4.4 Article

THE ACUTE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROTOCOLS ON ANAEROBIC PERFORMANCE IN ELITE YOUTH SOCCER PLAYERS

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 1614-1620

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b1f3ef

Keywords

youth; soccer; warm-up; stretching; power; potentiation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Needham, RA, Morse, CI, and Degens, H. The acute effect of different warm-up protocols on anaerobic performance in elite youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23(9): 2614-2620, 2009-The purpose of the study was to investigate the acute effect of different warm-up protocols on anaerobic performance in elite youth soccer players. Twenty elite youth soccer players (mean age 17.2 +/-1.2 years) performed 3 different warm-up protocols in a random order on nonconsecutive days. Each warm-up protocol consisted of a 5-minute low-intensity jog followed by 10 minutes of static stretching (SS), dynamic stretching (DS), or dynamic stretching followed by 8 front squats + 20% body mass (DSR). Subjects performed a countermovement jump followed by a 10-and 20-m sprint test immediately and at 3 and 6 minutes after each warm-up protocol. Vertical jump performance following DSR was better at 3 and 6 minutes than after DS, which in turn was better than after SS at 0, 3, and 6 minutes (p < 0.05). Jump performance was better at 3 minutes than immediately after, and this improvement was maintained at 6 minutes after DSR (p < 0.05). A better sprint performance was observed after DSR and DS compared with SS immediately and at 3 and 6 minutes following each warm-up protocol (p < 0.05). The results of the study suggest that a dynamic warm-up with the inclusion of resistance enhances jumping ability more than dynamic exercise alone. In addition, a dynamic warm-up produces a superior sprint and jump performance compared to a warm-up consisting of static stretching.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available