A comparison of the physiological demands of wheelchair basketball and wheelchair tennis


Croft, L.; Dybrus, S.; Lenton, J.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 5(3): 301-315

2010


To examine the physiological profiles of wheelchair basketball and tennis and specifically to: (a) identify if there are differences in the physiological profiles of wheelchair basketball and tennis players of a similar playing standard, (b) to determine whether the competitive physiological demands of these sports differed (c) and to explore the relationship between the blood lactate [Bla-] response to exercise and to identify the sport specific heart rate (HR) training zones. Six elite athletes (4 male, 2 female) from each sport performed a submaximal and VO2peak test in their sport specific wheelchair. Heart rate, VO2, and [Bla-] were measured. Heart rate was monitored during international competitions and VO2 was calculated from this using linear regression equations. Individual HR training zones were identified from the [Bla-] profile and time spent within these zones was calculated for each match. Despite no differences in the laboratory assessment of HRpeak, the VO2peak was higher for the basketball players when compared with the tennis players (2.98 ± 0.91 vs 2.06 ± 0.71; P = .08). Average match HR (163 ± 11 vs 146 ± 16 beats x min(-1); P = .06) and average VO2 (2.26 ± 0.06 vs 1.36 ± 0.42 L x min(-1); P = .02) were higher during actual playing time of basketball when compared with whole tennis play. Consequently, differences in the time spent in the different training zones within and between the two sports existed (P < .05). Wheelchair basketball requires predominately high-intensity training, whereas tennis training requires training across the exercise intensity spectrum.

International
Journal
of
Sports
Physiology
and
Performance,
2010,
5,
301-315
0
Human
IGnetics,
Inc.
A
Comparison
of
the
Physiological
Demands
of
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Wheelchair
Tennis
Louise
Croft,
Suzanne
Dybrus,
John
Lenton,
and
Victoria
Goosey-Tolfrey
Purpose:
To
examine
the
physiological
profiles
of
wheelchair
basketball
and
tennis
and
specifically
to:
(a)
identify
if
there
are
differences
in
the
physiological
profiles
of
wheelchair
basketball
and
tennis
players
of
a
similar
playing
standard,
(b)
to
determine
whether
the
competitive
physiological
demands
of
these
sports
differed
(c)
and
to
explore
the
relationship
between
the
blood
lactate
[Bla
-
]
response
to
exercise
and
to
identify
the
sport
specific
heart
rate
(HR)
training
zones.
Methods:
Six
elite
athletes
(4
male,
2
female)
from
each
sport
performed
a
submaximal
and
VO
2
peak
test
in
their
sport
specific
wheelchair.
Heart
rate,
V0
2
,
and
[Bla]
were
measured.
Heart
rate
was
monitored
during
international
competitions
and
V0
2
was
calculated
from
this
using
linear
regression
equations.
Individual
HR
training
zones
were
identified
from
the
[Blal
profile
and
time
spent
within
these
zones
was
calculated
for
each
match.
Results:
Despite
no
differences
in
the
laboratory
assess-
ment
of
HRpeak,
the
VO
2
peak
was
higher
for
the
basketball
players
when
compared
with
the
tennis
players
(2.98
±
0.91
vs
2.06
±
0.71;
P
=
.08).
Average
match
HR
(163
±
11
vs
146
±
16
beats•min
-1
;
P
=
.06)
and
average
V0
2
(2.26
±
0.06
vs
1.36
±
0.42
L•min
-1
;
P
=
.02)
were
higher
during
actual
playing
time
of
basketball
when
compared
with
whole
tennis
play.
Consequently,
differences
in
the
time
spent
in
the
different
training
zones
within
and
between
the
two
sports
existed
(P
<
.05).
Conclusions:
Wheelchair
basketball
requires
predominately
high-intensity
training,
whereas
tennis
training
requires
training
across
the
exercise
intensity
spectrum.
Keywords:
Paralympic
sport,
training,
wheelchair
propulsion,
heart
rate,
lactate
threshold
Wheelchair
basketball
and
tennis
are
two
of
the
most
popular
and
renowned
sports
within
the
Paralympics,
with
International
competitions
being held
world-
wide.
Coaches
and
sport
scientists
with
an
interest
in
these
sports
are
continually
seeking
to
improve
current
training
methods
and
optimize
sport-specific
training.
1,2
With
that
in
mind,
it
is
evident
that
these
wheelchair
sports
involve
the
aerobic
system
along
with
short
periods
of
high-intensity
intermittent
activity.
3,4
However,
as
with
able-bodied
sports,
to
ensure
that
training
reflects
the
demands
of
the
sport,
an
understanding
of
the
physiological
competitive
sporting
demands
is
required.
25
The
authors
are
with
the
Peter
Harrison
Centre
for
Disability
Sport,
School
of
Sport
Exercise
and
Health
Sciences,
Loughborough
University,
Loughborough,
England,
UK.
301
302
Croft
et
al.
It
is
well
documented
that
heart
rate
(HR)
and
blood
lactate
[Blal
are
useful
tools
for
training
prescription
in
able-bodied
participants.
5
'
6
Yet
limited
sports
specific
HR
training
guidance
is
available
for
wheelchair
participants.
Of
the
work
available,
which
has
covered
wheelchair
basketball,
tennis
and
rugby
the
extrapola-
tion
of
laboratory
data
to
the
field
has
been
limited.
1,2,43
Firstly,
test
protocols
have
been
based
on
arm-crank
ergometry"
and
for
one
study
this
test
involved
increases
in
intensity
every
minute.'
For
this
later
work,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
participants
would
have
demonstrated
anything
even
close
to
a
physiological
steady
state
in
these
short
exercise
stages.
Moreover,
it
is
doubtful
whether
the
mode
of
exercise
would
reflect
the
physiological
responses
seen
during
wheelchair
exercise.
8
The
work
of
Moody
et
al'
involved
examining
the
V0
2
-BR
relationship
in
participants
with
limited
or
no
sympathetic
cardiac
innervation. Previous
studies
in
this
area
have
suggested
that
using
HR
to
estimate
the
exercise
intensity
in
quadriplegics
may
not
be
appropriate
due
to
the
reductions
in
venous
return
and
the
lack
of
sympathetic
innervation
to
the
heart.
