Effect of Short-Duration High-Intensity Upper-Body Pre-Load Component on Performance among High-Level Cyclists

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of upper-body high-intensity exercise priming on subsequent leg exercise performance. Specifically, to compare maximal 4000 m cycling performance with upper-body pre-load (MPThigh) and common warm-up (MPTlow). In this case, 15 high-level cyclists (23.3 ± 3.6 years; 181 ± 7 cm; 76.2 ± 10.0 kg; V˙O2max: 65.4 ± 6.7 mL·kg−1·min−1) participated in the study attending three laboratory sessions, completing an incremental test and both experimental protocols. In MPThigh, warm-up was added by a 25 s high-intensity all-out arm crank effort to the traditional 20-min aerobic warm-up. Both 4000 m maximal bouts started with a 12 s all-out start. Heart rate, blood lactate concentration [La) and spirometric data were measured and analyzed. Overall MPThigh time was slower by 5.3 ± 1.2 s (p < 0.05). [La] at the start was 5.5 ± 1.5 mmol·L−1 higher for MPThigh (p < 0.001) reducing anaerobic energy contribution which was higher in MPTlow during the first and third 1000 m split (p < 0.05). Similarly, MPTlow maintained higher total average power during the entire performance (p < 0.05, d = 0.7). Although the MPThigh condition performed less effectively due to decreased anaerobic capacity, pre-load effect may have the potential to enhance performance at longer distances.

No Evidence of Postactivation Performance Enhancement on Endurance Exercises: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…However, we identified a high risk of bias for the measurement of the outcome domain in all but two studies (45,47), as most studies reported no information of blinding the outcome assessors. By contrast, some studies informed that assessors aware of the intervention were also responsible for providing verbal encouragement to participants (2,16,(42)(43)(44)46,47,49,50,(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58). All the studies included in this review showed some concerns for selecting the reported results, as none registered the study protocol before the execution (Fig.…”

“…Perhaps, the most problematic aspect was the methodology to assess performance outcomes, as the massive part of the literature has adopted biased procedures. For example, several studies did not report if assessors were aware of the intervention being received by participants (42), whereas others declared that assessors provided verbal encouragement during exercise tests used to assess endurance performance (2,16,42,43,46,47,49,50,(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58). Despite the exercise performance assessment through objective measures such as power, time, etc., is unlikely to carry observer-derived bias, it is highly concerned that verbal incentives have been provided by assessors aware of the interventions received by the participants.…”