EVIDENCE-BASED
PRACTICE:
WARM UP METHODS AND PROTOCOLS
The benefits or otherwise of warming up before physical activity are much debated. So what does the
science say is the best way to prepare clients for sessions?
WORDS: DR MARK MCKEAN PhD
here is ongoing discussion around the value and type of
warm up suited to different types of training activity. The
typical aerobic activity warm up has been the mainstay of
this process for years, but has recently been considered less
effective than previously thought. As training activities continue to
evolve, so too have the warm ups associated with them. While it has
always been accepted as best practice, the warm
up must be progressive and develop the intensity
and movements to create a change in the human
physiology that prepares it for the actual training
to follow.
Over the past ten years a more diverse
approach to warming up has developed across
the multiple training environments, but is often
based on opinion rather than evidence.
T
Aerobic activity
Warming up via aerobic activity
for a stretching session appears
to have little or no value, with
several studies showing a warm
up did not increase effectiveness
of static stretching and range of
motion (ROM) (de Weijer 2003).
Long-duration
low-intensity
(15 minutes at 40 per cent
VO2 max) general warm up
improved 1RM performance
in strength-trained individuals
by 3 per cent, but the longduration moderate-intensity
condition (15 minutes
at 60 per cent
VO2
max)
36 | NETWORK SUMMER 2016
reduced 1RM values on average by 4 per cent (Barosso et al. 2013).
An aerobic warm up has been shown to improve performance
by reducing the anaerobic contribution to sprint cycling max
performance (Wittekind et al. 2012). Similarly, a warm up of lower
intensity and shorter duration was shown to elicit less physiological
strain and produce higher power in initial stages of max rowing trial
(Mujika et al. 2012).
Stretching
The current evidence surrounding stretching pre or post-exercise
is that it does not provide any reduction in muscle soreness or
injury occurrence. Herbert and Gabriel in a systematic review
(2006) question the value and quality of most research in this field,
and most research has focused solely on the acute stretching
protocols rather than the chronic effect of stretching and its
value on injury prevention. Thacker et al. (2004) also concluded
that there was not sufficient evidence in the current literature to
endorse or continue routine stretching before or after exercise to
prevent injury. Another systematic review by Small et al. (2008)
clouds the issue further by concluding there was ‘moderate to
strong evidence that routine application of static stretching does
not reduce overall injury rates’ and yet there was ‘preliminary
evidence, that static stretching may reduce musculotendinous
injuries’. Several individual studies suggest aerobic warm up may
assist in improving flexibility, for example, static stretching has
been shown to be the most effective type of stretching to improve
hamstring flexibility (O’Sullivan et al. 2009).
Many studies have also compared the types of stretching and
the effect they have on performance. Samson et al. (2012) found no
difference between the effects of static and dynamic stretching on
sprint or countermovement jump height. A review by Kay et al. (2012)
showed that a short-duration acute static stretch held for less than
30 seconds had no detrimental effect on maximal strength, but that
stretches held for more than 60 seconds may affect eccentric strength.
This has been supported by other research showing short-duration
static stretching warm up has also had no effect on power outcomes
(Ackermann et al. 2015). Finally, a review by Kallerud (2013) on static
stretching reported detrimental effect on stretch shortening cycle
performance, whereas dynamic stretching showed no
negative effects. All effects were very low and
the value or differences between
outcomes were small.