Why the study?
Do prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric warm-up schemes improve jump, sprint, and agility performance in collegiate soccer players compared to dynamic stretching or no conditioning?
Do prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric warm-up schemes improve jump, sprint, and agility performance in collegiate soccer players compared to dynamic stretching or no conditioning?
Prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric warm-up using bodyweight showed similar benefits to dynamic stretching in countermovement jump performance, while adding a 30% bodyweight load yielded similar speed and agility effects as dynamic stretching.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dynamic stretching improves CMJ more than no conditioning or loaded isometric warm-up in soccer players; supports its prioritization in pre-activity routines and extends warm-up protocol comparisons.
The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of different warm-up interventions on jump, sprint and agility performance in collegiate soccer players. Twenty-one healthy male college soccer players (age: 20.14 ± 1.65 years; body height: 179.9 ± 8.34 cm; body mass: 74.4 ± 13.0 kg; % body fat: 9.45 ± 4.8) participated in the study. Subjects underwent four different randomized warm-up protocols separated by at least 48 hours. The warm-up schemes were: 1. no conditioning contraction protocol (NCC); 2. dynamic stretching (DS); 3. prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric exercise (ST); and, 4. ST with an additional external load equal to 30% of body weight (ST + 30% BW). All interventions were preceded by a general warm-up. Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in countermovement jump (CMJ) at F(3,60) = 10.2, ηρ(2) = 0.337, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in CMJ performance in DS when compared to NCC and ST + 30% BW. No significant difference in CMJ was observed between DS and ST. CMJ scores in NCC, ST, and ST + 30% BW were non-significant. There was a significant difference in speed; F(3, 60) = 6.61, ηρ(2) = 0.248, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed significantly better time in DS than NCC and ST. However, no difference in speed was observed between DS and ST + 30% BW. Similarly, speed was similar in NCC, ST and ST + 30% BW. A significant difference in agility performance was also observed; F(3, 60) = 24.1, ηρ(2)= 0.546, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed significantly greater performance gains in DS than NCC. No significant difference in agility was observed in DS, ST and ST + 30% BW. In conclusion, a prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric protocol using bodyweight only showed similar benefits with dynamic stretching in countermovement jump performance. When the same isometric condition with additional load equal to 30% of bodyweight was applied, effects in speed and agility were similar to dynamic stretching.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pojskić et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: