Comparative effects of tabata-based HIIT modalities on physical performance in competitive table tennis players

Abstract

Background

This 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.

Methods

Twenty-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.

Results

Both 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.

Conclusion

Tabata-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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07403461), registered on 16/01/2026.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-026-01690-0.

Introduction

Regular physical activity has been consistently shown to improve both physical and psychological health, increasing metabolic regulation, hormonal balance, and overall well‑being [1–4]. Racquet sports such as tennis, badminton, and table tennis are characterized by intermittent, high‑intensity movements that require a combination of fast reaction time, rapid changes of direction, explosive lower extremity movements, and contributions from both aerobic and anaerobic energy systems [5]. Among these, table tennis uniquely features extremely short rally times (typically less than 4 s) combined with high technical demands and decision‑making speed, making physical preparation a critical determinant of performance outcomes [6, 7]. Given these demands, athletes must develop flexibility, agility, speed, jumping performance, and cardiovascular/respiratory efficiency. Recent systematic evidence suggests that high‑intensity interval training (HIIT) can improve VO₂max, sprint performance, and jumping ability in racket sports athletes, including table tennis and badminton players [8]. HIIT has also been shown to enhance aerobic capacity, speed, agility, and internal load responses when combined with sport‑specific practice in young tennis athletes [9, 10]. These findings support the utility of HIIT as a time‑efficient training strategy for improving multiple performance domains relevant to racket sports. High‑intensity interval training (HIIT) is widely recognized for its effectiveness in supporting metabolic and neuromuscular adaptations [11]. In particular, the Tabata method, consisting of eight repetitions of 20‑second maximal effort sessions with 10‑second rest intervals (approximately 4 min total), produces significant improvements in both the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems [12, 13]. This protocol was selected because it allows short, high‑intensity bouts that target ATP‑PC and glycolytic systems efficiently, making it particularly suitable for table tennis athletes who have limited training time due to high technical and tactical workloads. Mechanical benefits such as increased mitochondrial biogenesis, oxidative enzyme activity, type II muscle fiber activation, and improved oxygen utilization have been consistently demonstrated [8, 14, 15]. Moreover, the specific structure of the exercises in Tabata protocols plays a decisive role in shaping physiological and performance adaptations. Calisthenic and plyometric Tabata exercises intensively incorporate the stretch‑shortening cycle, promoting agility, jumping ability, reactive power, and flexibility through neuromuscular and musculotendinous improvements [16, 17]. In contrast, kettlebell‑based Tabata exercises emphasize explosive hip extension and posterior chain activation, placing mechanical and metabolic overload on the athlete and resulting in improvements in sprinting ability, anaerobic power, and endurance [18, 19]. Despite the increasing use of HIIT in racket sports, comparative studies examining the performance effects of calisthenic/plyometric versus kettlebell‑based Tabata protocols in table tennis players are scarce. Existing literature has generally examined HIIT effects in tennis players and other racket sports, often showing improvements in aerobic and anaerobic performance variables but without directly comparing different HIIT exercise modalities specific to table tennis performance demands. There remains uncertainty regarding the optimal HIIT structure for improving table tennis‑specific performance determinants. This study addresses this gap by directly comparing two different Tabata‑based HIIT approaches one using bodyweight calisthenic and plyometric exercises and the other using kettlebell movements on key performance determinants such as flexibility, agility, short‑distance sprinting, vertical jump performance, and VO₂max in table tennis athletes. By clarifying the modality‑specific responses of these two widely accessible and time‑efficient training methods, the findings of this study aim to guide coaches and practitioners in selecting the most appropriate Tabata‑based HIIT strategy based on their primary performance outcomes in table tennis. Therefore, this study offers a novel and practically applicable contribution to the sport‑specific conditioning literature.

