sprinting performance to the nearest
of 10% in comparison to the unresisted condition (Hrysomallis, 2012). As inappropriate overload may alter
movement technique, and consequently the magnitude of chronic adaptations, the additional overload was
kept constant throughout the experimental period. Both groups, RST and CG, followed their normal tennis
training (4-5 × week), in addition to 2 self-regulated low- to moderate-intensity injury prevention (e.g., core
training, shoulder and hip strengthening, and flexibility) sessions.
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as means and standard deviations (± SD) or ± 90% confidence intervals (± 90%
CI). First, training-induced adaptations were compared using a two-way repeated measure ANOVA with
one between factor (RST vs. CG) and one within factor (pre-training vs. post-training). When a significant F
value was detected, Bonferroni post hoc procedures were used. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.
These analyzes were carried out using the SPSS (SPSS 17.0 version, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Second, data
were also analyzed for practical significance using magnitude-based inferences (MBI) (Hopkins et al., 2009).
To examine the effects of the type of intervention (RST vs. CG) on RSA, change of direction speed, and
proxies of lower-limb power, differences between groups (RST vs. CG) and over time (pre-training vs. post-
training) were calculated. The smallest worthwhile change (SWC) was calculated (0.2 × SD) and 90% CIs
were determined. Quantitative chances of beneficial/higher or harmful/lower effects were assessed
qualitatively as follows: 25 to 75%, possibly; 75 to 95%, likely; 95 to 99%, very likely; and >99%, almost
certain. If the chance of having beneficial/higher or harmful/lower performances was both >5%, the true
difference was assessed as unclear. In addition, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of changes in physical fitness were
calculated (Hopkins et al., 2009). Threshold values for Cohen’s d effect size (ES) were 0.20, 0.60, 1.20, 2.0 and
4.0 for small, moderate, large, very large and extremely large effects, respectively. Pearson correlation
coefficients (r) were used to determine the relationships between changes in SLJ and CMJ performances with
changes in sprint running performance. The magnitude of relationships was assessed according to the
following thresholds: ≤0.1, trivial; >0.1-0.3, small; >0.3-0.5, moderate; >0.5-0.7, large; >0.7-0-9, very large; and
>0.9-1.0, almost perfect. Practical inferences of the correlation coefficients were also considered (Hopkins,
2007).
Results
Table 2 shows the raw data, relative changes, and qualitative outcomes derived from MBI analyses
for all physical fitness measurements.
Two-way repeated measures ANOVA
There was no interaction (time vs. training group) or main effect for group (p > 0.05) for all physical
performance variables. After the training intervention, except for RSAbest (F = 3.083; p = 0.096), a significant
main time effect was found for all the other performance outcomes. The following analyzed variables
significantly improved from pre- to post-training period in both RST and CG groups: 5 m (F = 33.492; p <
0.001), 10 m (F = 18.871; p < 0.001) and 20 m (F = 24.308; p < 0.001) sprint times, 505 ND (F = 18.705; p < 0.001)
and 505 DOM (F = 12.627; p = 0.002), SLJ height (F = 56.091; p < 0.001), CMJ height (F = 38.764; p < 0.001),
RSAmean (F = 10.860; p = 0.004) and %Dec (F = 7.846; p = 0.012).
Magnitude-based inferences approach
Baseline between-group differences were rated as unclear for all performance outcomes. Following
training, sprint times improved in both groups and all split times, with decreases in 5 m (ES ± 90% CI,
qualitative descriptor for RST: -0.66 ± 0.31, very likely; for CG: -0.67 ± 0.28, very likely), 10 m (for RST: -0.32 ±
0.20, likely; for CG: -0.77 ± 0.39, very likely), and 20 m sprint times (for RST: -0.46 ± 0.33, likely; for CG: -0.57 ±
0.20, almost certainly).
