Comparisons of cardiorespiratory and thermoregulatory responses to table tennis and cycling at similar perceived levels of effort

Purpose. - Table tennis is a popular physical activity offering several health benefits. However, the physiological responses to table tennis, relative to other exercise types, have not been fully investigated. A comparison between different exercise types, based on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), would offer a better physiological characterization of table tennis. We therefore investigated cardiorespiratory and thermoregulatory responses to table tennis relative to cycling at a similar RPE. Methods. - Eight healthy table tennis players performed 2 sets of 5 minutes simulated table tennis exercise separated by a 5 minutes break by returning a ball ejected from a machine at light (30 balls/min) and moderate (45 balls/min) intensities, respectively. RPE (range, 6-20) was assessed at the end of exercise. On the second visit, they cycled for 5 minutes to meet similar RPE reported during table tennis trial. Physiological responses were assessed during table tennis and cycling trials. Results. - There was no significant reported difference in RPE between the two exercise types at light (12.9 +/- 2.0 and 11.5 +/- 1.9 for table tennis and cycling, respectively) and moderate (14.5 +/- 0.9 and 14.0 +/- 1.4, respectively) intensities, respectively (exercise type effect and interaction, all P = 0.134). Heart rate and oxygen consumption were greater in table tennis than in cycling at both light and moderate intensities (all P = 0.047). No difference in core body temperature was recorded between the exercise types (P = 0.227), but skin temperature was lower in table tennis than in cycling in both intensities (both P = 0.034). Chest sweat rate was slightly greater in table tennis than in cycling at moderate intensity (P = 0.060). Conclusion. - These results suggest that the cardiopulmonary and thermoregulatory responses of table tennis were greater than those of cycling even at similar RPE. (C) 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.