Key result
High-intensity endurance priming shows no benefit over traditional warm-up for sprint time-trial performance.
Why the study?
The study investigated the influence of including a competition-specific high-intensity endurance priming bout during warm-up on sprint time-trial performance in roller-ski skating among cross-country skiers.
Does a high-intensity endurance priming warm-up improve sprint time-trial performance in cross-country skiers?
RCT (n=12)
Open-label
Counterbalanced order
No
Does a high-intensity endurance priming warm-up improve sprint time-trial performance in cross-country skiers?
Absolute Event Rate: 169.6% vs 169.8%
p-value: p=0.885
Including a competition-specific high-intensity priming bout during warm-up did not enhance sprint time-trial performance compared to a traditional warm-up in cross-country skiers.
Traditional warm-up suffices for cross-country sprint performance; challenges benefit of adding high-intensity endurance priming.
Purpose This study investigated the influence of including a competition-specific high-intensity endurance priming bout during warm-up on sprint time-trial (TT) performance in roller-ski skating among cross-country (XC) skiers. Methods Twelve national-level XC skiers (2 women) completed two different warm-up protocols in counterbalanced order on two consecutive days. At each test day, the warm-ups were followed by two 1.2-km sprint TTs (TT1 and TT2) separated by 30 min of active recovery. Both warm-up protocols consisted of five laps at low to moderate intensities followed by a final lap including either a ~ 2-min high-intensity competition-specific priming (PRIM) or low-intensity exercise (TRAD). Speed and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously while rating of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg 6–20), perceived readiness and technical quality (scale 1–10) were assessed after warm-ups and TTs. After day two, participants rated how they perceived each warm-up in preparing them for performance. Results Performance did not differ between TRAD and PRIM in TT1 (169.8 ± 18.4 vs. 169.6 ± 17.2 s, P = .885) or TT2 (166.6 ± 16.1 vs. 168.9 ± 16.8 s, P = .105). Within TRAD, performance improved in TT2 vs. TT1 (166.6 ± 16.1 vs. 169.8 ± 18.4 s, P = .008), accompanied with higher HR (175 ± 6 vs. 173 ± 6 beats·min⁻ 1 , P = .005), RPE (18.7 ± 0.9 vs. 18.0 ± 0.9, P = .033) and perceived technical quality (7.7 ± 1.0 vs. 6.8 ± 1.4, P = .031). No differences between TTs were observed within PRIM. Athletes perceived PRIM as more beneficial in preparing them to perform than TRAD (8.0 ± 1.5 vs. 4.6 ± 1.6, P = .003). Conclusion Including a competition-specific high-intensity priming bout during warm-up did not enhance sprint TT performance compared to a traditional warm-up but was perceived as more beneficial in preparing the skiers to perform.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harju et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Healthy national-level cross-country skiers (n=12). High-intensity endurance priming warm-up (PRIM) vs. Traditional warm-up (TRAD) with 6 laps of low/moderate intensity was evaluated on Sprint time-trial 1 (TT1) performance time in seconds (p=0.885). Including a 2-minute high-intensity endurance priming bout during warm-up did not significantly improve sprint time-trial performance compared to a traditional warm-up (169.6 vs 169.8 seconds).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: