Effects of High-Intensity Intermittent Priming on Physiology and Cycling Performance
Participants
n=10 endurance-trained male cyclists
Protocol
Four 3-km time trials on separate occasions, each preceded by a different priming strategy: (1) "self-selected" priming; (2)-(4) prescribed intermittent priming = 10 min of constant-load cycling followed by 5 × 10 s bouts at 100% of peak aerobic power (Wpeak), at 150% Wpeak, or all-out
Outcomes: 3-km TT mean power, heart rate, blood lactate, VO2 kinetics
Key Results
Self-selected priming: 379 ± 44 W mean TT power
Intermittent priming at 100% Wpeak: 376 ± 45 W (-0.7%, unclear) — no meaningful difference
Intermittent priming at 150% Wpeak: 374 ± 48 W (-1.5%, unclear) — no meaningful difference
All-out intermittent priming: 357 ± 45 W (-5.8%, "almost certainly harmful") — significantly worse than self-selected priming
Intermittent priming changed heart rate (6.2% to 11.5%), blood lactate (-22.9% to 125%) and VO2 kinetics (-22.9% to 8.2%) relative to self-selected priming, but these physiological differences were not related to the performance outcomes
Conclusion: prescribed intermittent priming strategies of varying intensity did not substantially improve 3-km TT performance compared with self-selected priming
Mechanism
Inference, not tested: the 5 × 10 s all-out bouts likely left residual fatigue/metabolic disturbance that the recovery before the TT did not clear, so the harm outweighed any priming of VO2 kinetics; sub-maximal intermittent bouts changed the physiology but not the result. The abstract itself states only that the physiological differences were unrelated to performance.
Practical Application
In 10 endurance-trained cyclists, a self-selected warm-up gave the same 3-km TT power (379 W) as prescribed 10 min steady + 5 × 10 s bouts at 100% or 150% of peak aerobic power (376-374 W, differences unclear), while 5 × 10 s all-out bouts cost -5.8% (357 W) — an experienced rider's own warm-up is hard to beat, and all-out sprints shortly before a ~4-min TT hurt
Do not add all-out sprint sets to the warm-up right before a short time trial; if short high-intensity bouts are used, keep them sub-maximal (≤150% of peak aerobic power in this study)
Higher heart rate, lactate or faster VO2 kinetics after a warm-up do not by themselves predict a better TT — judge a warm-up by performance, not by how "activated" it feels
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a warm-up of ~10 min steady riding with a few short sub-maximal openers, followed by easy spinning before the start, is what the base recommends before short TTs
Limitations
Only a 3-km TT (~4 min effort) tested; longer events not studied
Only trained male cyclists (n=10)
The self-selected warm-up is not described in the abstract, so it is unclear what the prescribed strategies were compared against
Recovery interval between priming and TT not stated in the abstract
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B+: crossover, n=10 (<15)
Content correction 2026-09-27
Entry described a 4-km TT, n=12, VO2max ~60, and a "3×2 min at 80% Wmax vs 6 min continuous" design with intermittent priming 1.5% faster (p<0.05) -> abstract: n=10, 3-km TT, self-selected vs 10 min constant + 5 × 10 s at 100%/150% Wpeak/all-out; intermittent priming did NOT improve performance (-0.7% and -1.5%, unclear) and all-out priming was harmful (-5.8%).
Invented results (continuous priming 0.8%, faster VO2 kinetics at TT onset, no RPE difference, lactate not impairing performance) and invented practice ("3×2 min at 80%", "8-10 min spin", "275-280 W pre-5h protocol") removed; direction of the lead reversed to match the abstract.
Level B+ -> B (crossover, n=10).