Materials and methods

Participants

This study employed a pretest–posttest randomized controlled experimental design in accordance with CONSORT guidelines (Moher et al., 2001). Prior to data collection, participants were fully informed about the study procedures, and written consent was obtained in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Twenty-four male table tennis athletes participated in this study (mean age = 20.3 ± 1.5 years). All participants had at least 5 years of competitive experience and competed at the national level. The athletes were free from musculoskeletal injuries and provided written informed consent before participating. The sample size was calculated a priori using G*Power 3.1, based on a medium effect size (f = 0.25), α = 0.05, and power (1 − β) = 0.80 for repeated-measures ANOVA, which indicated a minimum of 12 participants per group [20]. Inclusion criteria required the absence of medical conditions or injuries, no current medication use, and right-hand dominance. These criteria were implemented to ensure sample homogeneity and minimize potential confounding variables that could influence physical performance outcomes. To safeguard against participant loss, an additional 25% of athletes were initially recruited. During the first visit, participants received detailed information about the study and signed informed consent forms. Training programs and performance test protocols were then explained. Pre-training performance tests were conducted during the second visit. After the intervention period, post-training performance assessments were performed 24–48 h following the final training session to avoid acute fatigue effects. A qualified table tennis coach contributed to the planning and execution of sport-specific exercises implemented throughout the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Karabük University (Decision No: 2024/1956,Date: 27.09.2024), and the study adhered to the updated World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (2013). The random assignment was executed using a computer-generated random sequence. In an effort to minimize the potential for assessment bias, the outcome assessors were kept unaware of the group assignment.

Research group

A total of 24 competitive table tennis athletes aged 18–24, who had been training regularly for at least three years and engaged in a minimum of three weekly training sessions, voluntarily participated in the study. All athletes were actively competing at the club level and reported no current injuries or health conditions that could affect their performance. Power analysis indicated that a minimum of 12 participants per group would be sufficient to achieve statistical power (effect size = 0.80; actual power = 0.89), confirming the adequacy of the sample size. Participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups. Group 1 (n = 12) completed a Tabata-based HIIT protocol incorporating calisthenic and plyometric exercises. Group 2 (n = 12) performed a Tabata protocol consisting solely of kettlebell swings. Both groups participated in 4-min Tabata style HIIT sessions three days per week for 8 weeks, in addition to their routine table tennis training. The protocol for Group 1 included bodyweight calisthenic and plyometric movements such as squat jumps, burpees, mountain climbers, jump lunges, and push-ups. Training followed the standard Tabata format of 20 s of maximal effort followed by 10 s of rest, across a total of eight intervals (4 min). Group 2 followed the same work rest schedule but performed only kettlebell swings. Kettlebell load was individually adjusted to enable maximal yet technically correct execution, aiming to enhance hip leg explosive strength and cardiovascular stress. All training sessions were performed in a controlled and consistent gym environment, at similar times of day, and under the supervision of the same certified coach. A standardized warm-up (10 min) preceded each session, and a structured cool-down and stretching routine followed to ensure uniformity in training application. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to study initiation. Although not designed as a clinical intervention study, the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki [21] and the responsible conduct of human-based sport science research.

Inclusion criteria

This study included competitive male table tennis athletes aged 18–24 who had been actively involved in table tennis training for at least three years and regularly participated in structured training sessions a minimum of three times per week. Participants were required to be free from chronic diseases and to have no history of major musculoskeletal injuries within the previous six months. Additionally, individuals had to be medically cleared to safely engage in high-intensity interval training (HIIT). All participants voluntarily agreed to take part in the study by signing an informed consent form and committing to consistent attendance throughout the intervention period.

Exclusion criteria

Athletes were excluded if they failed to attend more than 10% of the prescribed training sessions, were unable to continue due to injury or medical issues, or failed to comply with the study protocol. Participants who engaged in additional strength or conditioning programs outside the prescribed Tabata training were also removed to prevent confounding effects. For safety reasons, individuals exhibiting symptoms of acute injury, excessive fatigue, or any cardiovascular abnormality during the intervention were withdrawn from the study.

All athletes were first evaluated according to the predetermined eligibility criteria, and those who met the requirements were enrolled in the study (Registration). Baseline assessments were performed on all eligible participants prior to the intervention (Pre-intervention Data Collection). Thereafter, a familiarization session was conducted, and participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups (Assignment): Group 1 (n = 12) and Group 2 (n = 12). Both groups completed the prescribed exercise intervention three days per week for eight weeks (Follow-up). Upon completion of the training period, all outcome measurements were repeated using the same standardized procedures (Post-intervention Data Collection). Throughout the study, no participant was excluded or lost to follow-up; therefore, the final analysis included all 24 athletes initially randomized (Analysis).