An enhanced performance was observed after both training regimes for the ability to change
directions quickly, with meaningful changes in 505 ND (RST: -0.60 ± 0.43, likely; CG: -0.64 ± 0.31, very likely)
and 505 DOM (RST: -0.41 ± 0.28, likely; CG: -0.42 ± 0.29, likely). Post training, improvements in all measures of
jump performance were found for RST and CG groups. Performance enhancements were observed for the
SLJ (RST: 0.63 ± 0.24, almost certainly; CG: 0.69 ± 0.22, almost certainly) and the CMJ (RST: 0.39 ± 0.19, very
likely; CG: 0.62 ± 0.24, almost certainly). Training-induced changes for RSA performance were detected for
%Dec (RST: 0.43 ± 0.39, likely; CG: 0.24 ± 0.21, possibly), RSAbest (RST: -0.11 ± 0.22, possibly trivial; CG: -0.08 ±
0.09, very likely trivial), and RSAmean (RST: -0.23 ± 0.20, possibly; CG: -0.15 ± 0.10, likely trivial).
Figure 1 shows between-group changes over time. Compared to the CG group, improvements in the
SLJ (ES ± 90% CI = 0.31 ± 0.34) and 5 m sprint time (ES ± 90% CI = 0.29 ± 0.43) were possibly (chance of a
greater real effect > 60%) larger in the RST group. The magnitudes of differences were rated as small. There
were no substantial differences (unclear effects) for the changes in %Dec, RSAbest, 505 ND, 505 DOM, 10 and
20 m sprint times between both training groups. Finally, between-group differences in the change of RSAmean
were likely trivial (ES ± 90% CI = -0.03 ± 0.20).
Figure 2 shows the relationship between physical fitness indices. Within-player correlations between
absolute changes in the SLJ and the CMJ with absolute changes in running sprint performances were
obtained when pooling the data of RST and CG groups. There were likely moderate correlations between
changes in the CMJ and the SLJ with some selected changes in 5 m, 10 m and 20 m sprint time.
Discussion
Findings of this study revealed that both training regimes resulted in small-to-moderate
improvements in acceleration and sprint abilities (5, 10 and 20 m), horizontal and vertical jump
performances, COD pivoting on both, the non-dominant (moderate effect) and the dominant (small effect)
foot, and %Dec (small effects) during a RSA test, in male junior tennis players. Between-group comparisons
showed that the SLJ and 5 m sprint time improved more in the RST group compared with the CG group.
Overall, these findings partially confirm that RST induces larger physical fitness improvements compared to
unresisted sprint training.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies available that have compared the effects of
unresisted training with those of resisted sprint training in young tennis players. Of note, training-induced
changes in this study ranged from 1.2 to 3.2% for sprint performance, irrespective of the training regime.
This range is similar to findings from previous studies which examined the effects of RST using different
training equipment (i.e., elastic bands, weighted sleds, vests) (Alcaraz et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2010).
The observed improvements in both experimental groups can most likely be explained with
primarily neural adaptive processes (e.g., motoneuron excitability) (Ross et al., 2001) which might have
caused enhanced muscle force production and movement velocity (Perrey et al., 2010). With reference to
previous research, the use of weighted vests and elastic cords aims at eliciting greater vertical and horizontal
net ground reaction forces during speed or agility drills, respectively (Clark et al., 2010; Rey et al., 2017). In
this study, we could not find an additional effect of RST compared with CG possibly due to the low
resistance that was used in RST (Petrakos et al., 2016). According to Petrakos et al. (2016), moderate loads
with 10.0 to 19.9% of the individual body mass (10-15% in the present study) seem not to be sufficient to
produce extra effects compared with unresisted sprint training. Regarding the resistance offered by the
elastic cord, we allowed no more than 10% velocity reductions in the designed training drills in order to
preserve their biomechanical characteristics (e.g., stretch-shortening cycle participation) (Gil et al., 2018), but
at the same time induce greater lower-limb power and force production (Alcaraz et al., 2018). However, due
to the lack of control over the load applied in the exercises, it can be hypothesized that the tension generated
through the elastic cords cannot be kept constant during the entire exercise (Gil et al., 2018). This may have
resulted in a limited accuracy in overload control.
