Perceptual & Motor Skills: Motor Skills & Ergonomics

2014, 119, 1, 133-145. Perceptual & Motor Skills 2014

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT WARM-UP PROCEDURES ON THE

PERFORMANCE OF RESISTANCE TRAINING EXERCISES1

ALEX S. RIBEIRO and MARCELO ROMANZINI

Study and Research Group in Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise

Londrina State University, Brazil

BRAD J. SCHOENFELD MARIANA F. SOUZA

Exercise Science Department Study and Research Group in Metabolism,

CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York Nutrition, and Exercise
Londrina State University, Brazil

ADEMAR AVELAR EDILSON S. CYRINO

Maring State University Study and Research Group in Metabolism,

Maring, Brazil Nutrition, and Exercise
Londrina State University, Brazil

Summary.Warm-up has been shown to mediate numerous acute physiologi-

cal alterations that have been purported to confer beneficial effects on performance.
This study investigated the acute effects of different warm-up procedures on resis-
tance training performance. Employing a randomized, counterbalanced crossover
design, 15 men performed 3 exercises (4 sets of bench press, squat, and arm curl at
80% of 1RM) to failure in 4 conditions (control, specific, aerobic, and combined).
Outcome measures included the sum of repetitions and a fatigue index measuring
the decline between sets. There was no significant difference for the sum of repeti-
tions or for fatigue index among conditions for the 3 exercises. Performance in the
resistance training exercises was not influenced by warm-up.

General fitness guidelines recommend the performance of a warm-up

prior to resistance training (Coburn & Malek, 2012). A warm-up has been
shown to mediate numerous acute physiological alterations including in-
creased circulation to muscles, enhanced speed of nerve impulses, oxy-
gen and energy substrate delivery to working muscle, expedited removal
of metabolic waste, and heightened oxygen release from hemoglobin and
myoglobin, as well as decreasing the activation of energy for cellular re-
actions and muscle viscosity (Thacker, Gilchrist, Stroup, & Kimsey, 2004).
These alterations are purported to have beneficial effects on exercise per-
formance as well as reducing the risk of exercise-related injury.
A warm-up has two primary components: general and specific. The
purpose of the general warm-up is to increase core body temperature

Address correspondence to Alex Silva Ribeiro, M.Sc., Carmela Dutra Street 862, Jataizinho,
1

PR, Brazil, 86210-000 or e-mail (alex-silvaribeiro@hotmail.com).

DOI 10.2466/25.29.PMS.119c17z7 ISSN 0031-5125

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 133 02/08/14 8:28 AM

 134 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

through active movements of the major muscle groups (Shellock & Pren-
tice, 1985). The movements performed in the general warm-up are not nec-
essarily associated with the particular neuromuscular components used
in the actual exercise(s), and are centered on light aerobic activity such as
jogging, cycling, and calisthenics. Alternatively, the specific warm-up is
intended not only to raise body temperature, but also to facilitate neuro-
muscular rehearsal of the actual exercise(s) (Shellock & Prentice, 1985). As
such, movements performed in the specific warm-up are similar to the ac-
tual exercises except they are carried out at a reduced intensity.
There is evidence that fatiguing contractions contribute to the anabol-
ic response to resistance training exercises (Rooney, Herbert, & Balnave,
1994; Schott, McCully, & Rutherford, 1995; Goto, Ishii, Kizuka, & Takamat-
su, 2005). The hypertrophic effects of anaerobic fatigue have been attrib-
uted to the onset of metabolic stress, which in turn mediates intracellular
signaling in a manner that enhances protein synthesis (Schoenfeld, 2013).
Studies show that muscle growth pursuant to resistance training is signifi-
cantly associated with increased metabolite accumulation and reduced in-
tramuscular pH (Takada, Okita, Suga, Omokawa, Kadoguchi, Sato, et al.,
2012). Mechanisms theorized to mediate metabolite-induced hypertrophy
include increased fiber recruitment, elevated systemic hormonal produc-
tion, alterations in local myokines, heightened production of reactive oxy-
gen species, and cell swelling (Schoenfeld, 2013). Some researchers have
even proposed that exercise-induced metabolic stress may be more im-
portant than high force development in optimizing muscle growth (Shi-
nohara, Kouzaki, Yoshihisa, & Fukunaga, 1998), although recent research
appears to dispute this contention (Schoenfeld, Ratamess, Peterson, Con-
trears, Sonmez, & Alvar, 2014). Although there currently is no clear con-
sensus on an optimal hypertrophy loading range, the evidence neverthe-
less suggests that improving the ability to endure greater fatigue may be
beneficial for those seeking maximal increases in muscle mass.
To date, a majority of studies showing benefits of warming up have
been primarily centered on performance in athletic endeavors such as
jumping and sprinting (Binnie, Landers, & Peeling, 2012; Carvalho, Car-
valho, Simao, Gomes, Costa, Neto, et al., 2012). Research investigating the
effects of warm-up on resistance training repetition performance is lack-
ing. Recently, Abad and colleagues (Abad, Prado, Ugrinowitsch, Tricoli,
& Barroso, 2011) found that the addition of a general warm-up to a spe-
cific warm-up improved 1 repetition maximum (1RM) performance in the
leg press. However, metabolic stress is heightened by using submaximal
as opposed to maximal loads, obscuring the ability to extrapolate conclu-
sions to fatiguing protocols designed to promote metabolic accumulation
(Robbins, Goodale, Docherty, Behm, & Tran, 2010). The purpose of this