Body composition assessments were conducted in the Sports Sciences Laboratory of Karabük University using a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analyzer (GAIA 359 Plus, Jawon Medical, Seoul, Korea). The device estimates body composition parameters by measuring tissue resistance to low-level electrical currents based on established bioimpedance principles. Body height and weight were also measured using the integrated measurement system, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated accordingly. To standardize measurement accuracy, participants were instructed to remove metal accessories and perform the test barefoot, ensuring full contact between the feet and the electrodes. Light training clothing was permitted, and all assessments were performed under similar environmental and hydration conditions. A schematic representation of the study's design and training protocols is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Experimental design of the study

Applied tests and measurements

Prior to all performance tests, participants completed a familiarization session to ensure proper understanding of test procedures and to minimize learning effects. Participants then completed a series of performance tests including flexibility, agility, vertical jump, sprint, and VO₂max assessments. Standardized protocols were followed for each test to ensure reliability and validity.

Body composition measurement

Body composition analysis was performed in the Human Performance Laboratory of the Hasan Doğan Faculty of Sports Sciences, Karabük University, using a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analyzer (GAIA 359 Plus, Jawon Medical, Seoul, Korea) [22]. This system allows the assessment of fat mass, fat-free mass, and total body water by estimating body composition variables based on the resistance of different tissues to low-intensity electric currents. In addition, body height, body weight, and body mass index (BMI) were obtained using the device's integrated measurement functions. To ensure accuracy and standardization, participants were tested barefoot with both feet in full contact with metal electrodes and were asked to remove all metal accessories before measurement. Lightweight athletic clothing was permitted, and all measurements were performed under similar environmental and hydration conditions in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines.

Flexibility test

Hamstring and lower back flexibility were assessed using the standardized sit-and-reach test [23], conducted with a commercial sit-and-reach box and in accordance with ACSM testing guidelines [1]. Participants sat barefoot with knees fully extended and feet placed 15 cm apart against the box. With hands overlapped, they reached forward slowly to avoid ballistic movement. After one familiarization trial, two official attempts were performed, and the highest score was recorded for analysis.

Agility

Agility performance was evaluated using the Illinois Agility Test, following established measurement procedures [24]. The course dimensions were 10 m × 5 m with three cones set at 3.3 m intervals along the midline. After familiarization and a standardized warm-up, each athlete completed two maximal trials with sufficient rest to prevent fatigue. The fastest time recorded via electronic timing was used in the analysis, reflecting change-of-direction speed relevant to table tennis performance.

Sprint Speed (30-m Sprint Test)

Linear sprint speed was assessed with a 30-m sprint from a standing start, using a photocell timing system (Fusion Smart Speed, Austria). The start and finish lines were clearly marked, and participants were instructed to sprint at maximal intensity throughout the entire distance. Two trials were conducted with 3–5 min of passive rest to minimize fatigue, and the best sprint time was recorded [25].

Vertical jump and anaerobic power

Lower-limb explosive power was assessed using a countermovement vertical jump performed on the Fusion Sport Smart Jump system. Participants kept their hands on their hips during the jump to avoid arm swing influence. Two maximal efforts were allowed with 30 s of rest, and the best performance was recorded. Peak and mean power outputs were calculated using validated equations based on jump height and body mass [26], with calculations performed using the Fusion Sport Smart Jump system software:

These parameters provide insights into neuromuscular performance associated with rapid movements in table tennis.

Aerobic capacity (VO₂max Estimation)

Cardiorespiratory endurance was assessed using the 20-m Progressive Shuttle Run Test (Beep Test), a widely validated method for indirect VO₂max estimation [23]. The protocol began at 8.5 km/h and increased by 0.5 km/h per stage. Athletes ran between two lines placed 20 m apart, maintaining pace with audio signals. The total number of completed stages was recorded and later used to estimate VO₂max using standardized equations. This test reflects the intermittent high-intensity aerobic demands of table tennis competition.

