Cyclists know that warm-ups are good for them, but they are unsure about the optimal way to put their warmups together. As it turns out, different kinds of workouts and competitions require quitedifferent warm-up strategies. For a very short competition, for example, there should be a long recovery betweenthe warm-up and beginning of exertion. On the other hand, warm-ups should be intense, with little recovery,before mediumduration
races and training sessions. WARM-UPS

There is a widespread belief that warm-ups enhance athletic performances, and most cyclists agree that warming up before competitions and challenging workouts is a good idea. What they don’t know is exactly how to warm up.

In fact, there is no “stone tablet” to tell cyclists how their warm-ups should be structured in terms of intensity, duration, and mode (active, passive, specific). In addition, the optimal duration of the time period between the end of a warm-up and the onset of exercise is unknown (and probably varies according to warm-up type).

There are many conflicting views about warming up. A popular conception, for example is that warm-ups should raise muscle temperatures in order to facilitate stronger muscular contractions. However, the advantages of hiking muscle temperature prior to endurance cycling have never been demonstrated in a peer reviewed, controlled study (1). In fact, under warm environmental conditions such an effect would appear to be dis-advantageous.

A key concern among exercise scientists has been how warming up influences the VO2 response to exercise – the rate at which oxygen consumption rises when an intense workout or competition begins. This appears to be very important, because a rapid increase in the oxygen supply to muscles at the beginning of strenuous exercise enables muscles to create energy aerobically at high rates during even the early stages of effort. Along these lines, some research has shown that warm-ups which include exercise sustained at above the lactate threshold improve the VO2 response (2, 3, 4, & 5). Naturally, such findings provide support for the idea that warm-ups should be rather intense. WARM-UPS

However, as you might expect, there is also evidence that intense warm-ups can actually harm subsequent performance (6), presumably because there is a danger that such warm-ups can be either too intense or because they may be sustained for too long. There are also a number of studies which have failed to detect any benefits at all for active warm-ups (7, 8, & 9).

A recent review suggested that low-intensity warm-ups (at 70 percent of VO2max or below) are beneficial for performance in “intermediate-length” events (those lasting from 10 to 300 seconds) – but that high intensity warm-ups (> 70 percent of VO2max) actually harm intermediate-length performances, unless an adequate recovery is taken between the end of the warm-up and the beginning of the actual exertion (10).

As you can see, scientific research has in the past provided a fairly limited amount of information about how to warm up in an optimal way. Fortunately, two new studies add to our knowledge of warming up.

In one investigation, carried out by researchers from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Vrije University in Amsterdam, and the European University of Madrid, eight well-trained cyclists used three different warmup strategies prior to a 3-K cycling time trial (11). The cyclists were pretty fit (VO2max = 60 ml.kg-1.min-1), and they normally trained from 10 to 15 hours each week. Their average age was 31 years,and all were experienced at 3-K
time trials. WARM-UPS

All eight subjects performed four 3-K time trials on a racing bicycle attached to a windload simulator equipped with a heavy flywheel (Findly Road Machine, Toronto, Canada). Performances on this kind of set-up have been found to simulate roadcycling performances quite closely (12, 13, 14, & 15). The first of the four efforts was a habituation trial designed to make certain that each athlete was ready for the task at hand. The warm-up for this trial
incorporated five minutes of cycling at an intensity of about 50 percent of VO2max.

The next three 3-K time trials, performed in random order, were preceded by three different warm-up strategies:

(1) No warm-up at all (the athletes simply sat on their cyclesfor six minutes and then began the time trial),

(2) An “easy warm-up” (a 15-minute warm-up that included five-minute segments at 35 percent of VO2max, 40 percent of VO2max, and 45 percent of VO2max, followed by two minutes of rest before the actual time trial), and

(3) A “hard warm-up” (an 18-minute warm-up that included five-minute segments at 35 percent of VO2max, 40 percent of VO2max, and 45 percent of VO2max, and then three minutes at about lactatethreshold intensity, followed by a six-minute rest before the beginning of the time trial).

Note the rather long rest between the end of the hard warm-up and the beginning of the time trial! While this might seem to be counter-intuitive, it represents an acknowledgement that some research has shown that intense warm-ups hurt performances. By including the longer recovery, the Wisconsin- Amsterdam-Madrid scientists were giving the hard
warm-up a chance to “work.”

