Cook, C.

Drawer, S.

Holdcroft, D.

Kilduff, Liam P

English

Purpose: To investigate how different warm-ups influenced subsequent sled-pull sprint performance in Olympic-level bob-skeleton athletes as part of their preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Methods: Three female and 3 male athletes performed 5 different randomized warm-ups of differing intensities, durations, and timing relative to subsequent testing, each 2 days apart, all repeated twice. After warm-ups, testing on a sledpull sprint over 20 m, 3 repeats 3 min apart, took place. Results: Performance testing showed improvement (P &lt;.001, ES &gt; 1.2) with both increasing intensity of warm-up and closeness of completion to testing, with 20-m sled sprinting being 0.1-0.25 s faster in higher-intensity protocols performed near testing In addition, supplementing the warm-ups by wearing of a light survival coat resulted in further performance improvement (P = .000, ES 1.8). Conclusions: Changing timing and intensity of warm-up and using an ancillary passive heat-retention device improved sprint performance in Olympic-level bob-skeleton athletes. Subsequent adoption of these on the competitive circuit was associated with a seasonal improvement in push times and was ultimately implemented in the 2010 Winter Olympics. © 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc

University of Canberra Research Repository

CASE STUDIESInternational Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2013, 8, 213-215© 2013 Human Kinetics, inc.Designing a Warm-Up Protocol for EiiteBob-Skeleton AthletesIChristian Cook, Danny Hoidcroft, Scott Drawer, and Liam P. KilduffPurpose: To investigate how different warm-ups infiuenced subsequent sled-pull sprint performance inOlympic-level bob-skeleton athletes as part of their preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Methods: Threefemale and 3 male athletes performed 5 different randomized warm-ups of differing intensities, durations, andtiming relative to subsequent testing, each 2 days apart, all repeated twice. After warm-ups, testing on a sled-pull sprint over 20 m, 3 repeats 3 min apart, took place. Results: Performance testing showed improvement(P < .001, ES > 1.2) with both increasing intensity of warm-up and closeness of completion to testing, with20-m sled sprinting being 0.1-0.25 s faster in higher-intensity protocols performed near testing In addition,supplementing the warm-ups by wearing of a light survival coat resulted in further performance improvement(P = .000, ES 1.8). Conclusions: Changing timing and intensity of warm-up and using an ancillary passiveheat-retention device improved sprint performance in Olympic-level bob-skeleton athletes. Subsequent adop-tion of these on the competitive circuit was associated with a seasonal improvement in push times and wasultimately implemented in the 2010 Winter Olympics.Keywords: sprint performance, body temperature, passive heat maintenance, winter sportsA warm-up is important for subsequent performance,'-^and a recent meta-analysis suggests that 79% of researchdemonstrated improvement in performance with warm-up.̂  Bob-skeleton (skeleton) is a winter Olympic Sportin which participants push a sled for 20-30 m beforelaunching their upper torso onto the sled and then "driv-ing" down an ice course. The initial push demands greatspeed and power,** which can be influenced by warm-up.'-^The event is in cold environments, ranging anywherefrom approximately +5°C to ^0°C, and athletes spendconsiderable time prior to the race outside. ObservingBritish international competing athletes, a typical patternemerged: They perform warm-ups outside 30 to 40 minbefore race start. They come outside several minutes inadvance of their race, stripping down to a light Lycra racesuit. Similar observations have been recently reported bySporer et al.' Our purpose was to adjust warm-ups andexamine subsequent performance outcomes. Athletesused their current warm-up protocol as the control basisagainst which we changed intensity, duration, and timingrelative to performance testing.MethodsThree female and 3 male British skeleton athletes compet-ing for selection to the Olympic team participated. MaleCook and Drawer are with UK Sport, London, UK. Hoidcroftis with British Skeleton, Bath, UK. Kilduff is with the Collegeof Engineering, Swansea University, UK.athletes at time of study were (mean ± SD) height 1.74 ±0.08 m, weight 78.7 ± 10.2 kg, and age 28.3 ± 3.1 years,while female athletes were height 1.72 ± 0.02 m, weight62.0 ± 1.6 kg, and age 27.3 ± 0.5 years. Warm-ups wereperformed at 9 AM on alternate days in a randomizedcounterbalanced manner. Protocol 1 (PI) consisted of astandardized version of the athletes' own existing compe-tition warm-ups. This warm-up took 20 minutes and wascompleted 35 minutes before testing. It consisted of 3 x20-m jogging and skipping with walking back; 3 x 20-mof submaximal sprinting; 3 x 20-m sprint form drills; 2 x20-m leg swings, fast feet and high knees; 3 x 10-m maxi-mal sprints; 30 seconds of mixed calisthenics (press-ups,dead bugs, planks); and 2 minutes of dynamic stretching.Protocol 2 (P2) consisted of the same timing and durationsbut with increased intensity due to including more sprintdrills and sprints and reducing rest intervals. The loadincrease per time (meters covered) was approximately 30%.Protocol 3 (P3) consisted of the same high intensitybut was completed 15 minutes before testing. Protocol 4(P4) was the same high-intensity warm-up but split into 2X 10-minute warm-ups, one completed 40 minutes beforetesting and the second completed 15 minutes before test-ing. In all protocols, athletes undertook 3 further shortbursts (20- to 30-s duration) of activities such as press-ups or knee-ups at 12, 8, and 4 minutes before testing.After completion of the warm-up trials, a furtherprotocol 5 (P5) was undertaken in which a survival gar-ment (Blizzard Survival Garments, UK) was worn, forpassive heat retention, between warm-up activities anduntil testing while undertaking P4.213214 Cook et alProtocols, each 2 days apart, were repeated twice, atroom temperature (~20°C, 70-75% humidity), giving atotal of 6 trials per protocol per athlete. Room temperaturewas used, as it allowed compliance to this study withinthe time frame (off-season) available.Heart rate (Polar, USA) and tympanic temperature(Braun, Germany) were recorded for each protocol. Tym-panic was chosen to enable compliance, as athletes werereluctant to undertake core, skin, or muscle measurements.Performance testing consisted of 3 repeats (each 3min apart) of 20-m sprints pulling a weighted sled (7.5kg for women and 15 kg for men) with timing gates at 20m. This test has shown high validity according to BritishBobskeleton for push performance. Initial analyses of datashowed no effect of repeat sprints or protocol repeats orpresentation order.Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± SD.Sprint performance and physiological measures wereanalyzed in a post-only crossover design.* Precision ofestimation was indicated with 90% confidence limits.Magnitude of the difference between conditions wasinterpreted using a Cohen effect statistic, with <0.2 trivial,0.2-0.6 small, 0.6-1.2 moderate, 1.2-2.0 large, and >2.0very large.ResuitsWithin the same protocol testing and across a repeat ofthat protocol, individual athletes showed less than 1.5%variation in performance on testing. In protocol 1, as anexample, the mean and SD% difference in individualperformance across the 6 trials was for women 0.6% ±0.4% and for men 0.8% ± 0.5%.Performance varied significantly across the differ-ent warm-ups (Figure 1). (Combining the data for eachathlete in 6 trials per protocol into 1 pool of both menand women showed for average sled-pull times that allmodified protocols were associated with faster sled pullsthan the athletes' standardized warm-up (PI): PI versusP2 (P = .01, ES = 0.6), versus P3 (P = .000, ES = 1.5),versus P4 (P = .001, ES = I.O), and versus P5 (P = .000,ES = 1.8). P3 (P = .000, ES = 1.0), P4 (P = .003, ES =0.4), and P5 (P = .000, ES = 1.2) showed significantlyfaster mean sled-pull times than P2, while P3 (P = .005,ES = 0.6) and P5 (P = .001, ES = 0.9) were faster thanP4, and P5 (the addition of a heat-retention garment) wassignificantly faster (but at a small effect size) than P3 (P= .004, ES = 0.3).Maximum heart rate and tympanic temperatureincreased significantly across warm-up protocols (Table 1).On subjective report, athletes preferred P5 and P4to P3 and P2. Compliance-wise, the general decision byathletes was to use P4 (despite data suggesting a lowerperformance outcome than P3) or, when heat-retentiongarments were available. P5.Subsequently, in-season, a 3.53% (± 0.61%) improve-ment in push track performance was seen with adoptionof the routines (P4 and P5).ra(Uinttime (i.Q."5uofrom Pro(U00taSIU-0.5 --1 --1.5 --2 --2.5 --3 --3.5 --4 -^2 P3\\\ \\ '\ \\/P4 P5iA.4—^ -Females- - - MalesFigure 1 — Sled-pull sprint times (mean of 6 trials per protocol) ± 90% confidence intervals (CI) presented as a change fromthe standard warm-up (PI) trial (% delta) for the different warm-up interventions. Top shaded bar indicates lower 90% CI for PI.Warm-Up Protocol and Elite Bob-Skeleton 215Table 1 Warm-Up Protocol-Related Changes (Post - Pre)Maximum heart rate (beats/min)Rating of perceived exertionTympanic change (°C) at roomtemperaturePI138.0 ±8.92.5 ± 0.40.1 ±0.2P2145.8 ±7.1°3.7 ±0.50.5 ± 0.2°P3159.3 ±9.8°*4.5 ± 0.40.9 ± 0.2''*tP4157.2 ±13.8°*3.4 ± 0.60.6 ±0.1°*P5160.1 ± 14.2°*t3.3 ± 0.41.0±0.3°*tlNote. Group mean ± SD is presented pooled across all protocol repeats combined for both women and men."Significant difference (P < .001) compared with PI. »Significant difference (/> < .001) compared with P2. tSignificant difference (P < .001) com-pared with P4. ^Significant difference {P < .01) compared with P5.DiscussionThe results demonstrated that intensity, duration, andbody temperature are characteristics of successful warm-up, the latter also being achievable by passive means. The2 most successful protocols in term of performance wereP3 and P5. P3 was associated with the highest intensityand duration of activity closest to performance testing,while P5 used this in a 2 x 10-minute split manner butincorporated the heat-retention garment. Tympanictemperature and heart rate were chosen due to athletecompliance and did show significance in difference.In this group of elite skeleton athletes, high-intensitywarm-up with some activity close to time of performanceimproved sprint performance, and this performance car-ried over to subsequent Olympic-cycle best push tracktimes. Shorter durations were favored, and athletes sub-jectively feel better with these and with warm-ups withsome overlap to previous traditions. Indeed, athleteschose to comply to a modified warm-up that did notproduce the best performance data (albeit significantlybetter than their traditional one, and equal to the bestwhen combined with a heat-retention garment). Athletebelief and acceptance were thus crucial to adoption of thewarm-up going forward to the Olympic Games. The addi-tion of a heat-retention garment between warm-ups andup to performance testing had a beneficial performanceoutcome and was easily adoptable. Actual elite athletes'adoption and practicality in the competitive environmentare essential factors to consider in studies of warm-upsif they are to be ultimately implemented.References1. Yaicharoen P, Wallman K, Bishop D, Morton A. The effectof warm up on single and intermittent-sprint performance.J Sports Sei 2012;30(8):833-840.2. Tomaras EK, Macintosh BR. Less is more: standard warm-up causes fatigue and less warm-up permits greater cyclingpower output. JAppl Physiol. 2011 ;111(1):228-235.3. Fradkin AJ, Zazryn TR, Smoliga JM. Effects of warming-up on physical performance: a systematic review withmeta-analysis. J Strength Cond /?e.s. 2010;24( 1 ): 140-148.4. Bullock N, Hopkins WG, Martin DT, Marino FE. Char-acteristics of performance in skeleton World Cup races. JSports Sei. 2009;27(4):367-372.5. Sporer BC, Cote A, Sleivert GG. Warm-up practices inelite snowboard athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.2012;7(3):295-297.6. Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trialswith adjustment for a predictor. Sportscienee. 2006; 10:1 -5 .Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance is the property of Human KineticsPublishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Designing a warm-up protocol for elite bob-skeleton athletes

https://researchsystem.canberra.edu.au/ws/files/6583380/ContentServer.pdf

Designing a warm-up protocol for elite bob-skeleton athletes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Canberra Research Repository