Training protocols

The intervention lasted 8 weeks, with two groups performing different Tabata-based HIIT protocols:

• Group 1: Calisthenic and plyometric exercises.

• Group 2: Kettlebell-based exercises.

Training intensity was monitored using a combination of heart rate monitors (Polar H10) and the Borg Perceived Exertion Rating (RPE) scale, ensuring participants reached ≥ 85% of their maximum heart rate during training intervals. Heart rate was not continuously monitored during each set, but sessions were supervised to ensure maximum effort and proper execution of exercises.

A detailed table (Fig. 1, Tables 1, 2, and 3) presents the full training protocol, including exercise type, duration, sets, rest intervals, and progression across 8 weeks.

Table 1.

Table tennis training program

Weeks	Training Duration	Training frequency	Movement Series
1–4 weeks	120 s × 10	3 days/week	Cross Kick Drills Parallel Kick Drills 2 FH Kick Drills Cross and Parallel Cut Kick Drills 3 Cross FH and 1 Parallel FH Slam and Parallel BH Cut Kick Drills 3 Cross BH Cut and 1 Parallel FH and BH Slam Kick Drills
5–8 weeks	120 s × 10 (kettlebell-based Tabata protocol)	3 days/week	Cross Kick Drills Parallel Kick Drills 2 FH Kick Drills Cross and Parallel Cut Kick Drills 3 Cross FH and 1 Parallel FH Slam and Parallel BH Cut Kick Drills 3 Cross BH Cut and 1 Parallel FH and BH Slam Kick Drills

Table 2.

Group 1 training program

Weeks	Training Duration	Training Frequency	Movement Series
1–4 Weeks	20 s × 8	3 days/week	Jumping lunges, burpee with star, mountain climbers, jumping squat, knee tucs, explosive surfer, knee push up, push up vs
5–8 Weeks	20 s × 8	3 days/week	Jumping lunges, burpee with star, mountain climbers, jumping squat, knee tucs, explosive surfer, knee push up, push up vs

Table 3.

Group 2 training program

Weeks	Training Duration	Training Frequency	Movement Series
1–4 weeks	20 s × 8	3 days/week	Kettlebell swing Accelerated swing Goblet squat
5–8 weeks	20 s × 8	3 days/week	Kettlebell swing Accelerated swing Goblet squat

For eight weeks, table tennis athletes completed a structured HIIT program in addition to their regular technical–tactical training. The Tabata protocol included eight 20-s bouts of high-intensity exercise with 10-s rest intervals, totaling four minutes per session [13]. Group 1 (n = 12) applied this protocol three days per week using selected calisthenic and plyometric exercises alongside their routine table tennis sessions (Table 2). Group 2 (n = 12) performed the same frequency and intensity of the Tabata protocol; however, all high-intensity bouts consisted of kettlebell-based exercises, including kettlebell swings, accelerated swings, and goblet squats [27]. In Group 2, all athletes performed the kettlebell-based exercises using an 8-kg kettlebell, which allowed maximal effort while maintaining proper technical execution [28]. Although participants’ body weights ranged from 48 to 84 kg, a fixed load was chosen to standardize the intervention across individuals. Future studies could consider individualized loads based on participants’ strength levels for a more tailored approach. The detailed structure of the training program is provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Data analysis

The data collected in this study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. Prior to conducting the primary analyses, all datasets were thoroughly reviewed to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of the data. The review included a rigorous assessment for missing values, outliers, and data entries that deviated from logical consistency. Participants who did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria or provided incomplete data were excluded from the analysis.

Participants were excluded from the analysis in the following cases

• If the participant did not consent or withdrew from the study.

• If the participant did not attend more than 20% of the planned training sessions.

• Participants with chronic illnesses, recent injuries, or pre-existing medical conditions were deemed ineligible to fully participate in the training activities.