As it turned out, performance was poorest after no warm-up: Without a warm-up, the time required forthe 3-K time trial averaged 274.4 seconds.

However, there were no performance differences at all between the easy and hard warm-ups, each of which produced 267-second 3-K times (about 2.5- percent faster than the no-warm-up condition). Paradoxically, a key reason for this lack of difference between the hard and soft warm-ups may have been the long recovery after the hard warm-up, which allowed heart rate and oxygen consumption to sink – during the six-minute recovery – to levels observed toward the end of the easy warm-up (thus taking away the “priming” effect of the hard warm-up). The three minutes at lactate threshold in the hard warm-up were not enough to induce significant fatigue (which would have made hard-warm-up performance worse, compared to easy-warm-up performance), and the six-minute recovery took away the heart-rate and oxygen “edges” that the hard warm-up could have provided. WARM-UPS

Interestingly enough, the three different warm-up types (no, easy, and hard) yielded identical times over the last 1500 meters of the 3K (showing, in effect, that the no-warm-up athletes used the first 1500 to warm up). In addition, there was a significant lag in the rate of increase of VO2 during the nowarm- up time trial, compared with the other two cases (remember that VO2 response is considered to be an important potential benefit of warming up).

Why does a lack of warm-up hurt the oxygen response – and thus performance? Of course, as you can imagine, blood flow to working muscles (and thus oxygen flow to same) can be augmented during an effective warm-up, but is not advanced by sitting around. After a good warm-up, oxygen flow to the muscles is more ample at the beginning of exercise, compared with the poor- or no-warm-up case, and thus the VO2 response is better. In addition, some research has shown that the heart (the body’s “oxygen pump”) behaves abnormally at the beginning of demanding exercise when no warm-up has been performed (16) – and that these abnormalities are eliminated when a warm-up is conducted (17). Abnormal beating of the heart can reduce cardiac output and thus downgrade the amount of oxygenated blood flowing to the muscles. When the flow of oxygen to muscles is reduced, the rate of aerobic energy creation also falls, and this can hurt performance significantly.

The finding that performance time and power output over roughly the last half of a 3-K time trial are similar, regardless of warm-up type (indeed even when there is no warm-up), is quite interesting. It suggests that the effects of warm-up are primarily displayed during the first two minutes or so of strenuous exertion – and then tend to disappear afterwards (provided, of course that the warm-up does not promote earlier-than-expected fatigue). This does not mean that warm-up is relatively unimportant. In a four-minute competition, for example, what happens during the first two minutes is extremely relevant to the final outcome. It does imply, however, that the effects of warm-up would be strongest in events lasting less than two minutes – and perhaps nearly imperceptible
in competitions lasting – shall we say – 40 minutes or more?

In a second, new study carried out at the University of Wales and Manchester Metropolitan University (both in the United Kingdom), 12 well-trained cyclists tried out four different warm-up strategies prior to a seven-minute performance trial on an electrically braked cycle ergometer (18). The cyclists were relatively fit (VO2max = 58 ml.kg-1.min-1), and their averageage was 34 years. The warm-ups consisted of: WARM-UPS

(1) Nothing – no exercise at all (technically, of course, this is not a warm-up),

(2) 10 to 12 minutes of moderate-intensity cycling at about 80 percent of lactate-threshold intensity,

(3) Six minutes of very strenuous cycling at an intensity which was half-way between lactate threshold and VO2max, and

(4) Nothing except 30 seconds of all-outsprint cycling (!).

Unfortunately, a 10-minute period of rest followed each of these warm-ups - prior to the sevenminute time trials. Apparently, the researchers were concerned that the heavy exercise of warm-up #s 3 & 4 might produce fatigue during the subsequent trial and thus incorporated this long, rather-unnatural recovery (we use the term unfortunately at the beginning of this paragraph because other research has suggested that extended, i. e. 10-minute, recoveries can sometimes thwart performance).

During the seven-minute trials, the subjects were constrained for the first two minutes at an intensity of 90 percent of VO2max and a pedal rate of 90 rpm (note that this is a bit like an intense warmup). For the last five minutes of the trials, the athletes attempted to sustain maximal intensities.

As it turned out, average power output during the seven-minute trial was the same (~ 339 Watts) after the moderate and heavy warm-ups; both were about 2.7-percent better than the “control” warm-up, which included no exercise at all. The sprint warm-up, which incorporated just 30 seconds of effort, with power outputs rising to 600 to700Watts, produced a level of performance during the seven-minute trial which was no better than the control situation.