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 134 02/08/14 8:28 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 135

study therefore was to investigate the acute effect of different warm-up

procedures on the repetition performance of a fatiguing resistance train-
ing protocol designed to induce metabolic stress.
Hypothesis. Both general and specific warm-ups will have a posi-
tive effect on repetition performance.
Method
Participants
Fifteen men (M age=25.0yr., SD=4.8; M mass=72.2kg, SD=14.0; M
height=1.76m, SD=1.0; M BMI=23.1kg/m2, SD=3.6) were selected by
convenience for participation in this research. The participants were young
adults and were not overweight. The mean previous experience of the par-
ticipants in resistance training was 8.3mo. (SD=6.3). All participants com-
pleted a detailed health history questionnaire and were included in the
study if they had no orthopedic injuries that would preclude or hinder
the movements performed, were non-athletes, inactive or moderately ac-
tive individuals (physical activity less than twice a week), and had not per-
formed resistance training for at least 6 mo. before the beginning of the
study. All participants were informed of the procedures and provided with
a written informed consent to participate in the study. The investigation
was performed according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of
Helsinki, and was approved by the local University Ethics Committee.
Muscle Strength Measurements
Maximal dynamic strength was evaluated using the 1RM test assessed
on bench press, squat, and arm curl, performed exactly in that order. The
participants performed three 1RM sessions, with 4872 hr. of recovery be-
tween each testing session. The techniques for executing each exercise
were standardized and continuously monitored to guarantee consisten-
cy in maximum strength assessment in the testing sessions. Each exercise
test was preceded by a warm-up set (610 repetitions), with approximately
50% of the estimated load to be used as the first attempt for each test. The
regular testing procedure was initiated 2min. after warm-up.
For the bench press, participants assumed a shoulder-width grip, low-
ered the bar until it touched the chest, and then pressed it back upward
until a lockout of the elbow joint was achieved at the top of the movement.
With respect to the squat, participants rested the bar of the Smith machine
on the upper trapezius with a rubber pad used as cushioning. Assuming
a shoulder-width stance, participants flexed at the hip, knee, and ankle
joints until the body reached a 90 angle, then reversed direction by triple
extension of these joints until lockout of the knee joint was achieved at the
top of the movement. With respect to the arm curl, participants stood in