Following the application of these criteria, a total of 24 participants were included in the final analysis to ensure a homogeneous sample in terms of participation and exposure to the training program. All statistical analyses were performed using a two-tailed tests with a 95% confidence level and a significance level of α = 0.05. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Outliers were defined as values exceeding |z|> 3; in total, 2 participants’ data points were removed from analyses. Effect sizes were calculated using both Hedges’ g and Cohen’s d. Hedges’ g was computed to account for small sample bias, but Cohen’s d is reported in tables for consistency with similar studies. The normality and homogeneity of variance hypotheses were examined using the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, respectively. The analyses showed that the data were normally distributed and the variances were homogeneous; therefore, parametric statistical methods were used. For each outcome variable, a two-way mixed-design ANOVA was performed, with between-group factors G1 and G2 and within-group factors from pre- and post-intervention time points. Where significant group × time interaction effects were identified, paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction were applied to examine subsequent simple effects. Statistical analysis of interaction effects was performed using F values, p values, and partial eta-squared (ηp²). Within-group changes were assessed using paired-sample t-tests. Percentage change was calculated using the following formula: Percentage change was calculated as: ((After − Before)/Before) × 100. Effect sizes are reported as Cohen's d or Hedges' g values, along with 95% confidence intervals. Initial equivalence between groups was verified by applying independent-sample t-tests. 95% confidence intervals were calculated to demonstrate the sensitivity and reliability of the estimated effects [29].

Data visualization and ınterpretation

Results were presented using tables and figures to visually show trends, differences, and variability between variables. These visualizations facilitated the interpretation of the effects of the intervention and supported a comprehensive understanding of the data

Ethical and procedural considerations in data analysis

To protect the confidentiality of participants, all analyses were performed on anonymized datasets. Data processing, unbiased analysis, and accurate reflection of the impact of the table tennis training program were conducted in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

Research ethics

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Karabük University under decision number 2024/E-77192459–050.99–376,986, dated September 2024. This study has been retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. (NCT07403461).

Results

Descriptive statistics for the athletes are presented in Table 4. Group 1 had a mean age of 19.75 ± 1.21 years, height of 167.00 ± 7.08 cm, body weight of 62.33 ± 11.88 kg, and BMI of 22.14 ± 2.48 kg/m². The corresponding values ​​for Group 2 were: age 20.92 ± 1.88 years, height 169.33 ± 7.57 cm, body weight of 67.50 ± 10.83 kg, and BMI of 23.32 ± 1.85 kg/m².

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics values ​​for table tennis players participating in the research

Variable	Group	N	Min	Max	Mean ± SD
Age (year)	Group 1	12	18	22	19.75 ± 1.21
	Group 2	12	18	24	20.92 ± 1.88
Height (cm)	Group 1	12	156	178	167.00 ± 7.08
	Group 2	12	159	182	169.33 ± 7.57
Body weight (kg)	Group 1	12	48	77	62.33 ± 11.88
	Group 2	12	52	84	67.50 ± 10.83
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)	Group 1	12	19.05	25.06	22.14 ± 2.48
	Group 2	12	20.57	26.09	23.32 ± 1.85

The following section presents a summary of within-group and between-group comparisons of performance variables before and after the 8-week training intervention, as detailed in Table 5. Significant pre- and post-inter-group improvements in flexibility were observed in both groups (G1: p < 0.001; G2: p < 0.001). The alterations in flexibility and VO₂max before and after the intervention for both groups are illustrated in Fig. 2. However, the group × time interaction was not significant (P3 = 0.375, ηp² = 0.036), indicating comparable flexibility gains between the two training methods. Cardiorespiratory performance, as measured by VO₂max, showed a statistically significant increase in Group 1 (p = 0.024), whereas the increase observed in Group 2 did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.240). Furthermore, the absence of a significant group × time interaction effect (P3 = 0.457, ηp² = 0.025) indicates that the difference between the two training modalities was not statistically significant. A significant improvement in agility performance was observed in Group 1 (p = 0.003), while no statistically significant change was detected in Group 2 (p = 0.111). Despite this within-group difference, the interaction effect was not found to be significant (P3 = 0.440, ηp² = 0.027). Both groups showed a significant improvement in vertical jump performance from pre-test to post-test (G1: p < 0.001; G2: p < 0.001). However, no significant group × time interaction effect was detected (P3 = 0.216, ηp² = 0.069), suggesting similar improvements between groups. The alterations in agility and vertical jump are demonstrated in Fig. 3. In contrast, a significant group × time interaction effect was observed for both peak power and mean power outputs (P3 < 0.001, ηp² ≈ 0.89 for both variables), supporting Group 1. These findings demonstrate a significantly greater improvement in strength-related performance variables in the gymnastics and plyometric exercise group. Sprint performance over 30 m showed a significant improvement in both groups (G1: p < 0.001; G2: p = 0.030). The interaction effect showed a significant improvement in Group 2, as evidenced by a significant P3 value of 0.001 and an effect size of 0.395. The alterations in peak power, mean power, and the 30-m sprint are demonstrated in Fig. 4. The findings show that both training regimens led to significant performance improvements; however, Group 1 showed superior improvements in agility and strength-related variables, while Group 2 showed superior gains in linear sprint performance.

