REF-277 · Chorley A & Lamb KL, 2019 · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, · Paper · PubMed
The Effects of a Cycling Warm-up Including High-Intensity Heavy-Resistance Conditioning Contractions on Subsequent 4-km Time Trial Performance
Participants
n=10 well-trained male endurance cyclists (VO2max 65.3 ± 5.6 ml/kg/min)
Protocol
Two 4-km TTs, each 5 min after a warm-up: (1) moderate warm-up (MW) — 6.5 min at 60% VO2max; (2) conditioning warm-up (CW) — 5 min at 60% VO2max then 3 × 10 s at 70% of peak power with 30 s recovery between
Measured: time, power output, peak force per pedal stroke over each 500-m split, expired gases, blood lactate before and after the TT
Key Results
After CW vs MW, completion time was 1.7 ± 3.5 s shorter, power 5.1 ± 10.5 W higher and peak pedal force 5.7 ± 11 N higher — none of these performance differences were statistically significant (p > 0.05); note the SDs are larger than the means
VO2 was higher after CW (+1.4 ± 1.6 ml/kg/min, p ≤ 0.05) and RER lower (-0.05 ± 0.02, p ≤ 0.05)
Physiological and performance differences were greatest over the first 1500 m
Authors' conclusion: warming up with PAP-inducing efforts changes VO2 kinetics and "can lead to" better performance in short endurance cycling events, though the work and recovery durations should be tuned to each athlete
Mechanism
Inference (authors' interpretation): the 3 × 10-s efforts at 70% peak power prime the oxidative response (higher VO2, lower RER early in the TT), which is where the small early-TT advantage appears. Whether this is "PAP" (myosin light-chain phosphorylation) or metabolic priming of VO2 kinetics cannot be separated from these data.
Practical Application
In 10 well-trained cyclists, adding 3 × 10 s at 70% peak power to a short warm-up made a 4-km TT 1.7 ± 3.5 s faster and 5.1 ± 10.5 W stronger — a trend that did not reach significance (p > 0.05), with a real rise in VO2 (+1.4 ml/kg/min) and a lower RER; the effect is small, individual and concentrated in the first 1500 m
Three 10-s openers with 30-s recoveries, finishing 5 min before the start, are cheap to add and do no harm in this study — worth trying for TTs and race starts, but do not expect a guaranteed gain
The authors advise tuning the work and recovery durations for each athlete; treat the 5-min gap as a starting point, not a rule
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: the same short-opener structure is used before long endurance events as a way to "wake up" the legs, but this study tested only a ~6-min TT
Limitations
Performance differences not statistically significant (p > 0.05) with n=10 — the study is underpowered for a ~1-2 s effect
Only a 4-km TT (short duration); only male participants
5-min recovery period — other windows not explored
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from B+: crossover, n=10 (<15); primary performance effect not significant
Content correction 2026-09-27
"~2 s faster (p<0.05)" and "+5 W" -> abstract: 1.7 ± 3.5 s and 5.1 ± 10.5 W, both p > 0.05 (not significant); the significant findings were VO2 (+1.4 ml/kg/min) and RER (-0.05).
"No difference in RPE" (not in the abstract) and the "pre-5h event" protocol (house advice) removed / relabelled as the base's practice.
Level B+ -> B (crossover, n=10, non-significant primary outcome).