9,1
°
These
aforementioned
methodological
aspects
limit
the
application
of
the
research
findings
reported
to
field
settings.
Nevertheless,
these
studies
have
found
the
average
match
HR
of
wheelchair
tennis
to
range
from
121
beats•min
-1
(bpm)
to
128
bpm
1,4,
"
and
basketball
at
a
slightly
higher
value
between
132
to
151
bpm.
2,4
Most
of
the
research
to
date
has
involved
male
wheelchair
athletes,
with
only
a
few
recent
studies
examining
the
physiological
aspects
and
demands
of
female
athletes
participating
in
wheelchair
exercise.
11,12
To
extend
the
work
previously
reported
in
this
area,
it
is
necessary
to
examine
the
[Blal
profile
so
that
specific
HR
training
zones
can
be
developed
providing
athletes
with
targeted
training
and
thus
optimizing
training."
This
is
of
interest
when
comparing
wheelchair
sports
with
the
objective
to
provide
specific
sports
training
information
since
the
distances
covered,
rest
to
work
ratios
and
length
of
matches
vary
considerably.
For
example,
basketball
matches
involve
10
min
quarters
whereas
tennis
matches
last
from
under
1
h
to
over
3
h.
3,12
Therefore
the
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
examine
(a)
if
there
are
differences
in
the
physiological
profiles
of
wheelchair
basketball
players
and
tennis
players
of
a
similar
playing
standard,
(b)
to
determine
whether
the
competitive
physiological
demands
of
these
two
sports
differed
(c)
and
to
explore
the
relationship
between
the
[Blal
response
to
exercise
and
to
identify
sport
specific
trends
of
HR
training
zones
that
may
be
beneficial
to
develop
coaches
knowledge
of
training
for
these
sports.
Methods
Participants
From
a
pool
of
30
wheelchair
athletes
players,
6
wheelchair
basketball
players
(4
male,
2
female)
were
matched
with
6
wheelchair
tennis
players
(4
male,
2
female),
all
of
whom
were
presently
competing
internationally
and
therefore
considered
elite.
After
consultation
with
medical
records,
participants
were
matched
on
play-
ing
ability,
trunk
mobility
and
classification
according
to
IWBF.
14
Approval
was
gained
from
University
Ethics
Committee
and
written
consent
was
obtained
by
all
participants
and
their
guardians
(for
those
under
18
y
old)
before
testing.
Body
mass
was
recorded
to
the
nearest
0.1
kg
using
either
a
seated
balance
scale
(Seca
710,
seated
scales,
Hamburg,
Germany)
or
a
wheelchair
double
beam
scale
(300
series,
Marsden,
London,
UK).
Participant
characteristics
are
given
in
Table
1.
Table
1
Sport,
sex,
age,
disability
and
training
characteristics
of
the
wheelchair
tennis
and
basketball
players
Participant
Sport
Sex
Age
(y)
Body
Mass
(kg)
Disability
SCI
Completeness
Years
Playing
Sport
Training
Hours
Per
Week
IWBF
Sports
Classification
14
1
Basketball
Male
26
77.6
SCI
T12
Incomplete
5
21
3.0
2
Basketball
Male
27
70.7
Spina
bifida
14
18
3.0
3
Basketball
Male
27
93.8
Avascular
necrosis
-
12
15
4.5
4
Basketball
Male
34
94.2
SCI
T12
Complete
16
15
2.0
5
Basketball
Female
29
58.3
SCI
T9
Complete
10
16
1.5
6
Basketball
Female
17
50.0
Acute
motor
neuropathy
5
10
2.5
Mean
26.7
74.1
10.3
15.8
2.8
SD
5.5
18.1
4.6
3.7
1.0
1
Tennis
Male
30
99.0
SCI
T12
Incomplete
6
15
2.5
2
Tennis
Male
18
64.1
Brittle
bones
12
25
4.0
3
Tennis
Male
15
67.8
Transverse
Myelitis
T12
Incomplete
2
7
3.0
4
Tennis
Male
34
64.7
SCI
T
8/9/10
Complete
8
21
1.5
5
Tennis
Female
26
51.9
SCI
T
4/5
Complete
4
15
1.0
6
Tennis
Female
15
47.5
Brittle
bones
12
5
4.0
Mean
23.0
65.8
7.3
14.7
2.7
SD
8.2
18.1
4.1
7.7
1.3
63
304
Croft
et
al.
Experimental
Design
There
were
two
distinct
phases
to
this
study:
a
laboratory
assessment
within
a
2-wk
period
either
side
of
the
selected
sports
competition
and
data
collection
during
international
wheelchair
basketball
and
tennis
competitions.
All
participants
were
tested
in
their
own
sports
specific
wheelchair.
For
the
laboratory
measurements,
the
tennis
players
were
tested
using
a
wheelchair
ergometer
as
previously
described,
12
while
the
basketball
players
were
tested
using
a
specialized
motorized
treadmill
(H/P/Cosmos,
Germany).
Laboratory
Assessment
Each
participant
completed
an
incremental
submaximal
exercise
test
that
comprised
five
or
six
4-min
stages.
The
initial
speed
was
predetermined
following
a
self-selected
warm-up
period
of
5
min
where
heart
rate
(HR)
was
approximately
100
bpm.
Subse-
quently
each
exercise
stage
was
increased
by
0.2
to
0.4
m-5
1
,
and
this
ensured
that
we
obtained
a
profile
that
included
40%
to
80%
VO
2
peak
For
the
treadmill
testing
the
incline
was
kept
constant
at
1%
gradient
throughout
this
test.
During
the
last
minute
of
each
stage,
expired
air
was
collected
and
analyzed
using
the
Douglas
bag
technique.
The
concentration
of
oxygen
and
carbon
dioxide
in
the
expired
air
samples
was
determined
using
a
paramagnetic
oxygen
analyzer
(Series
1400,
Servomex
Ltd.,
Sussex,
UK)
and
an
infrared
carbon
dioxide
analyzer
(Series
1400,
Servomex
Ltd.,
Sussex,
UK).
Expired
air
volumes
were
measured
using
a
dry
gas
meter
(Harvard
Apparatus,
Kent,
UK)
and
corrected
to
standard
temperature
and
pressure
(dry).
Oxygen
uptake
(V0
2
),
carbon
dioxide
output,
expired
minute
ventilation,
and
respiratory
exchange
ratio
were
calculated.
Heart
rate
was
monitored
continuously
using
radio
telemetry
(PE4000
Polar
Sport
Tester,
Kempele,
Finland)
and
the
rating
of
perceived
exertion
(RPE)
was
monitored
throughout
the
test.
A
small
capillary
blood
sample
was
obtained
from
the
earlobe
at
the
start
of
the
test
and
as
quickly
as
possible
during
a
1-min
break
between
stages
for
determination
of
whole
blood
lactate
concentration
[Bla
-
]
using
a
YSI
1500
Sport
(Yellow
Springs,
USA),
which
had
been
calibrated
with
a
lactate
standard
of
5
mmol•L
-1
before
testing.
The
lactate
threshold
(LT)
was
defined
visually
by
two
separate
observers
at
the
first
workload
before
there
was
"an
onset
of
blood
lactate
accumulation.""
A
second
breakpoint
known
as
the
lactate
turn
point
(LTP)
was
identified
and
is
used
to
describe
a
second
workload
where
[Bla
-
]
begins
to
accumulate
quickly."
Based
upon
the
aforementioned
parameters
six
different
HR
training
zones
were
identified
(Table
2).
13,16
Following
a
15-min
rest
period,
an
incremental
gradient
test
(treadmill)
and
an
incremental
speed
test
(wheelchair
ergometer)
was
used
to
determine
the
peak
oxygen
uptake
(VO
2
peak).
This
test
involved
increases
in
external
work
until
volitional
exhaustion.
Heart
rate
was
monitored
continuously,
expired
air
samples
were
collected
over
the
last
two
consecutive
stages
of
the
test
and
the
final
RPE
was
recorded.
On
completion
of
the
peak
test
a
capillary
blood
sample
was
also
taken
and
analyzed
to
determine
[Bla
-
]
as
previously
described.
The
criteria
for
a
valid
VO
2
peak
were
a
peak
RER
1.10
and
peak
HR
95%
of
the
age-predicted
maximum
(200
bpm
minus
chronological
age
in
years)
as
previously
used
in
this
population
group.
12
All
of
the
participants
satisfied
both
criteria.
Peak
HR
was
taken
as
the
highest
value
recorded
during
the
test;
however,
if
a
higher
HR
value
was
obtained
during
match
play
then
that
value
was
used.
Physiology
and
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Tennis
305
Table
2
The
training
zones
classification
in
relation
to
lactate
threshold
(LT)
and
lactate
turn-point
(LTP)
(adapted
from
Bourdon
2000
16
and
Godfrey
and
Whyte
2006
13
)
Zone
Number
Description
Blood
Lactate
Relationship
Zone
1
Recovery
<LT
Zone
2
Extensive
Aerobic
LT
to
LT+
(LTP
LT/2)
Zone
3
Intensive
Aerobic
LTP
to
LTP—
(LTP
LT/2)
Zone
4
Threshold
LTP
(5
beat
range)
Zone
5
VO
2
max
>LTP
Zone
6
Sprint
/
Power
n/a
(maximal
effort)
Competition
Data
Heart
Rate
monitors
(Polar
team
system,
Finland)
were
placed
upon
the
players
at
least
20
min
before
the
start
of
competitive
play.
The
players
wore
the
HR
moni-
tors
throughout
the
matches
with
data
being
recorded
at
5-s
intervals.
Basketball
HR
data
were
collected
during
the
Paralympic
World
Cup
in
England.
The
match
start
time,
and
during
the
basketball
games
the
substitutions/
time
outs
were
all
manually
recorded,
thus
allowing
us
to
calculate
whole
basketball
play
(WBP)
and
basketball
actual
playing
time
(B-APT).
Tennis
HR
data
were
collected
from
singles
matches
during
international
wheelchair
tennis
tournaments
in
Florida
and
England.
For
each
match,
the
start
and
end
time
were
recorded
and
the
HR
data
collection
period
included
all
the
activities
during
this
time
period,
as
representing
the
whole
tennis
play
(WTP).
The
average
HR
and
HRpeak
during
the
matches
were
calculated
for
each
player
from
both
sports.
Statistical
Analyses
Standard
descriptive
statistics
were
obtained
(mean
and
standard
deviation)
for
all
variables
using
SPSS
(16.0,
Chicago).
Independent
t
tests
or
the
nonparametric
equivalent
were
conducted
to
determine
differences
between
groups
for
physi-
ological
parameters.
The
V0
2
and
HR
data
at
the
end
of
the
peak
VO
2
test
and
each
submaximal
steady-stage
were
expressed
as
percentages
of
their
respective
peak
values. For
each
participant
a
linear
regression
was
conducted
using
the
paired
data
points
of
%peak
V0
2
and
%peak
HR
values
and
the
Pearson
r
correlation
for
this
relationship
was
calculated.
Data
obtained
at
each
completed
submaximal
exercise
stage
and
peak
values
were
included
in
the
analyses.
The
percentage
peak
V0
2
values
were
included
in
the
analyses
as
the
independent
variable.
The
data
for
the
whole
group
were
not
pooled
together
for
a
single
linear
regression
equation
as
this
would
statistically
obscure
the
individual
relationships.
Using
HR
from
the
game
play
V0
2
was
predicted
and
the
relative
percentages
of
VO
2
peak
were
determined.
Point-by-point
regressions
were
performed
on
the
[Blal
%-V0
2
peak
data
to
deter-
mine
the
[Blal
at
fixed
exercise
intensities
of
40,
50,
60,
70
and
80%
VO
2
peak.
The
HR
at
the
six
training
zones
was
determined
for
each
player.
A
two-way
mixed
4.0
—..
