Oxygen uptake and heart rate response of 6 standardized tennis drills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the oxygen uptake of various on-court tennis drills. Eleven tennis players were monitored with a portable metabolic device to measure oxygen uptake of 6 different tennis drills at low and high speeds. The 6 drills were done with or without striking the ball, over half or full-width of the court, in attack or defense mode, using forehand or backhand strokes. Oxygen uptake values (mean ± SD) ranged from 33.8 ± 4.2 to 42.3 ± 5.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ when running at low speed on the full-width court in defense mode without striking the ball and when running at high speed on the full-width court in attack mode while striking the ball, respectively. Specific differences were observed. Attacking mode requires 6.5% more energy than defensive playing mode. Backhand strokes demand 7% more energy at low speed than forehand ones. Running and striking the ball costs 10% more energy than running without striking the ball. While striking the ball, shuttle running on half-width court costs 14% more energy than running on full-width courts. The specificity of the oxygen uptake responses obtained for these various tennis drills gives an improved representation of their energy cost and could be used to optimize training loads.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".