The effective development of sprinting speed is a key objective in many sports, making this topic one of the most widely investigated and discussed in sport science in recent years.1–3 Indeed, in numerous sports, decisive situations (eg, scoring a goal in soccer or a try in rugby) are typically preceded by maximal sprints executed over a range of paths and distances.4–6 Despite the variations in patterns and trajectories within different sport contexts, there is a common understanding that linear sprinting performance strongly correlates with the performance obtained in other speed-related tasks, such as rapid directional changes and curvilinear sprints.5–7 Therefore, examination of the training schemes and methods commonly employed by sprint coaches—professionals who work with the world’s fastest athletes—is of great interest for sport science research to further develop current practices.8 In this regard, a series of recent survey studies have been conducted with the aim of describing and critically analyzing the training practices adopted by elite sprint coaches.8–10 Additionally, it has been shown that sprint speed is a highly stable physical capacity, exhibiting minimal variations during the competitive season (ie, ±1.4% in 100-m sprint time over the annual training season)11 and even throughout the professional careers of elite sprinters (ie, ≤0.2% during the 5 y preceding peak performance in the 100-m race time).12 Hence, identifying effective strategies aiming to increase sprinting abilities (eg, acceleration and top-speed), and thereby producing a significant improvement in the competitive performance of sprinters, is of paramount importance for coaches and practitioners not only in track-and-field disciplines but also in a number of other sports.
Postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) refers to any enhancement in performance in voluntary exercises or movements (eg, sprint or jump trials) after specific conditioning activities (CAs) such as traditional resistance or ballistic exercises.13,14 For this reason, PAPE is usually regarded as an important objective of regular warm-up protocols in a wide variety of sports.13,15,16 In sprinting disciplines, coaches usually aim to implement effective CAs to increase the acceleration capacity and the maximal sprinting speed of their athletes. For instance, Bomfim-Lima et al17 demonstrated that highly trained sprinters experienced significant decreases (ie, ∼2.5%) in their 50-m sprint times, 10 and 15 minutes after completing 2 sets of 5, 75-cm drop jumps. Subsequently, Yoshimoto et al18 found similar results after using 3 sets of 10 consecutive “mini-hurdle drills” with collegiate sprinters (ie, on average, sprinters exhibited a decrease of −1.6% in the 60-m sprint time). On the other hand, several investigations conducted with competitive sprinters at various competitive levels (ie, regional, national, and international)19–21 did not find any significant improvement in sprint performance across a range of distances (from 5 to 40 m) following the utilization of different types of exercises and motor tasks as CAs (eg, isometric contractions, resisted sprints, and reactive hops). Therefore, even for these highly specialized athletes with a clear performance indicator (ie, sprinting time or sprinting speed), there is still no consensus on which strategy to use or whether there is in fact a strategy capable of acutely enhancing their sprint performance.
Thus, the aim of the current systematic review with meta-analysis was to summarize and evaluate the effectiveness of different PAPE protocols in increasing the sprint speed of competitive sprinters. Drawing upon the theoretical and empirical arguments mentioned above, we believe that this review can serve as a valuable and useful guide for coaches and practitioners in multiple sports and as a foundation for future research into acceleration- and speed-related training practices.
Methods
Study Design
The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to summarize and assess the effectiveness of various PAPE protocols in enhancing the sprint performance of competitive sprinters. All procedures used to perform and conduct the study were in accordance with the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.22 The criteria used for literature search and data sources, study eligibility and selection, data extraction and analysis, and the assessment of risk of bias and study quality are listed and adequately detailed in the following topics.
Literature Search and Data Sources
The literature search was carried out using the following online databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Clarivate Web of Science. It included studies published until December 18, 2023. Keywords were defined based on previous studies and aligned with the study objectives. The following keywords were used in combination with the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR,” using the PICOs method (ie, participants, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) as part of the search strategy: (athletes OR sprinters OR “track and field” OR “track & field”) AND (“post-activation performance enhancement” OR “post-activation potentiation” OR PAPE OR PAP OR “acute effects” OR potentiation) AND (sprint OR sprinting OR speed OR performance). Lastly, the reference lists from relevant articles were examined to identify other potentially eligible studies.
Eligibility Criteria
Randomized peer-reviewed studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were considered for inclusion, with no age or sex restrictions. Studies were included based on the following criteria: (1) subjects were submitted to an acute CA; (2) the sample was exclusively composed of competitive sprinters, competing at both national and/or international level; and (3) linear sprint performance (ie, sprinting speed or sprinting time) was defined as the outcome variable. Regarding the exclusion criteria, studies were not considered for analysis if (1) no other comparison group or control condition was tested or implemented; (2) chronic effects were assessed; (3) the full text was not available; and (4) ergogenic aids (eg, preconditioning ischemic, caffeine, sodium bicarbonate, and transcranial direct current stimulation) were utilized.