'
3.5
.7,
E
E
3.0
2.5
--
Wheelchair
4.5
Basketball
—40—
Wheelchair
Tennis
U
Ti
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
to
306
Croft
et
al.
ANOVA
was
performed
to
examine
the
main
effect
of
time
spent
in
zones, main
effect
of
group
on
time
spent
in
zones
and
to
examine
if
there
was
an
interaction
effect.
An
independent
sample
t
test
was
used
to
examine
any
differences
between
groups
for
the
time
spent
in
the
HR
zones.
Significance
was
accepted
at
P
.05.
Results
The
two
groups
did
not
differ
with
respect
to
age,
body
mass,
hours
training
per
week
or
years
playing
wheelchair
sport
(Table
1;
P
=
.38,
P
=
.34,
P
=
.75,
P
=
.26
respectively).
The
HR-V0
2
relationship
was
found
to
have
a
strong
correlation
in
all
participants
(0.96
to
0.99).
During
this
submaximal
testing,
no
differences
were
seen
between
the
two
groups
in
VO
2
at
LT
(P
=
0.08;
Table
3).
However,
HR
was
significantly
higher
at
LT
(P
=
0.02)
and
LTP
(P
=
.006)
and
VO
2
showed
a
strong
trend
toward
being
higher
(P
=
.06)
at
LTP
in
basketball
players
compared
with
tennis
players
(Table
3).
When
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
peak
values,
HR
was
significantly
higher
in
the
basketball
players
when
compared
with
tennis
players
at
LT
(P
=
.04)
and
showed
a
trend
toward
significance
at
LTP
(P
=
.06).
Percentage
VO
2
values
were
not
different
between
sports
at
LT
(P
=
.59)
or
at
LTP
(P
=
.60).
Figure
1
shows
the
[Bla
-
]
response
at
fixed
exercise
intensities
for
the
basketball
versus
tennis
players.
There
were
no
significant
differences
between
the
two
groups
(P
>
.05).
Despite
no
significant
difference
in
the
HRpeak,
the
VO
2
peak
was
higher
5.0
/
/
—I
0.0
30
40 50
60
TO
80
90
%
VO2peak
Figure
1
The
mean
SD)
blood
lactate
concentration
of
wheelchair
basketball
and
wheelchair
tennis
players
at
fixed
exercise
intensities.
Physiology
and
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Tennis
307
200
180
-
160
-
140
-
120
-
100
-
80
-
60
00
00
00:15
00:30
00:45
1:90
1:15
1:30
1:45
02:00
Time
(hrs:min:sec)
Figure
2
-An
example
of
a
basketball
player's
heart
rate
trace
during
a
match
showing
peak
heart
rate,
average
heart
rate
and
playing
time.
Peak
heart
rate
(black
horizontal
line),
average
heart
rate
(gray
line)
and
time
spent
on
court
(dashed
line).
for
the
basketball
players
when
compared
with
the
tennis
players
(2.98
±
0.91
vs
2.06
±
0.71;
P
=
.08).
Figure
2
shows
the
HR
response
during
whole
basketball
play
(WBP)
and
indicates
the
maximum
and
average
HR,
and
actual
playing
time
(B-APT)
for
one
participant.
Peak
V0
2
was
significantly
higher
during
WBP
when
compared
with
WTP
(2.90
±
0.93
vs
1.80
±
0.58
L•min
-1
;
P
=
.03)
and
there
was
a
10
beat
dif-
ference
in
peak
HR
although
these
values
did
not
significantly
differ
(190
±
12
vs
180
±
18
bpm
respectively).
The
basketball
group
showed
a
trend
toward
a
higher
average
match
HR
during
B-APT
(163
±
11
vs
146
±
16
bpm;
P
=
.06,
Figure
3)
and
a
higher
estimated
average
V0
2
(2.26
±
0.06
vs
1.36
±
0.42
L•min
-1
;
P
=
.02)
than
the
tennis
players
(WTP).
During
WBP
and
WTP,
there
were
no
differences
in
average
HR
between
sports
(154
±
15
vs
146
±
16
bpm;
P
=
.40).
Yet,
the
basketball
players
still
showed
a
higher
estimated
average
V0
2
(2.03
±
0.57
vs
1.36
±
0.42
L•min
-1
;
P
=
.04).
When
average
match
HR
was
compared
as
%HRpeak
between
sports
during
B-APT
and
WTP,
there
was
a
significant
difference
(83.9
±
1.9%
vs
75.3
±
7.8%
respectively;
P
=
.03).
The
corresponding
average
%VO
2
peak
for
B-APT
and
WTP
was
found
to
be
75.9
±
5.5%
vs
68.3
±
11.8%
respectively
(P
=
.18).
There
was
no
significant
difference
between
%HR
(79.2
±
4.4
vs
75.3
±
7.8%
P
=
.3)
and
%VO
2
peak
(68.9
±
7.7
vs
68.2
±
11.8%
P
=
.90)
between
sports
whole
play.
Table
4
shows
the
relative
percentage
and
actual
time
the
basketball
and
tennis
players
spent
in
each
training
HR
zone.
This
was
measured
during
WBP,
B-APT
and
WTP.
Analysis
for
the
whole
game
in
both
sports
in
actual
minutes
and
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
game
time
showed
a
significant
main
effect
for
zone
(P
<
.01).
Pairwise
analysis
revealed
that
more
time
was
spent
in
HR
zone
5
(36.1
±
17.6
and
44.2
±
23.9
minutes
for
basketball
and
tennis
respectively)
compared
with
220
-
200
-
180
-
160
-
100
-
t:
80
-
60
-
40
-
20
-
0
-
4.5
Highest
value
obtained
during
the
ma
di
4.0
Average
value
for
the
whole
match
Average
value
for
B-ATP
3.0
E
2.5
-
5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Wheelchair
Ba%
kr
tball
IVheelchair
Tennis
Figure
3
—Top
panel:
Peak
SD)
heart
rate
during
a
wheelchair
basketball
and
wheelchair
tennis
match,
average
SD)
match
heart
rate
during
WBP
and
WTP
and
average
SD)
match
heart
rate
during
B-APT.
Bottom
panel:
Peak
SD)
V0
2
during
a
wheelchair
basketball
and
wheelchair
tennis
match,
average
SD)
match
V0
2
during
WBP
and
WTP
and
average
SD)
match
V0
2
during
B-APT
(b).
Note.
*Significant
difference
between
sports;
WBP
=
whole
basketball
play,
WTP
=
whole
tennis
play
and
B-APT
=
basketball
actual
playing
time.
3.5
308
Table
3
The
physiological
profile
of
the
basketball
and
tennis
players
Participant
Sport
HRpeak
(bpm)
VO
2
peak
(L•min
-1
)
HR
at
LT
(bpm)
VO,
at
LT
(L•min
-1
)
HR
at
LTP
(bpm)
VO,
at
LTP
(L•min
-1
)
1
Basketball
199
3.42
138
1.77
153
2.15
2
Basketball
200
3.18
134
1.81
151
2.21
3
Basketball
193
3.86
134
2.08
147
2.50
4
Basketball
189
3.74
113
1.13
144
2.15
5
Basketball
178
1.74
143
1.19
6
Basketball
204
1.95
119
0.71
145
0.97
Mean
194
2.98
130
1.45
148
1.99
SD
9
0.91
12
0.52
4
0.59
1
Tennis
191
2.85
107
1.24
138
1.97
2
Tennis
197
2.54
112
1.24
146
1.75
3
Tennis
202
2.47
125
1.06
141
1.34
4
Tennis
185
2.11
124
1.13
136
1.21
5
Tennis
196
1.10
107
0.50
139
0.70
6
Tennis
194
1.30
106
0.56
139
0.88
Mean
194
2.06
114
*
0.96
140
*
1.31
SD
6
0.71
9
0.34
3
0.49
ca
*
Significant
difference
when
compared
with
basketball
(P
<
.05).
0
co
Table
4
A
comparison
of
the
percentage
of
time
spent
in
each
training
zone
during
actual
playing
time
(APT)
and
whole
match
play
(including
rests)
in
wheelchair
basketball
with
whole
match
wheelchair
tennis
play
Zone:
Sport
1
2
3
4
5
Total
game
time
Relative
Absolute
Relative
Absolute
Relative
Absolute
Relative
Absolute
Relative
Absolute
Absolute
%
Min
%
Min
%
Min
%
Min
%
Min
Min
Wheelchair
Basketball
(APT)
Wheelchair
Basketball
(WBP)
Wheelchair
Tennis
(WTP)
7.4
18.2
7.6
2.7
9.6
4.2
3.7
5.6
11.9
1.8
3.7
7.0
2.7
4.3
14.7
1.3
*
2.8
9.7
4
4.3
7.9
1.6
*
2.5
5.8
82.0
a
67.6
b
57.9
33.1
a
36.1
a
44.2
40.5
543
70.9
*
Denotes
a
significant
difference
(P
<
.05)
with
wheelchair
tennis.
a
Denotes
a
significant
difference
(P
<
.05)
between
time
spent
in
zone
5
to
all
other
zones
when
analyzed
with
tennis.
b
Denotes
a
significant
difference
(P
<
.05)
between
time
spent
in
zones
2-4
and
5
when
analyzed
with
tennis.
Physiology
and
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Tennis
311
any
of
the
other
HR
zones
in
minutes
(both
groups
spent
<10
min
in
each
zone).
As
a
percentage,
more
time
was
spent
in
zone
5
(67.6
±
16.5
and
57.9
±
30.7%
for
basketball
and
tennis
respectively)
than
zone
2,
3
and
4
(both
groups
<
10%
in
each
zone).
There
was
no
main
effect
of
sport
(P
=
.24;
P
=
.99
respectively)
and
no
interaction
effect
(P
=
.50,
0.10
respectively).
A
comparison
between
B-APT
and
WTP
in
minutes
and
as
a
percentage
of
a
whole
game,
results
showed
that
there
was
a
significant
main
effect
of
zone
(P
<
.001).
Pairwise
analysis
revealed
more
time
was
spent
in
zone
5
(basketball
33.1
±
15.8
min
(82
±
7.4%);
tennis
44.2
±
23.9
min
(57.9
±
30.7%)
when
compared
with
all
the
other
zones
(all
other
zones
<
10
min
[<15%]).
When
time
spent
in
minutes
was
compared
between
zones,
there
was
a
main
effect
of
sport.
Analysis
revealed
that
basketball
players
spent
less
minutes
in
zone
3
(1.3
±
1.1
vs
9.6
±
5.3
min)
and
zone
4
(1.6
±
1.0
vs
5.8
±
3.9
min)
when
compared
with
tennis
players.
When
relative
time
spent
in
each
zone
was
analyzed
there
was
no
main
effect
of
sport
(P
=
.39).
Discussion
The
VO
2
peak
of
the
elite
basketball
players
in
the
current
study
were
found
to
be
slightly
higher
than
that
reported
in
previous
literature,'
,
"
yet
similar
values
were
found
for
the
tennis
players.'
As
evident
in
the
literature
the
females
demonstrated
lower
VO
2
peak
values
to
their
male
counterparts.
18
There
was
a
tendency
for
VO
2
peak
to
be
higher
for
the
basketball
players
when
compared
with
the
tennis
players
(2.98
±
0.91
vs
2.06
±
0.71;
P
=
.08).
Moreover,
in
contrast
to
previous
research,
the
current
study
found
a
difference
between
sports
in
the
HRs
(148
±
4
vs
140
±
3
bpm)
at
LTP,
with
again
the
basketball
players
recording
higher
values.
19
To
the
authors
knowledge
limited
data
exists
that
focuses
around
the
LT
and
corresponding
work
rates.
Of
that
available,
it
is
of
interest
to
note
that
the
current
study
found
similar
VO
2
values
at
LT
to
the
work
of
Flandrois
et
al.
2
°
But
when
expressed
relative
to
VO
2
peak
the
current
study
identified
that
this
threshold
occurred
at
only
49.6
and
48%
VO
2
peak
for
basketball
and
tennis
respectively
when
compared
with
the
63%
and
54%
of
high
and
low
paraplegics
in
Flandrois
et
al.