Table 5.

Intra- and ınter-group comparison of the two exercise groups before and after training

		G1					G2					P3	np2
		Mean	S.D	%	d	P1	Mean	S.D	%	d	P2
Flexibility (cm)	Pre	30.41	3.75	10.42	0.816	0.000	32.66	3.75	8.42	0.731	0.000*	P = 0.375	0.036
	Post	33.58	3.14				35.41	3.77
VO2 max (ml/kg/min)	Pre	33.83	4.33	5.67	0.620	0.024	33.17	3.89	8.01	0.717	0.240	P = 0.457	0.025
	Post	35.75	4.09				35.83	3.52
Agility (sec)	Pre	13.33	2.92	12.52	0.610	0.003	14.67	2.97	27.26	0.687	0.111	P = 0.440	0.027
	Post	15.00	2.54				18.67	2.85
Vertical Jump (cm)	Pre	38.00	2.45	7.44	0.839	0.000	34.17	3.21	6.81	0.697	0.000*	P = 0.216	0.069
	Post	40.83	2.29				36.50	3.47
Peak Power (W)	Pre	6713.58	465.80	4.96	0.739	0.000	6628.58	396.07	2.72	0.456	0.000*	P = 0.000	0.892
	Post	7046.83	434.34				6809.33	395.71
Average Power (W)	Pre	947.46	286.16	12.04	0.406	0.000	973.42	396.67	6.36	0.186	0.000*	P = 0.000	0.895
	Post	1061.60	275.58				1035.33	251.15
30 m speed (sec)	Pre	5.11	0.24	−2.73	0.646	0.000	4.87	0.47	6.57	0.604	0.030	P = 0.001	0.395
	Post	4.97	0.19				4.55	0.21

Fig. 2.

Pre- and post-test comparisons of Group 1 (calisthenic and plyometric exercises) and Group 2 (kettlebell-based Tabata HIIT) for flexibility (cm) and VO₂max (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻.¹)

Fig. 3.

Pre- and post-test comparisons of Group 1 (calisthenic and plyometric exercises) and Group 2 (kettlebell-based Tabata HIIT) for agility (s) and vertical jump height (cm)

Fig. 4.

Pre- and post-test comparisons of Group 1 (calisthenic and plyometric exercises) and Group 2 (kettlebell-based Tabata HIIT) for peak power (W), mean power (W), and 30 m sprint performance (s)