In spite of the lack of significant differences between training groups, meaningful differences
between RST and CG were observed for the 5 m sprint change. These results are in line with previous
research reporting that RST (i.e., using sled towing and weighted vests) was effective in improving kinetics
and kinematics during short bouts of accelerations (Alcaraz et al., 2018; Monte et al., 2017). A reason for this
difference between groups could be related to the greater increase in the capacity to produce anterior-
posterior force application during RST.
Since fitness demands in tennis include multiple accelerations, decelerations and COD performance,
the observed gains in the 5-0-5 test in both the RST (1.1% and 1.6% for the dominant and non-dominant
sides, respectively) and the CG group (1.2% and 1.5% for the dominant and non-dominant sides,
respectively) seem to be practically relevant for competitive performance. We are not aware of previous
studies that reported positive changes in COD after combining weighted vest and elastic cord training while
performing short sprints (combined with multiple COD). Otero-Esquina et al. (2017) reported gains in linear
and COD sprint when combining strength training exercises (i.e., full-back squat, leg curl on a flywheel
device, plyometrics) and sled towing in soccer players. The combination of elastic cords with weighted vests
impacted more on the COD pivoting on the non-dominant limb, in which a moderate effect was noticed,
compared to the small effect on the dominant limb. A possible explanation for this finding is that this limb
had lower initial ability to perform COD, and hence there was a better chance to improve this leg’s strength,
power and stiffness with adequate training stimuli.
Besides improving sprint ability, both unresisted and resisted sprint training resulted in increased
SLJ (RST: +5.3%; CG: +3.2%) and CMJ (RST: +5%; CG: +6.8%) performances. This is in agreement with the
notion that improved sprint performance is to a high degree related to enhancements in lower-limb muscle
power production in both vertical and horizontal directions (Loturco et al., 2018), inferred from jump height
and distance, respectively. In fact, the observed significant correlations between increases in SLJ and CMJ
performance and reduced sprint times from pre- to post-training confirm the neuro-mechanical relationships
between these qualities. Moreover, since there is a transfer of increment in the SLJ to acceleration
performance over short distances (e.g., 5 m) (Loturco et al., 2015), this may explain why the SLJ and
acceleration over 5 m improved more in the RST group compared with the CG group. It is apparent that
force and power production in the anterior-posterior axis were optimized by the use of additional (but light)
resistance during training drills performed by tennis players. However, unresisted sprint training was also
effective in enhancing vertical and horizontal jump performances, and this partly confirms the results from
other studies conducted with individual and team sports athletes (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2015; Gil et
al., 2018; Spinks et al., 2007).
Since training of competitive tennis players should focus on improving their ability to repeatedly
perform high-intensity efforts and to recover rapidly between bouts (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2012),
training strategies that aim to improve qualities such as RSA could be significant for tennis. The results of
our MBI-based approach revealed that only RST improved RSAmean (-1.3%; small effect size), although
between-group delta changes were not different. Previously, it was shown that futsal players displayed
greater RSA improvements in a group combining resistance training with loaded change of direction drills,
compared to a group that solely conducted resistance training and a control group (Torres-Torrelo et al.,
2018). Torres-Torrello et al. (2018) observed that improvements in RSAmean were accompanied with shorter
ground contact time during sprints, suggesting an increase in the rate of force development. Unfortunately,
we did not conduct kinematic sprint analysis to elucidate and confirm this finding. Both RST and CG
resulted in better %Dec during the RSA test, without any changes in RSAbest. However, the response of this
index to training should be viewed with caution (Bishop et al., 2011), since, for example, a detraining period
can impair RSAbest and artificially improve %Dec. Of note, in this study, tennis players of both groups
showed similar changes in %Dec, in the expected direction, given that they followed the respective training
regimes. However, due to the positive adaptation in RSAmean that was observed in RST only with the MBI
approach, it is advisable that strength and conditioning professionals adopt resisted short accelerations and
sprints in their routines to improve this performance relevant physical quality for tennis (Fernandez-
Fernandez et al., 2012).
In summary, both conventional (unresisted) and resisted sprint and COD training drills
implemented for 6 weeks in junior tennis players appeared to be effective in improving key physical fitness
components for youth tennis, such as acceleration speed, horizontal and vertical jump ability, change of
direction and repeated sprint ability. However, there were small, but meaningful advantages of performing
resisted drills to improve horizontal jump and 5-m acceleration, compared to unresisted sprint training
drills.
It is also important to highlight possible limitations of this study. The interpretation and application
of our data have to be done with caution as our findings are specific to a population of young male tennis
players. Regarding the applied training methods, it should be acknowledged that the use of elastic cords
does not allow to adequately follow the overload principle because the load cannot be kept constant.
Furthermore, and also related to the training equipment used here, there is evidence from recent studies to
suggest that heavier loads (i.e., inducing speed reduction > 10-15% established here) are needed to induce
performance improvements, in particular if the goal is to improve sprint performance over short distances
(Kawamori et al., 2014; Morin et al., 2017; Petrakos et al., 2016).
Conclusions and Practical Implications
Based on the present results, 6 weeks of RST or unresisted sprint training appear to represent a time-
efficient stimulus for physical fitness improvements in young male tennis players. Given the relatively low
training volume and the low cost of training equipment, this intervention seems to be practically relevant for
tennis coaches and athletes. RST and/or unresisted sprint training can easily be integrated two times per
week as part of the regular in-season training. Of note, it should always be conducted prior to a tennis
session (Fernandez-Fernandez et al., 2018). Since small differences can be very important when working
with elite athletes, the small advantages of RST over unresisted sprint training to improve horizontal jump
and 5-m acceleration may suggest that RST should be preferred over unresisted sprint training if the goal is
to improve sport-specific performance determinants in youth tennis.
REFERENCES
Alcaraz PE, Carlos-Vivas J, Oponjuru BO, Martínez-Rodríguez A. The Effectiveness of Resisted Sled Training
(RST) for Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med, 2018; 48(9): 2143–
2165
Alcaraz PE, Elvira JLL, Palao JM. Kinematic, strength, and stiffness adaptations after a short-term sled
towing training in athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2014; 24(2): 279–290
Aloui G, Hammami M, Fathloun M, Hermassi S, Gaamouri N, Shephard RJ, Chelly MS. Effects of an 8-Week
In-Season Elastic Band Training Program on Explosive Muscle Performance, Change of Direction, and
Repeated Changes of Direction in the Lower Limbs of Junior Male Handball Players. J Strength Cond
Res, 2019; 33(7): 1804-1815
Bishop D, Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A. Repeated-sprint ability - part II: recommendations for training.
Sports Med, 2011; 41(9): 741–756
Carlos-Vivas J, Marin-Cascales E, Freitas TT, Perez-Gomez J, Alcaraz PE. Force-velocity-power profiling
during weighted vest sprinting in soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2019; 14(6): 747-756
Castro-Piñero J, Ortega FB, Artero EG, Girela-Rejón MJ, Mora J, Sjöström M, Ruiz JR. Assessing muscular
strength in youth: usefulness of standing long jump as a general index of muscular fitness. J Strength
Cond Res, 2010; 24(7): 1810–1817
Clark KP, Stearne DJ, Walts CT, and Miller AD. The longitudinal effects of resisted sprint training using
weighted sleds vs. weighted vests. J Strength Cond Res, 2010; 24(12): 3287–3295
Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1--biological basis
of maximal power production. Sports Med, 2011; 41(1): 17–38
Cottle CA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of sled towing on sprint starts. J Strength Cond Res, 2014; 28(5):
1241–1245
Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and Power Predictors of Sports Speed. J Strength Cond Res, 2005; 19(2): 349-
357
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Granacher U, Sanz-Rivas D, Sarabia Marín JM, Hernandez-Davo JL, Moya M.