2
°
The
range
of
disabilities
makes
it
hard
to
compare
the
two
studies
and
the
protocols
differed
between
studies
making
results
hard
to
interpret.
In
addition,
these
values
may
differ
slightly
depending
upon
the
LT
definition
used,
which,
although
was
similar
in
both
studies,
in
the
present
work,
was
perhaps
limited
due
to
the
number
of
exercise
stages
employed,
6,16
we
will
revisit
this
methodological
consideration
later.
Average
match
HRs
in
the
current
study
were
found
to
be
higher
in
both
sports
when
compared
with
other
previously
reported
research.
1,2,4,11,21,22
Basketball
aver-
age
actual
play,
match
HRs
(163
bpm)
were
higher
than
that
reported
by
other
literature
(range
128
to
151
bpm)
2,4,21,22
In
tennis,
average
HRs
of
121
to
127
bpm
compared
with
146
bpm
in
this
study
have
been
reported.
l
A
il
Average
tennis
values
relative
to
%HRpeak
were
higher
in
this
study
with
75%
compared
with
69%.
1
A
similar
case
in
tennis
reported
average
VO
2
as
%VO
2
peak
at
a
higher
68%
in
this
study
when
compared
with
Roy
and
coworkers
1
finding
of
49.9%.
In
fact
this
value
is
more
similar
to
that
of
able-bodied
tennis
players
which
is
reported
at
60%
to
70%
VO2peak."
312
Croft
et
al.
Average
HR,
VO
2
peak
and
average
V0
2
were
all
higher
during
actual
play
in
a
basketball
match
(B-APT)
when
compared
with
tennis
(WTP)
which
supports
the
work
of
Coutts.
4
The
novelty
of
this
study
is
that
it
extends
the
work
of
Coutts
4
to
now
include
estimates
of
V0
2
through
the
HR-V0
2
relationship.
The
fact
that
basketball
is
shown
to
have
a
larger
competitive
demand
will
be
a
reflection
of
skills
involved,
court
covered
and
activities
performed
such
as
longer
sprints.'
Basketball
also
has
a
higher
work
to
rest
ratio
with
actual
playing
time
accounting
for
50%
of
total
match
time
(excluding
substitution
time)
compared
with
tennis
actual
playing
time
only
accounting
for
15
to
20%2
,2
Comparison
of
the
two
sports
including
all
rest
and
time
out
periods
in
basketball
showed
no
difference
in
average
HR
but
results
still
showed
a
significantly
higher
average
V0
2
during
a
basketball
game
when
compared
with
tennis.
Further
work
is
warranted
in
this
area
to
include
time-motion
match
analysis
which
would
enable
a
greater
understanding
of
the
relative
importance
of
these
factors.
It
is
important
to
note
that
in
the
current
study
the
tennis
match
data
were
analyzed
from
the
start
of
play
to
the
end
of
play,
including any
breaks
or
rests
whereas
basketball
data
includes
a
whole
game
with
rests
and
time
outs
and
also
analysis
excluding
time
outs,
end
of
quarters
and
substitutions.
Basketball
players
may
not
play
the
whole
match
due
to
substitutions,
and
substitutions
and
time
outs
vary
greatly
between
matches.
Tennis
players
compete
for
the
whole
match
and
breaks
are
included
within
the
rules
of
the
match
and
are
consistent
from
match
to
match.
This
may
have
been
influential
upon
the
difference
between
the
sports and
excluding
time
outs,
end
of
quarters
and
substitutions
during
basketball
play
may
be
a
truer
reflection
of
the
demands
of
this
particular
sport.
Roy
et
al'
included
only
actual
playing
time
of
tennis
matches
and
despite
only
accounting
for
15%
of
total
time,
average
HR
values
were
similar
to
that
of
other
literature.
The
slightly
higher
V0
2
and
HR
values
reported
here
highlights
a
major
issue
when
investigating
competitive
intermittent
sport
activity
as
the
opposition,
environment
and
match
demands
can
vary
greatly
between
matches
2,23
Additionally
in
tennis,
match
length
is
variable,
thus
longer
matches
can
result
in
higher
physiological
demands
and
court
surface
and
ball
type
can
change
between
tournaments;
these
will
all
play
a
role
in
the
physiological
demands
of
the
sport."
The
HR
training
zones
obtained
from
the
current
study
are
informative,
since
they
can
be
used
to
help
specialize
training
for
the
different
sports.
Interestingly,
it
was
apparent
that
when
comparing
B-ATP
with
WTP
the
main
differences
between
sports
occurred
at
HR
zones
3
to
4,
which
are
the
zones
just
below
and
at
LTP.
This
finding
may
help
explain
the
differences
found
between
the
characteristics
of
the
sportsmen
and
women
between
sports
where
the
V0
2
and
HR
at
LTP
differed.
The
higher
absolute
V0
2
and
HR
at
LTP
for
the
basketball
players
may
be
due
to
these
players
demonstrating
a
higher
aerobic
capacity,
as
relatively,
there
was
no
difference
in
V0
2
at
LTP
between
sports.
From
these
data,
a
tennis
match
lasts
on
average
40
to
50
min
longer
than
a
basketball
match
and
so
in
absolute
terms,
tennis
players
are
spending
more
time
in
zones
above
LTP.
However,
relatively
speaking,
the
basketball
players
spend
a
higher
(although
not
significant)
percentage
of
time
in
zone
5
when
compared
with
tennis
even
when
taking
rests
into
account
(67.6
±
16.5
vs
57.9
±
30.7%
respectively).
If
more
time
is
spent
above
the
LTP,
this
may
promote
more
muscular
adaptations
enhancing
the
removal
of
lactate
which
would
thus
result
in
LTP
occurring
at
a
higher
exercise
intensity.6
Physiology
and
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Tennis
313
Training
in
the
different
HR
zones
would
be
achieved
through
varying
the
work
to
rest
ratios
and
the
intensity
of
the
activity.
