Studies comparing warm-up procedures involving controlled dynamic movements (i.e., dynamic warm-up) with the traditional warm-up practice of performing a brief bout of light aerobic activity followed by static stretching exercises (i.e., static warm-up) show that the content of a particular warm-up protocol can impact subsequent exercise performance. However, little is known to date about the time window that exists after the completion of a standard warm-up for these performance differences to remain visible. Moreover, the need for sport-specific studies on what may constitute a preferred warm-up approach is now widely recognized.
Purpose The purpose of this study was (a) to compare the effects of a standardized static and dynamic warm-up protocol on selected performance measures, and (b) to examine the effects of three predetermined time intervals following the completion of the dynamic warm-up protocol on the same physical performance outcomes.
Methods Twenty female high school varsity soccer players (age: 16.05±0.83 yrs) participated in an initial protocol familiarization session and four randomly assigned experimental test sessions consisting of a 10-min static warm-up with a ≤ 2-min time window until performance testing (S2), and a 10-min dynamic warm-up with three different rest intervals (≤ 2-min [D2]; 5-min [D5]; 15-min [D15]) prior to testing. Both the static and dynamic warm-up protocols were adopted from Faigenbaum et al. (2005) and consisted of either 5 min of light jogging followed by 5 min of prescribed static stretching exercises, or 10 min of prescribed dynamic warm-up exercises that progressed from moderate to high intensity. The physical performance test battery included a standing long jump, a short distance (9.14-meters) sprint, and a sit-and-reach flexibility test. The order of the four different warm-up procedures was randomly assigned with individual test sessions separated by at least 48 hours.
Analysis/Results Data was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA including Duncan's new multiple range test for post hoc comparisons. Results indicate that D2 (1.97+0.07 sec) and D5 (1.97+0.08 sec) sprint times were faster compared to S2 (2.03+0.09 sec) and D15 (2.01+0.09 sec) (p<0.05). Standing long jump performance was better in D5 (180.85+17.67 cm) compared to D15 (176.28+19.56 cm) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference among the warm-up procedures for sit-and-reach flexibility scores (p>0.05).
Conclusions The present findings extend the empirical knowledge base about the performance modulating potential of static and dynamic warm-up protocols. Moreover, they offer valuable directions for improving the design and timing of warm-up procedures in modern soccer.