| Literature DB >> 28662123 |
Eduardo Abade1,2, Jaime Sampaio1,3, Bruno Gonçalves1,3, Jorge Baptista1,2, Alberto Alves1,2, João Viana1,2.
Abstract
Warm up routines are commonly used to optimize football performance and prevent injuries. Yet, official pre-match protocols may require players to passively rest for approximately 10 to 15 minutes between the warm up and the beginning of the match. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the effect of different re-warm up activities on the physical performance of football players. Twenty-Two Portuguese elite under-19 football players participated in the study conducted during the competitive season. Different re-warm up protocols were performed 6 minutes after the same standardized warm up in 4 consecutive days in a crossover controlled approach: without, eccentric, plyometric and repeated changes of direction. Vertical jump and Sprint performances were tested immediately after warm up and 12 minutes after warm up. Results showed that repeated changes of direction and plyometrics presented beneficial effects to jump and sprint. Different practical implications may be taken from the eccentric protocol since a vertical jump impairment was observed, suggesting a possibly harmful effect. The absence of re-warm up activities may be detrimental to players' physical performance. However, the inclusion of re-warm up prior to match is a complex issue, since the manipulation of volume, intensity and recovery may positively or negatively affect the subsequent performance. In fact, this exploratory study shows that eccentric exercise may be harmful for physical performance when performed prior a football match. However, plyometric and repeated changes of direction exercises seem to be simple, quick and efficient activities to attenuate losses in vertical jump and sprint capacity after warm up. Coaches should aim to develop individual optimal exercise modes in order to optimize physical performance after re warm activities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28662123 PMCID: PMC5491134 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic representation of experimental design.
The both Post-WU (immediately after WU) and R-WU (12 minutes after WU) evaluations tests were included to assess differences in R-WU protocols. The R-WU activities were completed in randomized sequence across 4 days.
Fig 2Individual and mean changes from post-WU to R-WU for counter movement jump (CMJ), Abalakov jump (AJ), 10-m and 20-m- sprint.
Percentage variations (Δ%) are expressed as mean±std. Black lines represents the group mean changes while grey represents individual changes.
Fig 3Standardised Cohen’s differences for counter movement jump (CMJ), Abalakov jump (AJ), 10-m and 20-m- sprint according to R-WU activities comparisons.
Error bars indicate uncertainty in true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. Note: since lower time in sprint protocols are related with better performance, the outcomes for 10-m and 20-m were changed from negative to positive, and vice-versa. This decision was made for a better interpretation of the results.
Inferences for the re-WU interventions on players’ performance measures.
| Variables | Groups | Group comparison outcomes as: | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plyometric | Rcod | Eccentric | ||
| CMJ | Control | 3.8; ±1.8 | 3.5; ±2.6 | -1.8; ±2.7 |
| 0/10/90 | 0/25/75 | 35/65/1 | ||
| likely beneficial | likely beneficial | possibly harmful | ||
| Plyometric | - | -0.3; ±2.0 | -5.3; ±2.2 | |
| - | 6/92/2 | 99/1/0 | ||
| - | likely trivial | very likely harmful | ||
| Rcod | - | - | -5.1; ±2.1 | |
| - | - | 98/2/0 | ||
| - | - | very likely harmful | ||
| AJ | Control | 4.8; ±1.9 | 3.1; ±2.9 | 3.2; ±3.1 |
| 0/1/99 | 0/31/69 | 0/30/70 | ||
| very likely beneficial | possibly beneficial | possibly beneficial | ||
| Plyometric | - | -1.6; ±2.7 | -1.5; ±3.3 | |
| - | 38/61/1 | 36/61/1 | ||
| - | possibly harmful | possibly harmful | ||
| Rcod | - | - | 0.1; ±4.2 | |
| - | - | 15/67/18 | ||
| - | - | possibly trivial | ||
| Sprint 10-meters | Control | -2.9; ±1.3 | -2.3; ±1.4 | 0.1; ±1.3 |
| 0/1/99 | 0/6/94 | 15/76/9 | ||
| -very likely beneficial | likely beneficial | likely trivial | ||
| Plyometric | - | 0.7; ±2.0 | 3.2; ±2.0 | |
| - | 40/53/7 | 96/4/0 | ||
| - | possibly harmful | very likely harmful | ||
| Rcod | - | - | 2.5; ±1.8 | |
| - | - | likely harmful | ||
| - | - | likely harmful | ||
| Sprint 20-meters | Control | -3.4; ±1.0 | -2.8; ±1.1 | -0.5; ±1.0 |
| 0/0/100 | 0/0/100 | 3/64/33 | ||
| most likely beneficial | most likely beneficial | unclear | ||
| Plyometric | - | 0.7; ±1.6 | 3.0; ±1.5 | |
| - | 42/52/6 | 99/1/0 | ||
| - | possibly harmful | very likely harmful | ||
| Rcod | - | - | 2.4; ±1.2 | |
| - | - | 98/2/0 | ||
| - | - | very likely harmful | ||
Note: 90% CL = 90% confidence limits. CMJ = counter movement jump. AJ = Abalakov jump.