It
has
been
suggested
that
zone
1
to
2
would
incorporate
lower
intensities
of
longer
duration
to
build
the
aerobic
base
whereas
zone
5
would
have
a
lower
work
to
rest
ratio
but
involve
higher
exercise
intensities
with
more
interval
related
training.'
Training
could
incorporate
a
combination
of
the
HR
zones,
with
HR
zones
1
to
2
being
used
as
a
recovery
between
training
at
the
higher
HR
zones.
Different
drills
could
be
implemented
and
could
reflect
important
aspects
of
the
sport
such
as
movement
patterns
and
agility
along
with
more
sport-related
actions
such
as
passing
in
basketball.
25,26
Bullock
and
Pluim
27
highlight
that
it
is
important
that
training
reflects
competitive
play;
for
example
tennis
training
can
be
done
holding
a
racket,
so
that
the
tennis
racket
eventually
does
not
become
a
constraint
to
the
pushing
technique.
28
Heart
rate
monitors
can
be
used
to
help
monitor
exercise
training
for
participants
with
a
low
to
moderate
spinal
cord
injury,
as
it
still
remains
unclear
whether
RPE
can
be
used
successfully
by
all
athletes
with
the
prescription
of
exercise.
It
is
important
however,
that
athletes
are
retested
as
through
training
the
LT
and
LTP
will
occur
at
higher
HR
and
thus
it
is
likely
that
the
HR
training
zones
will
change.
6,12
Basketball
training
has
highlighted
the
need
for
frequent
repetitions
involv-
ing
different
speeds
and
more
high
intensity
drills
such
as
fast
break
basketba11.
25
In
fact,
a
number
of
high-intensity
interval-training
drills
for
basketball
many
of
which
reflect
the
basketball
movements
such
as
U-turns
and
clovers
are
available
in
the
coaching
literature.
26
Similarly,
adapted
versions
of
these
drills
are
also
available
to
the
tennis
player
replicating
the
movements
on
the
tennis
courts.
27
However,
more
aerobic
training
would
be
undertaken
at
a
lower
intensity
within
tennis
which
could
involve
continuous
pushing
for
45
to
60
min
or
longer
dura-
tion
less
intensive
interval
programs.
27
Weight
and
resistance
training
have
been
recommended
for
both
sports
to
develop
endurance,
while
also
helping
to
develop
upper
body
and
trunk
strength.
27
The
HR
training
zones
themselves
vary
between
researchers;
however
to
date,
all
the
research
has
been
involved
able-bodied
participants.
16
Differences
were
also
shown
to
occur
between
participants
within
the
same
sport.
Individual
variance,
the
problems
associated
with
competitive
play
and
the
varying
match
demands
between
matches
discussed
earlier
contribute
to
these
differences.
However,
where
possible
we
used
several
matches
from
a
number
of
participants
to
represent
the
typical
match
play
response.
One
of
the
major
difficulties
facing
research
into
elite
wheelchair
athletes
is
the
small
population
available
resulting
in
small
sample
sizes
along
with
the
variation
of
injuries
within
population
groups.
29
Despite
this
study
trying
to
match
participants,
differences
in
injuries
between
subjects
could
affect
findings
and
help
explain
the
physiological
characteristically
differences
with
other
studies.
To
determine
the
precise
LTP
more
stages
around
the
LTP
should
be
conducted.
16
Both
LT
and
LTP
were
determined
visually
by
separate
investigators,
however
due
to
the
large
jumps
in
values
there
was
sometimes
an
element
of
uncertainty.
One
basketball
player
was
also
excluded
due
to
their
LTP
not
being
identified,
however
this
subjects'
HR
at
LT
was
higher
than
most
of
the
tennis
players'
HR
at
LTP
and
thus
their
results
would
probably
tie
in
with
the
findings
above.
Data
from
this
study
was
conducted
within
international
competition,
whereas
some
of
other
studies'
,
"
organized
matches
solely
for
the
study.
The
warmer
temperatures
314
Croft
et
al.
and
humidity during
tournaments
within
Florida
when
tennis
data
were
collected
could
also
have
resulted
in
higher
HR.
30
This
may
have
bias
the
HR
recordings
toward
a
higher
percentage
time
in
zones
3
to
5
between
sports
which
is
opposite
from
the
findings
from
this
study.
In
conclusion
this
study
demonstrated
that
wheelchair
basketball
players
have
higher
aerobic
capacities
when
compared
with
tennis
players
of
a
similar
playing
experience.
Despite
the
simplicity
of
HR
data
collection,
the
demands
of
wheelchair
basketball
actual
play
were
shown
to
be
more
physiologically
demanding
than
tennis.
Our
findings
suggest
that
it
is
possible
that
the
times
spent
in
basketball
competitive
play
might
be
associated
with
the
improved
physiological
profile
of
the
basketball
players
when
compared
with
the
tennis
players.
Close
inspection
of
the
HR
profile
during
match
play
would
suggest
that
wheelchair
basketball
players
would
benefit
from
high
intensity
training,
while
tennis
players
training
should
cover
the
exercise
intensity
continuum.
Future
research
needs
to
address
how
athletes
and
coaches
quantify
training
by
taking
into
account
both
exercise
volume
and
intensity
and
how
stable
or
reliable
the
use
of
ratings
of
perceived
exertion
(RPE)
may
be
in
this
process.
References
1.
Roy
JLP,
Menear
KS,
Schmid1VIMA,
Hunter
GR,
Malone
LA.
Physiological
Responses
of
Skilled
Players
During
a
Competitive
Wheelchair
Tennis
Match.
J
Strength
Cond
Res.
2006;20:665-671.
2.
Perez
J,
Rabadan
M,
Pacheco
JL,
Sampedro
J.
Heart
rate
assessment
during
wheel-
chair
basketball
competition:
Its
relationship
with
functional
classification
and
specific
training
design.
In
Higgs
C
&
VanlandewijckY
eds.
Sport
for
persons
with
a
disability.
Perspectives.
Vol.
7.
Berlin:
International
Council
of
Sport
Science
and
Physical
Educa-
tion;
2007;151-174.
3.
Royer
D.
