The potentiating effects of different warm-up protocols on sprint cycling performance
Authors:   , Huia Tyson 
Published: September 2023

Analysing current knowledge surrounding acute post activation potentiation (PAP) of athletic performance, this study investigated whether using accommodating resistance or modified band resistance (MBR) will enhance sprint performance more than using a standard resistance (SR) load or a standard warm-up. Investigations determined whether a modified band resistance (MBR) back squat, offered advantages over a standard resistance (SR) back squat or a standard warm-up to potentiate sprint cycling performance for athletes. The study used an experimental crossover design to examine the effects of different warm up protocols, on the potentiation of sprint cycling performance. Fifteen participants (n=8; age 18 ± 2 years; height 172.5 ± 4.2 cm; weight 66.9 ± 8.0 kg; training age 16 ± 4 months; 3RM 67.5 ± 13.6 kg) consented to participate and completed baseline testing (BL). Due to circumstances surrounding the outcome of covid-19, only 8 participants completed all testing, subsequently affecting the reliability of the analysis. Baseline testing included a back squat three-repetition maximum (3RM), 250m time trial (5, 10, 125, 250m splits recorded) from a standing start position. Pre-testing measurement of a three-repetition max (RM) for a squat, seven days before BL testing of warm-up protocols. The testing order adhered to on each occasion was: standard warm-up (SWU), standard resistance (SR) and the modified resistance (MBR). Testing was conducted at a standardised time of day for each testing session and in accordance with normal hub training session timings. Data also consisted of a subjective measurement as participants were asked to record their differentiated perceived effort (RPE) following each warm-up protocol. Objective data collected from the sprint cycling performance represented the dependent variables which were analysed; specifically, the maximal effort 250 metre (m) time trial along with split times (5, 10, 125m). In addition, power data after each testing session were also summarized using appropriate software designed specifically for the purpose of evaluating Schoberer Rad Messtechnik (SRM) data collected from track cyclists. Power output was expressed as watts (W) was calculated as the highest power achieved for each session. All data was presented as the average (± SD) of the trial at each split during each testing session. This data was then analysed using t-Test (paired between two sample for mean) with significance set at P ≤ 0.05. In addition, time trial data was analysed using magnitude-based inferences. Comparisons of individual SWU bike speeds for SR and MBR was analysed. The current findings recognised, at the 5m point SR offers a likely small benefit (0.03s; 0.0091; 99.5% chance) compared with MBR. At the 10m split SR again offers advantages over SWU (possibly; 25% chance; 0.034; 0.02) and MBR (very likely, 99.5% chance; 0.047; 0.016). There is a likely small effect (95% chance) that SR offers a benefit over MBR at the 250m time (0.28; 0.13). Regarding power data, only five participants only had access to power meters however this information was used to provide insight into the potentiating effects of different warm-up protocols. This study aims to advance the general understanding on the potentiating effects of different warm-up protocols for sprint cycling performance and will help inform the practice of physical preparation coaches, specialist coaches, and cyclists.