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 135 02/08/14 8:28 AM

 136 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

slight flexion with their back pressed against a wall to prevent ancillary
motion. Employing a shoulder-width grip with hands supinated, partici-
pants curled the bar from a fully extended position until full flexion of the
elbow was achieved, then lowered the bar back to the start position. Par-
ticipants were encouraged to drink water throughout all testing sessions
so that they remained hydrated.
For each of the tested exercises, participants were instructed to per-
form 2 repetitions with the given load during each of the 3 attempts. If the
participant succeeded in performing 2 repetitions on the first attempt, the
load increased (310% of the first attempt load) and, after a 35min. rest,
a second attempt was done. If this attempt was successful, a third attempt
was given following a 35min. rest, with another 310% increase in load
afforded. If the participant was unsuccessful in the first or second attempt,
the load was decreased by 310% and the participant was given another
attempt. Determination of 1RM was made when the participant was able
to complete one single maximum repetition and not a second repetition
(Ritti-Dias, Avelar, Salvador, & Cyrino, 2011).
The second 1RM session was performed at the same time of day after
allowing for 48 hr. of recovery. Participants were provided a warm-up and
then attempted to lift a load 310% greater than the previous 1RM. The third
session adhered to the same procedures as the second session. The highest
load achieved among the 3 sessions was considered the participant's maxi-
mal strength. High intraclass correlation coefficients (.95) and small coef-
ficient of variation (.03) observed for all the measurements among the ses-
sions demonstrate reliability of data. The standard errors of measurement
for 1RM in bench press, squat, and arm curl were 2.1kg, 4.9kg, and 1.0kg,
respectively. To ensure optimal integrity of results and safety of the partici-
pants, all testing sessions were supervised by two experienced researchers.
Warm-up and Control Protocols
The specific warm-up was carried out on the specific exercise before
each exercise, in which the participants performed 10 repetitions with 50%
of the load that was used in the test. In aerobic warm-up, the participants
were instructed to pedal for 10min. on a cycle ergometer at a speed of
40km/hr. For the combined warm-up, the two forms of warm-up described
above were performed starting with aerobic and following to specific. For
the control protocol, the participants remained at rest for 10min. on a chair.
Fatiguing Task Protocol
The participants arrived at the laboratory 2 hr. after eating a light
meal (~30 kcal by body mass, ~60% carbohydrates, ~20% protein, and
~20% lipids) and were instructed to avoid any caffeine and alcohol-con-
taining beverages 48 hr. before the tests. Thirty seconds after receiving one

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 136 02/08/14 8:28 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 137

of the 3 treatments or control conditions, the participants performed the fa-

tigue protocol. A fatigue resistance protocol was carried out 48 hr. after the
last 1RM session. The exercises performed, in order of performance, were:
bench press, squat, and arm curl. The protocol consisted of 4 sets at 80%
of 1RM until voluntary exhaustion, with 2min. rest intervals between sets
and 5min. rest afforded between exercises. The participants were asked to
perform as many repetitions as possible in each set.
The index of decline across the first and the fourth set of each exercise
was used as the fatigue index as proposed by Sforzo and Touey (1996):

(
FI = S( first set ) S( first set )
) (S( ) ) 100%
first set

where: FI=fatigue index; S=Strength (load lifted up number of repeti-

tions executed during the sets).
Experimental Design
Fifteen young men volunteered to visit the laboratory on 10 occasions
separated by intervals of 4872hr. for 3 orientation sessions, 3 1RM test ses-
sions, and 4 experimental protocols. During the first week (Sessions 13),
each participant was familiarized with the testing equipment and the lift-
ing techniques for the bench press, squat on a Smith machine, and arm
curl. This consisted of 3 sets of 1015 repetitions with a light load on the
specific exercise used in this study, with 2min. rest between sets. In the sec-
ond week (Sessions 46), the participants performed the 1RM tests. A ran-
domized, counterbalanced, cross-over design was employed in the third
and fourth weeks (Sessions 710) and the participants performed 3 exer-
cises for 4 sets with 80% 1RM to concentric failure in control, specific, aer-
obic, and combined conditions with 4872hr. of interval across sessions.
The participants were instructed to avoid practice of strenuous physical
activity during the study period. All testing sessions were conducted dur-
ing the autumn at the same time of day. The preliminary screening (medi-
cal history and physical activity form) and anthropometric measurements
were obtained in the first visit. The experimental design is shown in Fig. 1.
Statistical Analysis
The data are presented as meanstandard deviation. Normality of
data was checked using the Shapiro-Wilks test, the homogeneity of vari-
ances was verified using Levene's test, and the sphericity was assessed by
Mauchly's test. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to
compare total number of repetitions and the fatigue index among condi-
tions. A two-way, repeated-measures ANOVA with main effects for condi-
tions and sets was used to compare differences in repetitions during sets
among conditions. When an F ratio was significant, Bonferroni's post hoc

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 137 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 138 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

Experimental Conditions

Monday Wednesday Friday Monday

Control = (3) Specific = (3) Aerobic = (3) Combined = (3)

Exercise Technique Participants

1RM Sessions Specific = (4) Aerobic = (4) Combined = (4) Control = (4)
Learning (n=15)

Aerobic = (4) Combined = (4) Control = (4) Specific = (4)