Although the two studies just described provide little support for the idea that high-intensity warm-ups are superior to moderate- or low-intensity affairs, bear in mind that the unusual lengths of the “breaks” between the hard warm-ups and the time

                                                         A second study carried out in the
                                                         United Kingdom compared the
                                                         effects of four different kinds of
                                                         warm-up.

trials (six minutes in duration in the first study and 10 minutes in the second) may have obliterated the benefits associated with the more-fiery warm-up periods. Current thinking suggests that a significant portion of the warm-up should be very intense if the ensuing workout or competition will be carried out at a high intensity. The in-vogue theory is that “firing up” the brain and spinal cord with very high-level activity will prepare the nervous system to coordinate the muscles more efficiently during the top-quality work which is to follow. WARM-UPS

In order to improve our understanding of the effects of warm-up intensity on athletic performance, particularly during high-intensity exertions, scientists at the University of British Columbia in Canada and the University of Otago in New Zealand studied nine male senior rugby-union players (19). Average age of the rugby athletes was 22 years, mean weight was 176 pounds, and average VO2max checked in at a decent level of 60.4 ml.kg-1.min-1.

On four separate days, the athletes completed four different trials in the laboratory. Each test started with a range-of-motion evaluation of the hip, knee, and ankle, but this evaluation was then followed by 15 minutes of warm-up treadmill running at 60, 70, or 80% of VO2max (three trials) – or no warm-up at all (the fourth trial). In all four cases, a series of stretches for the leg muscles were then carried out for three minutes, followed by a second range-of-motion evaluation and then an all-out test on the treadmill.

For the no-warm-up trial, the rugby athletes simply sat in chairs for 15 minutes before completing their three minutes of stretching. The popular proprioceptive neuromuscular technique of “contract-relax” stretching was utilized in all cases, and special efforts were made to unkink the hamstrings, hip flexors, quads, and calf muscles. For the all-out treadmill test which followed the stretches, the athletes simply ran for as long as possible at a velocity of 13 km/hour (about 7:26 per mile pace) – on a very punishing 20-percent inclination.

As it turned out, the active warm-ups really did warm up the athletes’ bodies, compared with the chair-sitting “warm-up.” Basically, the 60- and 70-percent-of-VO2max warm-ups elevated body temperature (measured via rectal probes) by almost a full degree Centigrade, and the 80-% VO2max rehearsal upped temperature by another half-degree.
Heart rate followed a similar trend, with average heart rate highest during the 80-% treadmill effort, significantly lower in the 70-% treadmill run, lower still in the 60-% ramble, and lowest of all during chair-sitting. However, because three minutes of stretching followed the warm-up runs and preceded the all-out tests, heart rates were about the same in the 60, 70, and 80 groups when the all-out exams began. WARM-UPS

Stretching by itself had no effect at all on range of motion; there was no increase in range of motion when stretching was coupled with the chairsitting. However, ankle dorsiflexion (a movement which stretches the Achilles tendon and calf muscles) and hip extension were strongly promoted by all of the three warm-up intensities. In contrast, knee flexion (a measure of quadriceps flexibility) was not upgraded by any warm-up condition, and hip flexion (an indication of hamstring flexibility) was augmented only by the 80-%-VO2max warmup.

The effects of the various warm-ups (or no warm-up) on high-level performance were extremely interesting. Basically, the 15 minutes of running at 60 or 70% of VO2max led to situations in which the rugby athletes lasted longer than 70
seconds on the steeply inclined treadmill. In contrast, the 80-% warm-up resulted in just a little over 60 seconds of staying power, which was significantly worse than the 70-% affair and not significantly better than no warm-up at all!

Why was the highest-intensity warm-up not as good as the more inchmeal preparations? One possible explanation might be that the more strenuous warm-up fatigued the athletes to a greater extent, compared with the easier preambles, but this would be a very tenuous conclusion to make. Because stretching and range-of-motion measurements followed
the 15-minute gambols, the athletes did not start their all-out tests until at least five minutes had elapsed post-warm-up. In fact, when the all-out tests started, heart rates were exactly the same in the 60, 70, and 80 groups, and feelings of fatigue should also have been similar.