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of two different Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) methods on selected physical and physiological performance variables in table tennis athletes. One method involved gymnastics and plyometric movements, while the other utilized kettlebell exercises. Over an eight-week intervention period, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in flexibility, VO₂max, agility, vertical jump, and sprint performance. However, due to the absence of a non-training control group, it cannot be definitively stated that the observed improvements were solely due to the interventions; regular table tennis training may also have contributed. The gymnastics/plyometric group showed a significant improvement in agility, flexibility, and jump performance. These improvements can be attributed to the repeated activation of the stretch–shortening cycle (SSC), a biomechanical mechanism that increases the efficiency of force production by storing elastic energy during eccentric muscle movements and releasing it during subsequent concentric contractions. The use of the SSC has been shown to be associated with increased neuromuscular coordination, accelerated rate of force development, and increased type II muscle fiber activation. These factors play a significant role in table tennis performance, where rapid change of direction, explosive lower extremity movements, and short displacement times are crucial. The current findings are consistent with the findings of previous studies. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in various racket sports. For example, Nagendrappa and Rakesh [30] reported improved aerobic capacity and agility in tennis players following HIIT, while Fan et al. [31] observed improvements in aerobic performance and reaction time in tennis athletes following a similar protocol. These findings support the results of the present study, which shows that both gymnastic/plyometric and kettlebell-based HIIT can deliver significant improvements in key performance variables in table tennis players. These findings support the results of the current study, which shows that both bodyweight/plyometric and kettlebell-based HIIT can deliver significant improvements in key performance variables in table tennis players. From a practical standpoint, coaches and practitioners can adapt Tabata-based HIIT protocols according to their targeted performance outcomes. Bodyweight bodyweight gymnastics and plyometric exercises may be particularly suitable for improving agility, vertical jump, and neuromuscular control, making them ideal during preparation or preseason periods. Kettlebell-based protocols, which emphasize posterior chain activation and hip extension, may be preferred in competitive phases to improve short-distance sprints, conditioning, and aerobic tolerance. The relatively short duration and minimal equipment requirements of Tabata training further facilitate its integration into regular table tennis sessions without causing excessive fatigue. As reported by Holmes et al. [32], plyometric and circuit-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) programs have been shown to lead to significant improvements in aerobic capacity and neuromuscular performance. Similarly, Söyler et al. [33] demonstrated that plyometric training increased anaerobic capacity and movement efficiency in young soccer players. In a recent study, Samdani et al. [34] examined the effect of combining plyometric and HIIT (high-intensity interval training) protocols on the physical performance of female athletes. Their findings showed that these combined training regimens led to significant improvements in several key parameters, including sprint acceleration, agility, and lower extremity strength. Additionally, Kavuran et al. [35] reported significant improvements in agility in volleyball players following a plyometric conditioning program. The current research supports the widespread view that high-intensity interval training (HIIT), which includes gymnastics and plyometric exercises, can elicit neuromuscular adaptations associated with improved table tennis performance. The flexibility gains observed in the gymnastics/plyometric group can be attributed to the repetitive application of dynamic, multi-plane bodyweight movements. These movements gradually increase joint range of motion and improve the viscoelastic properties of muscle–tendon structures. It has been shown that dynamic mobility tasks engage both agonist and antagonist muscle groups in functional movement patterns, which can increase flexibility tolerance and movement efficiency. The validity of these mechanisms is further supported by the findings of previous research. For example, McDaniel et al. [36] reported significant gains in cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition following high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in water,Machado et al. [37] described bodyweight HIIT as an effective approach that can simultaneously increase strength, endurance, and flexibility. In contrast, kettlebell swings showed significant improvements in sprint performance. This finding may be related to the biomechanical properties of kettlebell swings, which involve rapid and powerful hip extension patterns that activate the posterior kinetic chain, including the hamstrings, gluteus maximus, and erector spinae muscles. These muscle groups have been shown to be closely related to lateral force generation and acceleration capacity, which are key determinants of sprint speed. Furthermore, kettlebell exercises enhance both anaerobic and aerobic performance by placing significant cardiovascular and metabolic demands. As noted by Fortner et al. [28], the high metabolic load of Tabata-based kettlebell swings is well-documented. Similarly, Williams and Kraemer [38] observed physiological responses similar to those seen in sprint cycling. Furthermore, a study by Junior et al. [39] documented increases in neuromuscular strength after kettlebell swing training,and Sturdy and Astorino [40] reported increased metabolic responses after complex kettlebell conditioning protocols. The study results revealed changes in aerobic capacity in both experimental groups. This observation is consistent with well-documented physiological adaptations associated with high-intensity interval training, namely increased mitochondrial biogenesis, increased oxidative enzyme activity, and increased oxygen uptake kinetics. Importantly, even short-duration, high-intensity training regimens such as Tabata training have been shown to deliver significant improvements in aerobic fitness [13]. Cin and Çabuk’s [41] study similarly showed that gymnastics-based Tabata programs increased both muscle endurance and aerobic performance in athletes. These findings underscore the effectiveness of bodyweight and kettlebell-based Tabata formats in improving cardiorespiratory efficiency. The experimental groups showed a significant improvement in vertical jump height and overall power output, and no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. This finding suggests that Tabata-style high-intensity interval training (HIIT), whether performed with bodyweight exercises or kettlebell movements, can increase lower body strength through different but similarly effective neuromuscular pathways. This interpretation is also supported by existing research; Machado et al. [37] reported increases in strength and endurance after bodyweight-based HIIT, while Junior et al. [39] observed an increase in power output after kettlebell swing training. The findings revealed an improvement in aerobic capacity following the intervention. However, this increase reached statistical significance only in the calisthenic/plyometric group, while the improvement observed in the kettlebell group did not reach statistical significance. In addition, no significant group × time interaction effect was found, indicating that the two training modalities did not differ significantly in their effects on VO₂max.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an efficient and adaptable training strategy for addressing multiple performance components required in table tennis, such as explosive movements, rapid changes of direction, and sustained high-intensity play. The findings show that the specific exercise method implemented within the Tabata framework plays a crucial role in shaping performance adaptations. The calisthenic/plyometric program resulted in significant improvements in agility, flexibility, and vertical jump height. These attributes are closely related to rapid footwork, reach efficiency, and ball striking position. In contrast, while the kettlebell-based Tabata approach was associated with improvements in short-distance sprint performance, changes in aerobic capacity were observed, but no significant difference was found between the groups. These adaptations can facilitate faster transitions and more effective maintenance of rally intensity during competitive matches. From a pragmatic perspective, coaches and practitioners can tailor the content of Tabata-based HIIT to their targeted performance goals. It has been suggested that bodyweight-based training may be particularly suitable during training phases that emphasize neuromuscular development. For example, this type of training can be particularly beneficial during preparation or preseason periods. Conversely, kettlebell-based Tabata protocols may be more suitable for improving conditioning and aerobic tolerance in competitive phases. Furthermore, the relatively short duration and minimal equipment requirements of Tabata training facilitate its integration into regular table tennis training programs without requiring excessive time or causing fatigue.This study demonstrates that short but methodical Tabata-style high-intensity interval training (HIIT) regimens can provide significant neuromuscular and metabolic adaptations and highlights its effectiveness as a complementary training method in table tennis performance programs..