Sequencing Effects of Neuromuscular Training on Physical Fitness in Youth Elite Tennis Players. J
Strength Cond Res, 2018; 32(3): 849–856
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Sanz-Rivas D, Kovacs MS, Moya M. In-season effect of a combined repeated sprint
and explosive strength training program on elite junior tennis players. J Strength Cond Res, 2015; 29(2):
351–357
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Sanz-Rivas D, Mendez-Villanueva A. A Review of the Activity Profile and
Physiological Demands of Tennis Match Play. Strength Cond J, 2009; 31(4): 15–26
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Ulbricht A, Ferrauti A. Fitness testing of tennis players: How valuable is it? Br J
Sports Med, 2014; 48(Suppl 1): i22–i31
Fernandez-Fernandez J, Zimek R, Wiewelhove T, Ferrauti A. High-intensity interval training vs. repeated-
sprint training in tennis. J Strength Cond Res, 2012; 26(1): 53–62
Gallo-Salazar C, Del Coso J, Barbado D, Lopez-Valenciano A, Santos-Rosa FJ, Sanz-Rivas D, Moya M,
Fernandez-Fernandez J. Impact of a competition with two consecutive matches in a day on physical
performance in young tennis players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2017; 42(7): 750–756
Gil S, Barroso R, Crivoi do Carmo E, Loturco I, Kobal R, Tricoli V, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H. Effects of
resisted sprint training on sprinting ability and change of direction speed in professional soccer
players. J Sports Sci, 2018; 36(17): 1923–1929
Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A, Bishop D. Repeated-sprint ability - part I: factors contributing to fatigue.
Sports Med, 2011; 41(8): 673–694
Girard O, Micallef JP, Millet GP. Lower-limb activity during the power serve in tennis: effects of
performance level. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2005; 37(6): 1021–1029
Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and
exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2009; 41(1): 3–13
Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference
from a P value. Sportscience, 2007; 11: 16–21
Hrysomallis C. The effectiveness of resisted movement training on sprinting and jumping performance. J
Strength Cond Res, 2012; 26(1): 299–306
Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing on ground reaction force during the
acceleration phase of sprint running. J Sports Sci, 2014; 32(12): 1139–1145
Kovacs M. Applied physiology of tennis performance. Br J Sports Med, 2006; 40(5): 381–385
Kovacs M. Tennis Physiology: Training the competitive athlete. Sports Med, 2007; 37(3): 189–198
Loturco I, Kobal R, Kitamura K, Cal Abad CC, Faust B, Almeida L, Pereira LA. Mixed Training Methods:
Effects of Combining Resisted Sprints or Plyometrics with Optimum Power Loads on Sprint and
Agility Performance in Professional Soccer Players. Front Physiol, 2017; 8: 1034
Loturco I, Pereira LA, Kobal R, Nakamura, FY. Using Loaded and Unloaded Jumps to Increase Speed and
Power Performance in Elite Young and Senior Soccer Players. Strength Cond J, 2018; 40(3): 95–103
Loturco I, Pereira L, Kobal R, Zanetti V, Kitamura K, Abad CCC, Nakamura F. Transference effect of vertical
and horizontal plyometrics on sprint performance of high-level U-20 soccer players. J Sports Sci, 2015;
33(20): 2182–2191
Markovic G, Dizdar D, Jukic I, Cardinale M. Reliability and Factorial Validity of Squat and
Countermovement Jump Tests. J Strength Cond Res, 2004; 18(3): 551-554
Martínez-Valencia MA, Romero-Arenas S, Elvira JLL, González-Ravé JM, Navarro-Valdivielso F, Alcaraz PE.
