Revisiting the 'Whys' and 'Hows' of the Warm-Up: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

The warm-up is considered beneficial for increasing body temperature, stimulating the neuromuscular system and overall preparing the athletes for the demands of training sessions and competitions. Even when warm-up-derived benefits are slight and transient, they may still benefit preparedness for subsequent efforts. However, sports training and competition performance are highly affected by contextual factors (e.g., how is the opponent acting?), and it is not always clear what should be the preferred warm-up modalities, structure and load for each athlete and context. Further, we propose that the warm-up can also be used as a pedagogical and training moment. The warm-up may serve several different (albeit complementary) goals (e.g., rising body temperature, neuromuscular activation, attentional focus) and be performed under a plethora of different structures, modalities, and loads. The current commentary highlights the warm-up period as an opportunity to teach or improve certain skills or physical capacities, and not only as a preparation for the subsequent efforts. Moreover, the (justified) call for individualized warm-ups would benefit from educating athletes about exploring different warm-up tasks and loads, providing a broad foundation for future individualization of the warm-up and for more active, engaged, and well-informed participation of the athletes in deciding their own warm-up practices.

Acute Mechanical and Metabolic Responses to Different Resistance Training Protocols With Equated Volume Load.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of different resistance training protocols with equated volume load on acute mechanical and metabolic responses. METHODS: In a randomized order, 18 men performed 8 different training protocols in the bench press exercise consisting of (sets, repetitions, intensity, and interset recoveries) 3 × 16, 40% 1-repetition maximum (1RM), 2 and 5 minutes; 6 × 8, 40% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes; 3 × 8, 80% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes; and 6 × 4, 80% 1RM, 2 and 5 minutes. Volume load was equalized between protocols (1920 arbitrary units). Velocity loss and effort index were calculated during the session. Movement velocity against the 60% 1RM and blood lactate concentration pre-post exercise were used to assess the mechanical and metabolic responses, respectively. RESULTS: Resistance training protocols performed with heavy load (80% 1RM) resulted in a lower (P < .05) total number of repetitions (effect size = -2.44) and volume load (effect size = -1.79) than the scheduled ones when longer set configurations and shorter rest periods were used in the same protocol (ie, higher-training-density protocols). Protocols including a higher number of repetitions per set and shorter rest times induced higher velocity loss, effort index, and lactate concentrations than the rest of the protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that resistance training protocols with similar volume load but different training variables (ie, intensity, number of sets and repetitions, rest between sets) produce different responses. Implementing a lower number of repetitions per set and longer rest intervals is recommended to reduce the intrasession and postsession fatigue.

Microdosing: Old Wine in a New Bottle? Current State of Affairs and Future Avenues.

PURPOSE: Microdosing of exercise aims to deliver smaller daily training doses but at a higher weekly frequency, adding up to a similar weekly volume as in nonmicrodosed training. This commentary critically discusses this concept, which appears to be a rebranding of the "old" distributed practice of motor learning. DEVELOPMENT: We propose that microdosing should relate to the minimal dose that develops or at least maintains the selected capacities or skills as this training dose matters to practitioners, especially during the in-season period. Moreover, microdosing has been applied mainly to develop strength and endurance, but abilities such as sprinting and changing direction could also be microdosed, as well as technical-tactical skills. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of microdosing should be reframed to avoid redundancy with the concept of distributed practice while providing valuable information concerning the minimum doses that still generate the intended effects and the thresholds that determine whether a dose is "micro" or not.

Monitoring Training Volume Through Maximal Number of Repetitions or Velocity-Based Approach.

PURPOSE: This study aimed (1) to analyze the interindividual variability in the maximal number of repetitions (MNR) performed against a given relative load (percentage of 1-repetition maximum [%1RM]) and (2) to examine the relationship between the velocity loss (VL) magnitude and the percentage of completed repetitions with regard to the MNR (%Rep), when the %1RM is based on individual load-velocity relationships. METHODS: Following an assessment of 1RM strength and individual load-velocity relationships, 14 resistance-trained men completed 5 MNR tests against loads of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM in the Smith machine bench-press exercise. The relative loads were determined from the individual load-velocity relationship. RESULTS: Individual relationships between load and velocity displayed coefficients of determination (R2) ranging from .986 to .998. The MNR showed an interindividual coefficient of variation ranging from 8.6% to 33.1%, increasing as the %1RM increased. The relationship between %Rep and the magnitude of VL showed a general R2 of .92 to .94 between 50% and 80% 1RM, which decreased to .80 for 90% 1RM. The mean individual R2 values were between .97 and .99 for all loading conditions. The %Rep when a given percentage of VL was reached showed interindividual coefficient of variation values ranging from 5% to 20%, decreasing as the %Rep increased in each load condition. CONCLUSIONS: Setting a number of repetitions had acceptable interindividual variability, with moderate relative loads being adjusted based on the individual load-velocity relationship. However, to provide a more homogeneous level of effort between athletes, the VL approach should be considered, mainly when using individual VL-%Rep relationships.

Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance.

ABSTRACT: Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596-603, 2021-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 velocity-based training (VBT) programming models (linear programming [LP], undulating programming [UP], reverse programming [RP], and constant programming [CP]) on the physical performance of moderately strength-trained men. Forty-three young (age: 22.9 ± 4.8 years; body mass [BM]: 71.7 ± 7.6; full squat [SQ] relative strength 1.32 ± 0.29) subjects were randomly assigned to LP (gradually increase training intensity and decrease volume), UP (volume and intensity increase or decrease repeatedly), RP (gradually increases volume and decrease intensity), and CP (maintains constant volume and intensity) groups and followed an 8-week VBT intervention using the SQ exercise and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar relative average intensity (67.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), magnitude of velocity loss within the set (20%), number of sets (3), and interset recoveries (4 minutes) throughout the training program. Pre-training and post-training measurements included predicted SQ (1RM), average velocity attained for all loads common to pre-tests and post-tests (AV), average velocity for those loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pre-tests, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and 20-m sprint time (T20). No significant group × time interactions were observed for any of the variables analyzed. All groups obtained similar increases (shown in effect size values) in 1RM strength (LP: 0.88; UP: 0.54; RP: 0.62; CP: 0.51), velocity-load-related variables (LP: 0.74-4.15; UP: 0.46-5.04; RP: 0.36-3.71; CP: 0.74-3.23), CMJ height (LP: 0.35; UP: 0.53; RP: 0.49; CP: 0.34), and sprint performance (LP: 0.34; UP: 0.35; RP: 0.32; CP: 0.30). These results suggest that different VBT programming models induced similar physical performance gains in moderately strength-trained subjects.