Combined = (4) Control = (4) Specific = (4) Aerobic = (4)

Week 1 Week 2

Week 3 Week 4

Fig. 1. Experimental design

test was employed to identify specific differences. The effect size was cal-
culated to verify the magnitude of the differences by Cohen's d. An effect
size of 0.200.49 was considered small, 0.500.79 moderate, and0.80 large
(Cohen, 1988). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the So-
cial Sciences (SPSS for Windows Version 20.0). Statistical significance was
set at p<.05 for all analysis.
Results
The sum of repetitions according to condition in bench press, squat,
and arm curl are presented in Fig. 2. No significant difference was iden-
tified among conditions for bench press (F3=0.26, p=.85), squat (F3=0.21,
p=.89), and arm curl (F3=0.66, p=.58). Table 1 displays the sum of repeti-
tion differences from warm-up conditions to control, and no statistical dif-
ferences among conditions was observed for the three exercises.
The set-by-set fatigue indexes for the three exercises in four condi-
tions are presented in Table 2. There was no significant difference (p>.05)
among conditions for any of the exercises analyzed.
Figure 3 is a set-by-set depiction of the number of repetitions per-
formed in bench press (Panel A), squat (Panel B), arm curl (Panel C), and
the sum of the exercises (Panel D) in the four conditions. There was no
significant interaction of condition by time (bench press: F9=0.42, p=.92;
squat: F9=0.26, p=.92; arm curl: F9=0.93, p=.48; Total: F9=0.30, p=.91), nor
a significant main effect of condition (bench press: F3=0.51, p=.67; squat:
F3=0.22, p=.88; arm curl: F3=0.54, p=.66; Total: F3=0.23, p=.88). However,
a significant main effect of time was observed for bench press (F3=402.28,
p<.001), squat (F3=36.62, p<.001), arm curl (F3=71.13, p<.001), and the
sum of exercises (F3=184.11, p<.001), where all conditions presented a de-
crease across sets.

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 138 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 139

25 Bench Press

Repetitions 20

15

10

0
Control Specific Aerobic Combined

50 Squat
45
40
35
Repetitions

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Control Specific Aerobic Combined

30 Arm Curl

25

20
Repetitions

15

10

0
Control Specific Aerobic Combined

Fig. 2.Total of repetitions performed in bench press, squat, and arm curl after each
experimental protocol (n=15). Error bars represent standard deviations.

Repetition performance decreases between Sets 1 and 2 had effect

sizes of large magnitude in bench press for all conditions (control=1.8,
specific=2.1, aerobic=2.4, combined=2.2), moderate effect size in
squat for all conditions (control=0.6, specific=0.5, aerobic=0.5, com-
bined=0.5), and large effect size in arm curl for control (1.0) and spe-

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 139 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 140 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

Table 1
Differences (Repetition) Between Experimental Warm-up Conditions and
Control Condition
Specific Aerobic Combined
Exercise F p
M SD M SD M SD
Bench press 1.1 3.1 0.4 2.8 0.5 3.3 0.72 .48
Squat 0.9 9.2 2.7 5.6 2.8 2.4 0.33 .72
Arm curl 2.5 5.8 1.0 5.4 2.7 5.3 0.17 .84

cific (0.9) and small magnitude in aerobic (0.2) and combined (0.4); for
the sum of repetitions, large effect sizes were observed for all conditions
(control=1.4, specific=1.5, aerobic=0.9, combined=1.3). For the drop
in repetition performance from Set 2 to Set 3, large effect sizes were ob-
served in bench press for all conditions (control=2.4, specific=1.4, aer-
obic=2.1, combined=1.1), moderate effect sizes were observed in the
squat for all conditions (control=0.5, specific=0.5, aerobic=0.5, com-
bined=0.5), and in the arm curl small effect sizes were observed for con-
trol (0.4) and specific (0.4) and large effect sizes for aerobic (1.4) and
combined (1.8); for the sum of repetitions, large effect sizes were reached
for control (0.8), aerobic (1.7), and combined (1.1) conditions, and an
effect size of moderate magnitude was observed for specific (0.7). The de-
crease in repetition performance from Set 1 to Set 4 had large effect sizes for
all conditions in bench press (control=3.3, specific=3.9, aerobic=4.4,
combined=3.7), squat (control=1.1, specific=1.1, aerobic=0.8, com-
bined=0.9), arm curl (control=1.9, specific=1.3, aerobic=1.5, com-
bined=2.2), and the sum of repetitions (control=2.6, specific=2.8, aer-
obic=1.9, combined=2.2).