Limitations

Interpreting the findings of this study requires consideration of several limitations. The sample size was modest (n = 24) and included only young adult male table tennis players. This limits the generalizability of the results to other age groups, competition levels, and female athletes. While the intervention yielded significant results over an eight-week period, further research is needed to determine the long-term sustainability of these adaptations or potential pathways for further improvement. Furthermore, external factors such as daily training load, recovery status, and nutritional habits were not objectively monitored, which may have influenced individual responses. Finally, performance variables such as agility, sprint speed, and jumping ability were assessed using field-based tests rather than laboratory-based biomechanical systems, which may have limited measurement accuracy. In conclusion, to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the physiological and performance-specific effects of various methods of Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT), subsequent research studies should utilize larger and more heterogeneous sample groups, longer intervention durations, and the latest assessment technologies.

Recommendations

• Longer intervention periods: Extending Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) programs beyond short durations will provide greater clarity on whether differences in performance adaptations between kettlebell-based and bodyweight routines become more pronounced over longer training periods.

• Diverse competition levels: Applying these Tabata protocols to athletes at different competition levels (e.g., elite and amateur players) can illuminate whether training response varies depending on competitive experience or baseline fitness status.

• Wider age ranges: Inclusion of both young and older table tennis players can facilitate the determination of how age-related and developmental factors influence physiological and neuromuscular adaptations to each HIIT method.

Conducting such research will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term effects of different Tabata-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) approaches on table tennis performance. By identifying which performance components each training style primarily targets, practitioners can be better equipped to strategically tailor high-intensity protocols to the specific physiological and technical requirements of a sport.

Authors’ contributions

MEU and AHC designed the study. MEU and AHC conducted the experiments and collected the data. MEU and AHC analyzed and interpreted the data. MEU and AHC drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

All datasets on which the results of this article were based are included within the manuscript and its supplementary materials.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Karabük University (Decision No: 2024/E-77192459–050.99–376986, September 2024). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. No identifiable individual data, images, or personal clinical information are included in this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.