ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Comparative effects of tabata-based HIIT modalities on physical performance in competitive table tennis players.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07403461 (Comparative Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Modalities on Physical Performance and Physiological Responses in Competitive Table Tennis Players), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparative Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Modalities on Physical Performance and Physiological Responses in Competitive Table Tennis Players
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to examine the differential effects of two Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) modalities-calisthenic/plyometric-focused versus kettlebell-focused exercise-on neuromuscular performance and physiological adaptations in competitive table tennis athletes.
methodsTwenty-four male athletes (aged 18-24 years) were randomly assigned to a calisthenic/plyometric HIIT group (n = 12) or a kettlebell HIIT group (n = 12). Both groups performed their respective Tabata protocols in addition to regular table tennis training, three days per week for eight weeks. Flexibility, agility, sprint performance, vertical jump height, peak and average power output, and maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max) were assessed before and after the intervention. Analysis of normally distributed data was performed using a 2 (group) × 2 (time) mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA). When significant interaction effects were detected, post-hoc comparisons were conducted using paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsBoth HIIT methods resulted in significant improvements in most measured parameters (p < 0.05). The calisthenic/plyometric protocol led to greater gains in agility, flexibility, and vertical jump performance, indicating enhanced neuromuscular function. Conversely, the kettlebell protocol elicited superior improvements in sprint performance. Both groups demonstrated increases in VO₂max; however, these changes were not significantly different between groups.
conclusionTabata-based HIIT effectively enhances neuromuscular and physiological performance in table tennis athletes; however, adaptations differ based on exercise modality. Calisthenic/plyometric-focused HIIT preferentially improves agility, mobility, and explosive leg power, while kettlebell-focused HIIT yields greater benefits for speed and aerobic capacity. These findings demonstrate that modality-specific HIIT programming is a practical and time-efficient approach to target sport-specific performance demands in racket sport athletes.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07403461), registered on 16/01/2026.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.