Table 2
Fatigue Index (%) Among Sets According to Conditions
Bench Press Squat Arm Curl
Condition
12 23 34 14 12 23 34 14 12 23 34 14
Control M 38.8 50.5 14.8 75.5 26.5 21.6 19.5 55.8 34.6 13.9 13.0 60.6
SD 21.8 22.3 23.2 12.9 26.1 23.3 32.7 40.0 24.9 14.2 21.5 14.4
Specific M 43.5 46.9 18.9 77.8 25.2 27.5 19.6 51.3 36.7 12.5 15.3 58.8
SD 13.3 20.1 25.6 9.6 21.1 28.3 27.4 25.4 31.0 28.8 13.8 25.0
Aerobic M 39.0 44.0 29.1 77.9 25.0 22.4 12.9 33.6 34.5 20.8 13.4 51.8
SD 12.9 18.9 18.8 10.2 20.7 23.2 21.1 41.6 22.8 22.5 14.0 33.7
Combined M 45.1 40.0 25.1 76.3 23.8 21.3 25.5 50.8 38.3 28.1 13.6 56.6
SD 12.7 18.4 24.0 14.0 22.6 23.2 26.1 39.5 33.7 25.9 16.5 17.2

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 140 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 141
Bench Press Squat
A B
10 18
Control Control
9 16
Specific * Specific
8
Aerobic 14 Aerobic
7 *
Combined 12 Combined
*
Repetitions

Repetitions
6
10
5 *
8
4
6
3
2 4

1 2
0 0
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

C Arm Curl D Total

12 Control 35 Control
Specific 30 Specific
10 *
Aerobic * Aerobic
Combined 25 Combined
8
*
Repetitions

Repetitions

20 *
*
6
15
4
10

2 5

0 0
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Fig. 3. Number of repetitions performed at 4 sets according to condition with 80% of

1RM in bench press (Panel A), squat (Panel B), arm curl (Panel C), and the sum of the exercises
(Panel D) in men (n=15). *p<.05 vs previous set. Error bars represent standard deviations.

Discussion
Apparently, this is the first study to investigate the effects of a warm-
up on submaximal resistance training repetition performance carried
out to muscular failure over multiple sets. Previous studies have specif-
ically focused on maximal strength, with results showing that a warm-
up positively affects 1RM performance. Abad, et al. (2011) found that the
combination of a general and specific warm-up improved 1RM leg press
strength by 8.4% more than a specific warm-up alone. Recently, Barro-
so, Silva-Batista, Tricoli, Roschel, and Ugrinowitsch (2013) found that a
low-intensity general warm-up had a greater positive affect on lRM leg
press performance compared to either a moderate intensity warm-up or
no warm-up at all. The main finding in the current study is that warm-up
procedures do not influence fatiguing submaximal resistance training rep-
etition performance. This finding runs contrary to generally recognized
guidelines, where a warm-up is routinely advised prior to intensive resis-
tance training exercises (Coburn & Malek, 2012). From a repetition perfor-

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 141 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 142 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

