↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Warm-Up, Post-Warm-Up, and Re-Warm-Up Strategies on Explosive Efforts in Team Sports: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
108 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
623 Mendeley
Title
Effects of Warm-Up, Post-Warm-Up, and Re-Warm-Up Strategies on Explosive Efforts in Team Sports: A Systematic Review
Published in
Sports Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0958-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luís Miguel Silva, Henrique Pereira Neiva, Mário Cardoso Marques, Mikel Izquierdo, Daniel Almeida Marinho

Abstract

In team sports, it is imperative that the warm-up improves acute explosive performance. However, the exact strategies, methods, and consequences of different warm-up practices remain unclear. A time delay between the warm-up and match and during half-time could negate the positive metabolic effects of the warm-up. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize and analyze the potential effects of strategies during a warm-up (before match), post-warm-up (time between the end of warm-up and the start of a match), and re-warm-up (half-time break within a match) on explosive performance in team sports. Furthermore, we examined optimal warm-up strategies based on the included studies. We performed a search of four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect) for original research articles published between January 1981 and August 2017. A total of 30 articles met the inclusion criteria, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The results of the included studies were recalculated to determine effect sizes using Cohen's d. A warm-up comprising 8 sets of 60-m sprints (- 2.19%, d = 1.20) improved sprint performance. Additionally, 7 min of dynamic exercises after 5 min of jogging improved sprint (- 7.69%, d = 1.72), jumping (8.61%, d = 0.61), and agility performance (- 6.65%, d = 1.40). The use of small-sided games also seems to be a valid strategy, especially for jumping performance (6%, d = 0.8). These benefits resulted from the warm-up strategies combined with some passive rest (between 2 and 10 min) before the main performance. In this post-warm-up period, the use of heated garments could result in better outcomes than simple rest (- 0.89%, d = 0.39). However, if the transition was longer than 15 min, before entering the match, performing a re-warm-up with short-term explosive tasks to reactivate was the most effective approach (- 1.97%, d = - 0.86). At half-time, heated garments maintained better sprint (- 1.45%, d = 2.21) and jumping performance (3.13%, d = 1.62). Applying properly structured strategies in the warm-up and avoiding a long rest in the post-warm-up improves explosive performance. Studies tend to recommend a short active warm-up strategy (10-15 min), gradually increasing intensity (~ 50-90% of maximum heart rate), and the use of heated garments soon after the warm-up to maintain muscle temperature. However, 2 min of active re-warm-up with short-term sprints and jumps should be needed for transitions longer than 15 min (~ 90% of maximum heart rate). Last, at the half-time re-warm-up, combining heated garments to maintain muscle temperature and performing an active strategy, with explosive tasks or small-sided games for 5 min before re-entering the game, resulted in better explosive performance than 15 min of resting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 623 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 623 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 112 18%
Student > Master 89 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 5%
Researcher 29 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 4%
Other 105 17%
Unknown 231 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 249 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 5%
Unspecified 18 3%
Social Sciences 7 1%
Other 32 5%
Unknown 250 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#416,497
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#405
of 2,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,096
of 334,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.