Effects of Sled Towing on Peak Force, the Rate of Force Development and Sprint Performance During
the Acceleration Phase. J Hum Kinet, 2015; 46(1): 139–148
Monte A, Nardello F, Zamparo P. Sled Towing: The Optimal Overload for Peak Power Production. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform, 2017; 12(8): 1052–1058
Morin JB, Petrakos G, Jiménez-Reyes P, Brown SR, Samozino P, Cross MR. Very-Heavy Sled Training for
Improving Horizontal-Force Output in Soccer Players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2017; 12(6): 840–844
Otero-Esquina C, de Hoyo Lora M, Gonzalo-Skok Ó, Domínguez-Cobo S, Sánchez H. Is strength-training
frequency a key factor to develop performance adaptations in young elite soccer players? Eur J Sport
Sci, 2017; 17(10): 1241–1251
Perrey S, Racinais S, Saimouaa K, Girard O. Neural and muscular adjustments following repeated running
sprints. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2010; 109(6): 1027–1036
Petrakos G, Morin JB, Egan B. Resisted Sled Sprint Training to Improve Sprint Performance: A Systematic
Review. Sports Med, 2016; 46(3): 381–400
Rey E, Padrón-Cabo A, Fernández-Penedo D. Effects of Sprint Training With and Without Weighted Vest on
Speed and Repeated Sprint Ability in Male Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res, 2017; 31(10): 2659–2666
Ross A, Leveritt M, Riek S. Neural influences on sprint running: training adaptations and acute responses.
Sports Med, 2001; 31(6): 409–425
Spencer M, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C. Physiological and metabolic responses of repeated-sprint
activities: specific to field-based team sports. Sports Med, 2005; 35(12): 1025–1044
Spinks CD, Murphy AJ, Spinks WL, Lockie, RG. The effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration
performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union, and Australian football players. J Strength Cond
Res, 2007; 21(1): 77–85
Torres-Torrelo J, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Mora-Custodio R, Pareja-Blanco F, Yañez-García JM, González-Badillo
JJ. Effects of Resistance Training and Combined Training Program on Repeated Sprint Ability in Futsal
Players. Int J Sports Med, 2018; 39(7): 517–526
Table 1. Training program for both groups.
Week Sets
(n)
Repetitions
(n)
Recovery
between
repetitions
(s)
Recovery
between
sets
(min)
Exercises
Pre-Tests
1 1 6 25 - *8 s drills; RSG: 3 exercises with WV (10%BM) and
3 with EC
2 2 5 25 2 *10 s drills; RSG: 5 exercises with WV (10%BM) and
5 with EC
3 2 5 25 2 *10 s drills; RSG: 5 exercises with WV (12%BM) and
5 with EC
4 2 6 30 3 *10 s drills; RSG: 2 x 3 exercises with WV (12%BM)
and 2 x 3 with EC
5 2 6 30 3 *10-12 s drills; RSG: 2 x 3 exercises with WV
(15%BM) and 2 x 3 with EC
6 2 8 35 4 *10-12 s drills; RSG: 2 x 4 exercises with WV
(15%BM) and 2 x 4 with EC
Post-Tests
RST: Resisted sprint training group; * The unresisted training group performed the same drills, but with no
extra resistance added; WV: Weighted vest; EC: Elastic cords; BM: Body mass
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and within-group changes (with 90% confidence interval [CI]) in repeated sprint ability,
change of direction and proxies of muscle power after resisted (RST) and conventional (CG) sprint training interventions.
