Division of Sports Science & Medicine, Graduate School of Physical Education, Athletic Training Laboratory, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Korea.
Physical Education, Graduate School, Athletic Training Laboratory, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Korea.
PLoS One. 2024 Jan 11;19(1):e0295537. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295537. eCollection 2024.
It is unclear whether temperature-related warm-up effects can be accomplished by passive warm-up (e.g., by external heat). Therefore, this study compared the effects of two different warm-up protocols with and without voluntary contraction on subsequent sprinting and jumping performance. Eighteen healthy male collegiate students (23.3 ± 2.4 years, 173.8 ± 7.2 cm, 70.5 ± 9.3 kg) randomly experienced 10 min of active (jogging on a treadmill; belt speed: 9.0 km/h at a 1% incline) and passive warm-up (lying down in the warm-up chamber; inner ambient temperature set at 35°C) protocols, followed by ten sets of intermittent exercises in two separate sessions. Athletic performance, lower-leg muscle temperature, and blood lactate concentration were statistically compared using analysis of variance with Tukey-Kramer post-hoc comparisons. Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were also calculated. There was no warm-up protocol effect over time on 20 m sprint times (condition × time: F9,323 = 1.26, p = 0.25). Maximal vertical jump heights were different (condition × time: F9,323 = 2.0, p = 0.04) such that subjects who performed the active warm-up protocol jumped higher (51.4 cm) than those who did the passive warm-up (49.2 cm, p = 0.04). There was a warm-up protocol effect over time on lower-leg muscle temperature (condition × time: F12,425 = 13.99, p<0.0001) in that there was a 5.5% and 5.8% increase after active (32.8 to 34.6°C, ES = 2.91) and passive (32.9 to 34.9°C, ES = 3.28) warm-up protocols, respectively. Blood lactate concentration was different (condition × time: F2,85 = 3.61, p = 0.03) since the values at the post-warm-up measurements were different between warm-up conditions (active: 4.1 mmol/L; passive: 1.5 mmol/L, p = 0.004, ES = 1.69). Subsequent sprint and jump performance did not differ between the duration- and muscle temperature-matched active and passive warm-up protocols. Non-thermal effects from the warm-up activity may be minimal for sprinting and jumping performance in recreationally active males.
目前尚不清楚温度相关的热身效果是否可以通过被动热身(例如外部加热)来实现。因此,本研究比较了两种不同的热身方案,一种有自主收缩,另一种没有自主收缩,以评估它们对后续短跑和跳跃表现的影响。18 名健康的男性大学生(23.3±2.4 岁,173.8±7.2cm,70.5±9.3kg)随机接受 10 分钟的主动热身(在跑步机上慢跑;带速:9.0km/h,1%坡度)和被动热身(躺在预热室中;室内环境温度设定为 35°C),随后在两个不同的时间段内进行十组间歇运动。使用方差分析和 Tukey-Kramer 事后比较统计比较运动表现、小腿肌肉温度和血乳酸浓度。还计算了 Cohen's d 效应量(ES)。20m 冲刺时间在不同的热身方案和时间之间没有差异(条件×时间:F9,323=1.26,p=0.25)。最大垂直跳跃高度不同(条件×时间:F9,323=2.0,p=0.04),进行主动热身的受试者(51.4cm)比进行被动热身的受试者(49.2cm,p=0.04)跳得更高。小腿肌肉温度在不同的热身方案和时间之间存在差异(条件×时间:F12,425=13.99,p<0.0001),主动热身(32.8 至 34.6°C,ES=2.91)和被动热身(32.9 至 34.9°C,ES=3.28)后分别增加了 5.5%和 5.8%。血乳酸浓度不同(条件×时间:F2,85=3.61,p=0.03),因为热身条件下的后测值不同(主动:4.1mmol/L;被动:1.5mmol/L,p=0.004,ES=1.69)。在两种热身方案中,短跑和跳跃表现没有差异。在娱乐性活动的男性中,热身活动的非热效应可能对短跑和跳跃表现的影响最小。