mance standpoint, a warm-up therefore can be considered optional when

the goal is to perform submaximal lifts to muscular failure.
The discrepancy between current results and evidence-based recom-
mendations may be related to the submaximal nature of the protocol stud-
ied. There is evidence that a warm-up is beneficial in short duration activi-
ties that require maximal power output such as those involving throwing,
jumping, and weightlifting (Shellock & Prentice, 1985). It is conceivable
that because these activities involve a single maximal effort, they are more
sensitive to the physiological and psychological enhancements associated
with warming up compared to submaximal fatiguing resistance training.
As noted, Abad, et al. (2011) recently showed that a combination of
general and specific warm-ups had a synergistic effect on 1RM perfor-
mance in the leg press compared to a specific warm-up alone. This is sup-
ported by evidence that acute adaptations associated with increased core
temperature contribute to greater performance in resistance training pro-
tocols requiring maximal strength (Bergh & Ekblom, 1979). Based on the
results of the present study, it would appear that such adaptations are not
relevant to repetition performance during submaximal, fatiguing, resis-
tance-training protocols.
The multiple-set fatiguing protocol employed in the current experi-
ment was chosen because multiple sets have been shown to be superior
for promoting muscular strength and muscle growth compared with sin-
gle-set protocols (Krieger, 2010). Moreover, to optimize the practical ap-
plications of outcomes, three popular exercises were chosen for the trunk,
lower limb, and upper limb. Consistent with previous research, the results
showed a significant reduction in repetition performance over the course
of the four sets to submaximal fatigue (Miranda, Fleck, Simao, Barreto,
Dantas, & Novaes, 2007; Ratamess, Chiarello, Sacco, Hoffman, Faigen-
baum, Ross, et al., 2012; Eches, Ribeiro, Nascimento, & Cyrino, 2013).
When comparing the first set to the last, the number of successful repeti-
tions completed was reduced by 61.2% to 65.0% across all exercises tested.
Neither the general nor specific warm-up was able to attenuate these rep-
etition performance decrements. There is evidence the time to fatigue is
extended as one gains experience with resistance training, with improve-
ments in local muscular endurance resulting in a greater number of rep-
etitions performed in subsequent sets (Kraemer & Ratamess, 2004). Given
that the participants in this study were detrained, it is possible that more
trained participants may achieve beneficial effects from a warm-up not
apparent in a detrained population. Further study is therefore warranted
in well-trained individuals. Another important consideration is the time
between the warm-up and the performance of resistance training exercis-
es. Specifically, the aerobic portion of the warm-up is more likely to affect

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 142 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 143

the first resistance training exercise performed (bench press) as opposed

to the subsequent exercises that follow (squat and arm curl). This hypoth-
esis requires further study.
It is important to note that the current study specifically investigated out-
come measures for acute repetition performance. It has been suggested that a
warm-up may help to reduce the risk of exercise-related injury, primarily via
temperature-dependent phenomena (Shellock & Prentice, 1985). Higher body
temperatures are associated with enhanced elasticity of muscle and connec-
tive tissue, and greater range of motion about the joint (Lehmann, Masock,
Warren, & Koblanski, 1970; Safran, Garrett, Seaber, Glisson, & Ribbeck, 1988).
Whether these enhancements would mitigate injury risk during fatiguing or
not, submaximal resistance training remains to be elucidated.
Finally, it is important to note that this investigation has some limita-
tions. The data are limited to the muscle groups analyzed, and also should
not be extrapolated to populations other than healthy, non-athlete, young
adult men. In addition, the findings are specific to submaximal, fatiguing,
resistance-training protocols; these results cannot be generalized when
training with maximal or near-maximal loads, nor do the results apply to
all-out anaerobic activities such as sprinting or hurdling. Moreover, given
the acute nature of the study, extrapolation as to long-term muscular ad-
aptations remain speculative. Although all the sessions were conducted
during the same period of the year and each participant performed indi-
vidually at the same time of day during each condition, it is possible that
the temperature may have been different among sessions and thus con-
founded results. Finally, because the sample size was relatively small, the
possibility of a type II error cannot be entirely ruled out. However, the
within-subjects design considerably increases statistical power, making
this possibility less likely.
Based on the results of the present investigation, there does not appear
to be any benefit to performing a traditional warm-up (general and specif-
ic) prior to carrying out multiple-sets of submaximal fatiguing exercise in
the bench press, squat, and arm curl. Although no negative effects of warm-
ing up were noted, the time afforded to this component does not seem to
provide a sufficient cost-benefit from a repetition performance standpoint,
at least for the exercises studied. It remains unclear as to whether a warm-
up may help to reduce injury risk during the performance fatiguing resis-
tance exercise; this hypothesis requires further investigation.
REFERENCES
Abad, C. C., Prado, M. L., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., & Barroso, R. (2011) Combina-
tion of general and specific warm-ups improves leg-press one repetition maxi-
mum compared with specific warm-up in trained individuals. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 25, 2242-2245.

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 143 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 144 A. S. RIBEIRO, et al.

