Wilson Cody J, Nunes João Pedro, Blazevich Anthony J
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
J Sport Health Sci. 2025 Jan 25:101024. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101024.
While muscle contractility increases with muscle temperature, there is no consensus on the best warm-up protocol to use before resistance training or sports exercise due to the range of possible warm-up and testing combinations available. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the effects of different warm-up types (active, exercise-based vs. passive) on muscle function tested using different activation methods (voluntary vs. evoked) and performance test criteria (maximum force vs. rate-dependent contractile properties), with consideration of warm-up task specificity (specific vs. non-specific), temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin), baseline temperatures, and subject-specific variables (training status and sex).
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ProQuest. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute the effect sizes (ES) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) to examine the effects of warm-up type, activation method, performance criterion, subject characteristics, and study design on temperature-related performance enhancement.
The search yielded 1272 articles, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria (n = 921). Increasing temperature positively affected both voluntary (3.7 % ± 1.8 %/°C, ES = 0.28 (95 %CI: 0.14, 0.41)) and evoked (3.2 % ± 1.5 %/°C, ES = 0.65 (95 %CI: 0.29, 1.00)) rate-dependent contractile properties (dynamic, fast-velocity force production, and rate of force development (RFD)) but not maximum force production (voluntary: -0.2 % ± 0.9 %/°C, ES = 0.08 (95 %CI: -0.05, 0.22); evoked: -0.1 % ± 0.8 %/°C, ES = -0.20 (95 %CI: -0.50, 0.10)). Active warm-up did not induce greater enhancements in rate-dependent contractile properties (p = 0.284), maximum force production (p = 0.723), or overall function (pooled, p = 0.093) than passive warm-up. Meta-regressions did not reveal a significant effect of study design, temperature measurement method, warm-up task specificity, training status, or sex on the effect of increasing temperature (p > 0.05).
Increasing muscle temperature significantly enhances rate-dependent contractile function (RFD and muscle power) but not maximum force in both evoked and voluntary contractions. In contrast to expectation, no effects of warm-up modality (active vs. passive) or temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin) were detected, although insufficient data prevented robust sub-group analyses.
虽然肌肉收缩力会随着肌肉温度的升高而增加，但由于存在多种可能的热身和测试组合，对于在力量训练或体育锻炼前使用哪种最佳热身方案，目前尚无共识。因此，本研究的目的是确定不同类型的热身（主动、基于运动的与被动）对使用不同激活方法（自主与诱发）和性能测试标准（最大力量与速率依赖性收缩特性）测试的肌肉功能的影响，同时考虑热身任务特异性（特定与非特定）、温度测量方法（肌肉与皮肤）、基线温度以及个体特异性变量（训练状态和性别）。
在PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane、Embase和ProQuest中进行了系统检索。使用随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归来计算效应大小（ES）和95%置信区间（95%CI），以检验热身类型、激活方法、性能标准、个体特征和研究设计对与温度相关的性能增强的影响。
检索共获得1272篇文章，其中33篇符合纳入标准（n = 921）。温度升高对自主（3.7% ± 1.8%/°C，ES = 0.28（95%CI：0.14，0.41））和诱发（3.2% ± 1.5%/°C，ES = 0.65（95%CI：0.29，1.00））速率依赖性收缩特性（动态、快速力量产生和力量发展速率（RFD））有积极影响，但对最大力量产生没有影响（自主：-0.2% ± 0.9%/°C，ES = 0.08（95%CI：-0.05，0.22）；诱发：-0.1% ± 0.8%/°C，ES = -0.20（95%CI：-0.50，0.10））。主动热身在速率依赖性收缩特性（p = 0.284）、最大力量产生（p = 0.723）或整体功能（汇总，p = 0.093）方面并没有比被动热身带来更大的增强。荟萃回归未发现研究设计、温度测量方法、热身任务特异性、训练状态或性别对温度升高的影响有显著作用（p > 0.05）。
肌肉温度升高显著增强了诱发和自主收缩中的速率依赖性收缩功能（RFD和肌肉力量），但对最大力量没有影响。与预期相反，未检测到热身方式（主动与被动）或温度测量方法（肌肉与皮肤）的影响，尽管数据不足无法进行有力的亚组分析。