Measuremen
ts
Group
s
Pre-
training
Post-
training
% Change (90%
CI)
ES
(90% CI) B/T/H Descriptor
%DEC (%)
RST -3.7 ± 1.3 -3.1 ± 1.1* -16.92 (-1.28; 32.56) 0.43 (0.03; 0.82) 84/15/01 Likely
CG -3.8 ± 1.7 -3.4 ± 1.4* -11.63 (-1.30; -
21.96) 0.24 (0.03; 0.45) 62/38/00 Possibly
RSAmean (s)
RST 4.48 ± 0.24 4.42 ± 0.22* -1.30 (-2.43; -0.16) -0.23 (-0.44; -
0.03) 61/39/00 Possibly
CG 4.52 ± 0.33 4.47 ± 0.32* -1.12 (-1.85; -0.38) -0.15 (-0.24; -
0.05) 00/83/17 Likely Trivial
RSAbest (s) RST 4.32 ± 0.25 4.29 ± 0.21 -0.70 (-2.01; 0.63) -0.11 (-0.33; 0.10) 24/75/01 Possibly
Trivial
CG 4.35 ± 0.34 4.32 ± 0.33 -0.70 (-1.41; 0.03) -0.08 (-0.17; 0.00) 00/98/02 Likely Trivial
505 ND
RST 3.02 ± 0.07 2.97 ± 0.06* -1.61 (-2.74; -0.47) -0.60 (-1.03; -
0.17) 94/06/00 Likely
CG 3.00 ± 0.07 2.95 ± 0.07* -1.49 (-2.22; -0.76) -0.64 (-0.95; -
0.32) 99/01/00 Very likely
505 DOM
RST 2.95 ± 0.07 2.92 ± 0.08* -1.09 (-1.84; -0.34) -0.41 (-0.69; -
0.13) 90/10/00 Likely
CG 2.93 ± 0.08 2.93 ± 0.08* -1.19 (-2.03; -0.36) -0.42 (-0.71; -
0.12) 89/11/00 Likely
SLJ (cm)
RST 233.3 ± 17.5 245.4 ± 15.4* 5.27 (3.25; 7.32) 0.63 (0.39; 0.86) 100/00/0
0
Almost
Certainly
CG 232.0 ± 9.9 239.5 ± 11.4* 3.23 (2.19; 4.28) 0.69 (0.47; 0.91) 100/00/0
0
Almost
Certainly
CMJ (cm)
RST 38.8 ± 4.3 40.6 ± 3.5* 4.97 (2.49; 7.52) 0.39 (0.20; 0.58) 95/05/00 Very Likely
CG 36.3 ± 3.5 38.7 ± 3.5* 6.76 (4.15; 9.44) 0.62 (0.39; 0.86) 100/00/0
0
Almost
Certainly
20 m Sprint
(s)
RST 3.09 ± 0.12 3.09 ± 0.12* -1.92 (-3.28; -0.55) -0.46 (-0.78; -
0.13) 91/09/00 Likely
CG 3.12 ± 0.12 3.05 ± 0.11* -2.26 (-3.04; -1.48) -0.57 (-0.76; -
0.37)
100/00/0
0
Almost
Certainly
10 m Sprint
(s)
RST 1.80 ± 0.07 1.77 ± 0.05* -1.25 (-2.05; -0.45) -0.32 (-0.52; -
0.11) 84/16/00 Likely
CG 1.82 ± 0.04 1.78 ± 0.05* -1.79 (-2.70; -0.88) -0.77 (-1.16; -
0.38) 99/01/00 Very Likely
5 m Sprint (s)
RST 1.06 ± 0.05 1.02 ± 0.05* -3.15 (-4.56; -1.71) -0.66 (-0.97; -
0.36) 99/01/00 Very Likely
CG 1.07 ± 0.03 1.04 ± 0.03* -2.08 (-2.95; -1.20) -0.67 (-0.95; -
0.38) 99/01/00 Very Likely
%DEC: Percentage of decrement; RSAmean: Mean time of the repeated sprint ability (RSA) test; RSAbest: Best time of the RSA
test; ND: Non-Dominant side; DOM: Dominant side; SLJ: Standing long jump; CMJ: Countermovement jump; * Based on
two-way repeated measures ANOVA, the analysis indicates that there was a significant main effect of “time” (p < 0.05); B:
beneficial; T: trivial; H: harmful.
Figure 1.
Effects of
Resisted
Sprint
Training
(RST)
versus
Conventional Sprint Training (CG) on repeated sprint ability, change of direction speed, standing long jump
(SLJ), countermovement (CMJ), and running sprint performances. Bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean
changes (with 90% confidence limits). Grey area represents the smallest worthwhile change.
Figure 2. Within-player correlations of the absolute changes (Δ) in standing long jump (SLJ) and
countermovement jump (CMJ) with absolute changes (Δ) in running sprint performances.