Barroso, R., Silva-Batista, C., Tricoli, V., Roschel, H., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2013) The
effects of different intensities and durations of the general warm-up on leg press
1RM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 1009-1013.
Bergh, U., & Ekblom, B. (1979) Influence of muscle temperature on maximal muscle
strength and power output in human skeletal muscles. Acta Physiologica Scandi-
navica, 107, 33-37.
Binnie, M. J., Landers, G., & Peeling, P. (2012) Effect of different warm-up procedures
on subsequent swim and overall sprint distance triathlon performance. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 26, 2438-2446.
Carvalho, F. L., Carvalho, M. C., Simao, R., Gomes, T. M., Costa, P. B., Neto, L. B., Car-
valho, R. L., & Dantas, E. H. (2012) Acute effects of a warm-up including active,
passive, and dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 26, 2447-2452.
Coburn, J. W., & Malek, M. H. (2012) NSCA's essentials of personal training. Vol. 2. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for behavior sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eches, E. H. P., Ribeiro, A. S., Nascimento, M. A., & Cyrino, E. S. (2013) Motor perfor-
mance in sustained multiple weight exercises to concentric failure. Motriz, 19, S43-
S48.
Goto, K., Ishii, N., Kizuka, T., & Takamatsu, K. (2005) The impact of metabolic stress
on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 37, 955-963.
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004) Fundamentals of resistance training: progres-
sion and exercise prescription. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36, 674-688.
Krieger, J. W. (2010) Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertro-
phy: a meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 1150-1159.
Lehmann, J. F., Masock, A. J., Warren, C. G., & Koblanski, J. N. (1970) Effect of therapeu-
tic temperatures on tendon extensibility. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabili-
tation, 51, 481-487.
Miranda, H., Fleck, S. J., Simao, R., Barreto, A. C., Dantas, E. H., & Novaes, J. (2007)
Effect of two different rest period lengths on the number of repetitions performed
during resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21, 1032-
1036.
Ratamess, N. A., Chiarello, C. M., Sacco, A. J., Hoffman, J. R., Faigenbaum, A. D., Ross,
R. E., & Kang, J. (2012) The effects of rest interval length on acute bench press
performance: the influence of gender and muscle strength. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 26, 1817-1826.
Ritti-Dias, R. M., Avelar, A., Salvador, E. P., & Cyrino, E. S. (2011) Influence of previous
experience on resistance training on reliability of one-repetition maximum test.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 1418-1422.
Robbins, D. W., Goodale, T. L., Docherty, D., Behm, D. G., & Tran, Q. T. (2010) The effects
of load and training pattern on acute neuromuscular responses in the upper body.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24, 2996-3007.
Rooney, K. J., Herbert, R. D., & Balnave, R. J. (1994) Fatigue contributes to the strength
training stimulus. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 26, 1160-1164.

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 144 02/08/14 8:29 AM

 WARM-UP AND RESISTANCE TRAINING 145

Safran, M. R., Garrett, W. E., Jr., Seaber, A. V., Glisson, R. R., & Ribbeck, B. M. (1988)
The role of warmup in muscular injury prevention. The American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 16, 123-129.
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013) Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertro-
phic adaptations to resistance training. Sports Medicine, 43, 179-194.
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N., Peterson, M. D., Contrears, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar,
B. A. (2014) Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strate-
gies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Condi-
tioning Research. Epub ahead of print.
Schott, J., McCully, K., & Rutherford, O. M. (1995) The role of metabolites in strength
training: II. Short versus long isometric contractions. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 71, 337-341.
Sforzo, G. A., & Touey, P. R. (1996) Manipulating exercise order affects muscular per-
formance during a resistance exercise training session. Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research, 10, 20-24.
Shellock, F. G., & Prentice, W. E. (1985) Warming-up and stretching for improved
physical performance and prevention of sports-related injuries. Sports Medicine,
2, 267-278.
Shinohara, M., Kouzaki, M., Yoshihisa, T., & Fukunaga, T. (1998) Efficacy of tourniquet
ischemia for strength training with low resistance. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 77, 189-191.
Takada, S., Okita, K., Suga, T., Omokawa, M., Kadoguchi, T., Sato, T., Takahashi, M.,
Yokota, T., Hirabayashi, K., Morita, N., Horiuchi, M., Kinugawa, S., & Tsutsui, H.
(2012) Low-intensity exercise can increase muscle mass and strength proportion-
ally to enhanced metabolic stress under ischemic conditions. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 113, 199-205.
Thacker, S. B., Gilchrist, J., Stroup, D. F., & Kimsey, C. D., Jr. (2004) The impact of stretch-
ing on sports injury risk: a systematic review of the literature. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 36, 371-378.

Accepted June 26, 2014.

12-PMS_Ribeiro_140085.indd 145 02/08/14 8:29 AM