Abreu Marco, Nakamura Fábio Y, Carvalho Thiago, Silva Davi, Vasconcellos Fabrício, Afonso José
Centre of Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto (FADEUP), 4200-450 Porto, Portugal.
Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), University of Maia, 4475-690 Maia, Portugal.
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2025 Jul 16;10(3):270. doi: 10.3390/jfmk10030270.
We compared the effects of two active re-warm-up protocols applied during halftime's last three minutes, after a warm-up, testing, and a simulated first-half match. Twenty-two professional players from a first Portuguese division club were randomized into two re-warm-up protocols during a simulated match interval: (i) a strength, plyometrics, and balance protocol (SPBP); and (ii) a soccer-specific protocol (SSP). Players were assessed for a 20-m linear sprint and countermovement jump (CMJ) after the warm-up and the re-warm-up. Descriptive statistics and mixed ANOVA were performed, with effect size assessed using partial eta-squared. The Acute Readiness Monitoring Scale (ARMS) questionnaire was administered after the simulated match and re-warm-up and was analyzed using a multifactorial ANOVA. No significant interaction effects were observed ( > 0.05). Comparing pre-match to post-re-warm-up, there was a slight decrease in sprint (significant) and jump performance (non-significant). Additionally, there were no between-protocol differences in perceived readiness (ARMS). After the three-minute re-warm-up protocols, similar results were observed in the 20-m sprint performance, CMJ, and perceived readiness when comparing SPBP and SSP. These re-warm-up protocols (SPBP and SSP) are practical to implement within a 3-min time window, and, given their apparent lack of differences, players' preferences could be considered. However, the SSP is currently subject to restrictions that limit teams' access to the field during this period. Future research should compare active re-warm-up protocols with passive controls to more clearly assess their effectiveness.
在进行了热身、测试以及模拟的上半场比赛后，我们比较了在中场休息最后三分钟应用的两种主动复温方案的效果。来自一家葡萄牙顶级联赛俱乐部的22名职业球员在模拟比赛间歇期被随机分为两种复温方案：（i）力量、增强式训练和平衡方案（SPBP）；以及（ii）足球专项方案（SSP）。在热身和复温后，对球员进行20米直线冲刺和纵跳（CMJ）测试。进行描述性统计和混合方差分析，并使用偏 eta 平方评估效应大小。在模拟比赛和复温后发放急性准备状态监测量表（ARMS）问卷，并使用多因素方差分析进行分析。未观察到显著的交互作用效应（>0.05）。将赛前与复温后进行比较，冲刺成绩（显著）和跳跃成绩（不显著）略有下降。此外，在感知准备状态（ARMS）方面，两种方案之间没有差异。在三分钟的复温方案后，比较SPBP和SSP时，在20米冲刺成绩、CMJ和感知准备状态方面观察到了相似的结果。这些复温方案（SPBP和SSP）在3分钟的时间窗口内实施起来很实用，而且鉴于它们明显没有差异，可以考虑球员的偏好。然而，目前SSP受到限制，在此期间限制球队进入场地。未来的研究应该将主动复温方案与被动对照进行比较，以更清楚地评估它们的有效性。