Does this mean that you should not exercise intensely during your warm-up if you intend to perform intensely during your workout or race? Absolutely not! Bear in mind that the warm-ups utilized by the British-Columbia and New-Zealand scientists were continuous in nature, and there is no reason for you to emulate this continuity. 15 continuous minutes at 80% of VO2max are certainly not necessary to fire up the nervous system prior to exercise, nor are they needed to elevate heart rate appropriately. For the close-to-one-minute-in-duration all-out effort analyzed in this study, a 15-minute warm-up, with three to four high-intensity segments lasting for 30 to 40 seconds each intertwined with easy overall exercise for the remaining 12 to 13 minutes, would have been entirely more appropriate. WARM-UPS

What does all of this research mean to you as a cyclist? For races or tough workouts lasting for extended periods of time, the warm-up becomes less important, as previously mentioned. If you are going to be cycling intensely for an hour or more, for example, a warm-up can consist of about 10 minutes of easy cycling, with perhaps one minute of effort at the pace you will establish at the beginning of your race/ workout. That should be all you need! Bear in mind that warm-ups which last longer or are more intense may actually deplete muscle glycogen to a significant degree, and you’re going to need that precious stuff during your effort!

What about shorter workouts and races? Remember that a warm-up should always prepare you specifically for what you need to do in your race or workout. A 15-minute, continuous warm-up at 80% of VO2max, followed by 10 minutes of quiescence, has little resemblance (either in time or intensity) to a time trial lasting for just three or four minutes, and it should not be used. A better match for a relatively short-duration effort would be a warm-up which includes three to four short (30-second) segments at goal intensity, to fire up your nervous system, along with about 10 to 12 minutes of general activity – with no long break between the warm-up and your exertion.

Let’s focus for a moment on that break between the end of the warm-up and the beginning of a quality workout or race. Research shows that oxygen consumption generally falls back to close to normal when the break lasts for longer than five minutes. Thus, you should not employ a break lasting longer than five minutes (remember that oxygen flow to your muscles is a good thing, providing more aerobically created energy at the onset of your effort). As you’ll see in a moment, there is evidence that the break should be even shorter than this.

The only exception would be in the case in which your workout consists of 10- to 15-second sprints (or your race is only 10 to 15 seconds in duration!). The quality of such efforts depends on the establishment of normal phosphocreatine levels in your muscles, and it takes longer than five minutes for phosphocreatine concentrations to rev back to normal after intense warm-ups. Very short intervals/races require longer breaks between warm-up and the start of activity (remember to stay “loose” during such breaks, however, pedaling lightly and stretching, if needed). WARM-UPS

One of the best studies concerning the effects of warm-ups on performance is a “classic” carried out by Dr. Walter D. Andzel of the Physical Education Department at Kean College of New Jersey in 1978 (20). Andzel monitored 20 female physicaleducation majors aged 18-23 from the school’s swimming, field hockey, and basketball teams. These athletes warmed up by exercising on a treadmill with gradually increasing speed until a heart rate of 140 beats per minute was attained. Each individual continued exercising at that level for two additional minutesand then rested for either 30, 60, 90, or 120 seconds. The performance test followed, with each participant exercising for as long as possible at a scalding intensity of 95 to 100 percent of VO2max.

The warm-up pattern which included only 30 seconds of rest prior to the hard exercise was clearly superior to the other strategies, with resting for 60 seconds being almost as good. Taking longer-than- 60-second recoveries after warm-up produced significantly poorer performances.

The shorter rest periods of 30 and 60 seconds promoted higher heart rates at the beginnings of the all-out efforts (120 and 110 beats per minute, respectively, versus 99 and 89 beats per minute for the 90 and 120 seconds of rest). That’s actually a good thing: Your heart can take it – it won’t get tired more quickly because it has to begin your exertion at a higher rate of beating, and the higher heart rate indicates that your cardiovascular (oxygen-transport) system has remained activated and is ready to work when your intense exertion begins. If you wait longer than that, there is a risk that the mobilization of your cardiovascular system will be reduced. Oxygen transport is important during the early stages of tough exertion, and so post-warm-up recoveries should generally be brief. ©

To learn about topics like DON’T LET YOUR WARM-UPS COOL YOUR PERFORMANCES, Or WHY DENTISTS MAY SOON BECOME THE BEST CYCLING COACHES  (the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 2 Issue 4 of Cycling Research News) and many more cycling related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu, or type in another topic of interest. A subscription to Cycling Research News is another way to receive valuable information about cyclinging. BUY NOW.