The
Applications
of
Aerobic
and
Anaerobic
Training
to
Wheelchair
Athletes.
In
Steadward
RD
(ed)
Proceedings;
First
International
Conference
on
Sport
and
Train-
ing
of
the
Physically
Disable
Athlete.
Edmonton.
1979.
4.
Coutts
KD.
Heart
rates
of
participants
in
wheelchair
sports.
Paraplegia.
1988;26:43-49.
5.
Achten
J,
Jeukendrup
AE.
Heart
rate
monitoring:
applications
and
limitations.
Sports
Med.
2003;33:517-538.
6.
Weltman
A.
The
Blood
Lactate
Response
to
Exercise.
Champaign,
IL:
Human
Kinetics;
1995.
7.
Moody
JA,
Tong
RJ.
Jackson
CB
Quadriplegic
Rugby
The
Welsh
Rugby
Tradition
Pushes
Forward.
3^
1
Paralympic
Conference.
1996.
Atlanta,
Georgia,
August
12-16.
8.
Sawka
MN,
Glaser
RM,
Wilde
SW,
von
Luhrte
TC.
Metabolic
and
circulatory
responses
to
wheelchair
and
arm
crank
exercise.
J
Appl
Physiol.
1980;49:784-788.
9.
Glaser
RM.
Arm
exercise
training
for
wheelchair
users.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc.
1989;21:S149—S157.
10.
Janssen
TWJ,
Hopman
MTE.
Spinal
Cord
Injury.
In:
Skinner
JS,
ed.
Exercise
Testing
and
Exercise
Prescription
for
Special
Cases.
United
States
of
America:
Lippincott,
Williams
&
Wilkins;
2005:203-219.
11.
Barfield
JP,
Malone
LA,
Coleman
TA.
Comparison
of
Heart
Rate
Response
to
Tennis
Activity
Between
Persons
With
and
Without
Spinal
Cord
Injuries:
Implications
for
a
Training
Threshold.
Res
Q
Exerc
Sport.
2009;80:71-77.
12.
Diaper
NJ,
Goosey-Tolfrey
VL.
A
Physiological
Case
Study
of
a
Paralympic
Wheelchair
Tennis
Player:
Reflective
Practise.
J
Sports
Sci
&
Med.
2009;8:300-307.
Physiology
and
Wheelchair
Basketball
and
Tennis
315
13.
Godfrey
R,
Whyte
G.
Training
Specificity.
In:
Whyte
G,
ed.
The
Physiology
of
Training.
London:
Churchill,
Livingstone,
Elsevier;
2006:23-44.
14.
International
Wheelchair
Basketball
Federation.
(2009)
Classification
Commissions
Function.
Available
via
http://www.iwbf.org/index.html
.
Accessed
10
August
2009.
15.
Ivy
JL,
Withers
RT,
Van
Handel
II,
Essig
DA,
Lower
RW.
Alteration
in
the
lactate
threshold
with
changes
in
substrate
availability.
Int
J
Sports
Med.
1981;2:139-142.
16.
Bourdon
P.
Blood
Lactate
Transition
Thresholds:
Concepts
and
Controversies.
In:
Gore
CJ,
ed.
Physiological
Tests
for
Elite
Athletes.
Champaign,
IL:
Human
Kinetics;
2000:50-65.
17.
Goosey-Tolfrey
VL.
Physiological
Profiles
of
Elite
Wheelchair
Basketball
Players
in
Preparation
for
the
2000
Paralympic
Games.
Adapt
Phys
Activ
Q.
2005;22:57-66.
18.
Bhambhani
Y.
Physiology
of
wheelchair
racing
in
athletes
with
spinal
cord
injury.
Sports
Med.
2002;32:23-51.
19.
Gass
GC,
Camp
EM.
Physiological
characteristics
of
trained
Australian
paraplegic
and
tetraplegic
subjects.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc.
1979;11:256-259.
20.
Flandrois
R,
Grandmontagne
M,
Gerin
H,
Mayet MH,
Jehl
JL,
Eyssette
M.
Aerobic
performance
capacity
in
paraplegic
subjects.
Eur
J
Appl
Physiol.
1986;55:604-609.
21.
Schmid
A,
Huonker
M,
Stober
P,
Barturen
JM.
Schimdt
-
Trucksass
A,
Duff
H,
VOlpel
H-J,
Keul
J.
Physical
performance
and
cardiovascular
and
metabolic
adaptation
of
elite
female
wheelchair
basketball
players
in
wheelchair
ergometry
and
in
competition.
Am
J
Phys
Med
Rehabil.
1998;77:527-533.
22.
Bloxham
LA,
Bell
GJ,
Bhambani
Y,
Steadward
RD.
Time
motion
analysis
and
physi-
ological
profile
of
Canadian
world
cup
wheelchair
basketball
players.
Sports
Med
Train
Rehabil.
2001;10:183-198.
23.
Kovacs
MS.
Tennis
physiology:
Training
the
competitive
athlete.
Sports
Med.
2007;37:189-198.
24.
Jacobs
PL,
Nash
MS.
Exercise
recommendations
for
individuals
with
spinal
cord
injury.
Sports
Med.
2004;34:727-751.
25.
Owen
E.
Playing
and
Coaching
Wheelchair
Basketball.
Champaign,
Ill:
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1982.
26.
Frogley
M.
Wheelchair
Skills
Workout.
Sport
'n
Spokes.
1999;
25:46-47.
27.
Bullock
M,
Pluim
B.
Wheelchair
tennis
and
physical
conditioning.
ITF
Wheelchair
Tennis
Coaches
Review
2003;9:2-10.
28.
Goosey-Tolfrey
VL,
Moss
AD.
The
velocity
characteristics
of
wheelchair
tennis
players
with
and
without
the
use
of
racquets.
Adapt
Phys
Activ
Q.
2005;22:291-301.
29.
Hutzler
Y.
Anaerobic
fitness
testing
of
wheelchair
users.
Sports
Med.
1998;25:101-113.
30.
Price
MJ.
Thermoregulation
during
exercise
in
individuals
with
spinal
cord
injuries.
Sports
Med.
2006;36:863-879.