Study Selection
The initial search was conducted by 2 researchers (Pereira and Moura). After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened, and studies that did not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded. Subsequently, the full texts of the remaining articles were analyzed. Then, in a blind and independent manner, 2 reviewers (Pereira and Moura) selected the studies for inclusion, following the eligibility criteria. In cases where no agreement was reached, a third researcher (Loturco) was consulted.
Data Extraction and Analysis
Mean, SD, and sample size data were extracted from the included manuscripts by 2 authors (Pereira and Moura). When needed, contact was made with the authors to obtain the data. If there was no response from the authors, the study was excluded from the analysis. Any disagreements during the process of data extraction and analysis were resolved by consensus among 4 authors (Pereira, Moura, Loturco, and Boullosa).
The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1; Cochrane Collaboration). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the summary effect of the different types of CAs on linear sprint performance. Effects between interventions or control conditions, as well as the differences between premeasurements and postmeasurements are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI). SMDs were used because sprint performance was assessed across a range of distances. The thresholds used to qualitatively interpret SMD were <0.2 (trivial), ≥0.2 (small), ≥0.5 (moderate), and ≥0.8 (large).23
Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I2 statistics. I values range between 0% and 100% and are considered low, modest, or high for <25%, 25% (50%), and >50%, respectively. High heterogeneity indicates substantial variability among studies in terms of outcomes and methodological aspects, resulting in varying weights of evidence. While it is not a requirement for conducting a meta-analysis, it is always preferable to have lower levels of heterogeneity among the included studies. Heterogeneity may be assumed when the P value of the I test is <.05; statistical significance was set at P < .05.24,25
Risk of Bias and Quality of the Studies
Methodological quality and the risk of bias were independently assessed by 2 authors (Pereira and Moura) using the “Cochrane risk of bias tool” (RoB 2.0).26 Any disagreements were resolved through a third-party evaluation (Loturco), as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Guidelines.27 The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale.28 Quality assessments were categorized as follows: ≤3 for poor quality, 4 to 5 for moderate quality, and 6 to 10 for high quality. Two authors (Pereira and Moura) independently conducted the assessments, with any disagreements being resolved through a third-party evaluation (Loturco).
Results
Study Selection
A total of 1205 records were initially identified through database searching, and no additional studies were found from other sources. After screening titles and abstracts, 779 out of the 819 studies that remained following duplicate removal were excluded. As a result, 40 studies were evaluated for eligibility, and based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Figure 1), 14 studies were finally included in the meta-analysis.17–21,29–37 Overall, the risk of bias among the analyzed studies was considered “low,” with 13 demonstrating a “low risk of bias” and 1 presenting “some concerns” (see Figure 2). The quality of the studies, as assessed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale, was high, with a mean score of 6.9 (0.3) out of 10 points (see Table 1).
Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale Scores for the Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Study | Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale items | Total score | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
Bomfim-Lima et al17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Gerakaki et al29 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Kotuła et al35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Kummel et al19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Lim and Kong20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Matusinski et al31 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Matusiński et al30 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Ojeda et al32 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 (high) |
Pereira et al33 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Thompson et al21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Tomlinson et al34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Yoshimoto et al18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Zimmermann et al36 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Zisi et al37 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 (high) |
Characteristics of the Interventions
The methodological characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 2. In total, 197 sprinters were assessed, comprising 125 male and 72 female athletes. The CAs included assisted sprints, resisted sprints, dynamic squats, weighted jump squats, and plyometric exercises, such as drop jumps, reactive hops, bounding, and continuous unloaded vertical jumps. The interval between the CAs and the sprint tests varied from 10 to 20 seconds to 15 minutes. Sprint distances tested ranged from 5 m (split time between 25 and 30 m) to 60 m.
Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Study | N | Competitive level; experience; 100-m PB | Gender | CA exercise | Volume and load | Rest interval | Sprint measure | Distance, m |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bomfim-Lima et al17 | 10 | National level; 6 y | Male | Drop jumps (75 cm) | 2 × 5 | 15 min | Infrared timing system | 50 |
Gerakaki et al29 | 15 | 3–4 y; 11.04 (0.4) s | Male | Semisquat and lunge of each leg | 2 s concentric—2 s eccentric | 6 min | Photocells | 60 |
15 | 3 s concentric—2 s eccentric with 50 Hz vibration | |||||||
Kotula et al35 | 10 | International level; 5.6 (0.2) y | Female | Assisted sprints Resisted sprints Combined | 4 × 40 m (+105% Vmax) 4 × 40 m (10% BM) 2 × 40 m of each | 7 min | Photocells | 50 |
Kummel et al19 | 5 | International level | 2 females 3 males | Reactive hops | 10 maximum hops | 10–20 s | Opto-electronic system | 30 |
Lim and Kong20 | 12 | Well trained; 10.93 (0.29) s | Male | Dynamic squat | 3 rep (90% 1RM) | 4 min | Speedlight timing system | 30 |
Matusinski et al31 | 10 | International level; >2 y | Female | Resisted sprints | 1 × (5% BM) | 5 min | Photocells | 20 |
1 × (10% BM) | ||||||||
1 × (15% BM) | ||||||||
Matusiński et al30 | 6 | International and national level; >6 y | Female | Assisted sprints | 3 × 40 m | 8 min | Photocells | 50 |
5 | Male | Assisted sprints | 3 × 40 m (10% BM) | |||||
6 | Female | Resisted sprints | 3 × 30 m (10% BM) | |||||
5 | Male | Resisted sprints | 3 × 30 m (10% BM) | |||||
Ojeda et al32 | 10 | — | Female | Squat | 5 × (22% 1RM) 4 × (60% 1RM) | 1 min | Photocells | 30 |
Pereira et al33 | 12 | International level; >6 y; 10.10–11.17 s | Male | Drop jumps (60 cm) | 2 × 5 (hard or sand surfaces) | 15 min | Photocells | 60 |
Thompson et al21 | 10 | — | 9 females 11 males | Resisted sprints | 3 × 20 m (∼45% BM) | 3–10 min | 1080 sprint device | 20 |
10 | Unresisted sprints | 3 × 20-m | ||||||
Tomlinson et al34 | 22 | College athletes; >1 y | 10 females 12 males | Weighted jump squats | 2 × 8 (13% BM) | 5 min | Timing gates | 30 |
Yoshimoto et al18 | 10 | >4 y; 11.46 (0.57) s | Male | Linear sprint | 2 × 60 m | 10 min | High-speed camera | 60 |
Alternate leg bounding | 3 × 60 m | |||||||
Mini-hurdle sprint (22 cm height) | 10 × 10 hurdles | |||||||
Zimmermann et al36 | 12 | National level; 3 y; 10.38–11.92 s | 2 females 10 males | Continuous vertical jumps | 3 × 5 | 2 min | Photocells | 30 |
Zisi et al37 | 12 | >3 y | 7 females 5 males | Resisted sprints | 2 × 20 m (individualized load) | 8 min | Video analysis | Split 25–30 |
Abbreviations: BM, body mass; CA, conditioning activity; 1RM, 1-repetition maximum; Vmax, maximum velocity.
Main Effects
Figure 3 displays the forest plot illustrating the comparisons between premeasures and postmeasures of linear sprint performance among the various studies. No significant changes in sprint performance were observed after implementing the different types of CAs (SMD = 0.16 [95% CI, −0.02 to 0.33]; Z = 1.78; P = .08; I2 = 0%). When comparing prechanges and postchanges between experimental and control conditions (ie, standard warm-up) or other interventions (see Figure 4), no significant differences were detected in sprint performance, considering all the studies included in this meta-analysis (SMD = 0.09; [95% CI, −0.10 to 0.28]; Z = 0.92; P = .36; I2 = 0%).
Discussion
This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of different PAPE protocols in improving the sprint performance of competitive sprinters. After revisiting the literature and analyzing the results of 14 high-quality studies on this topic, it was concluded that, in general, the various forms of CAs were unable to reduce sprint times or increase the sprint speed of these athletes. Despite the acute effects typically expected and assessed in PAPE interventions, this finding agrees with previous observations, indicating that the competitive performance of sprinters tends to exhibit minimal variations across annual seasons or even throughout their professional careers.11,12,38
In fact, under a realistic scenario, it would be highly surprising to find any strategy capable of significantly and acutely increasing the sprint speed of competitive sprinters. As a comparison, a recent study12 has showed that elite sprinters experienced annual increases of ≤0.2% from their early to mid-20s. Furthermore, in the 5 years preceding their peak performance, the top-100 sprinters worldwide (data extracted from the statistical section of “World Athletics” from 2002 to 2016) exhibited performance improvements of <2% compared to their personal bests.12 Indeed, substantial variations in sprint times during a given training period (2–3 y) or even during the competitive season are not usually expected in professional sprinters. In this regard, another recent study showed that male and female 100-m sprinters (personal bests between 10.07 and 10.61 s, and 11.03 and 11.61 s, respectively), who trained with different coaches, presented an average variation in sprint times of only ±1.4% over the course of 14 consecutive months.11 It is worth noting that the >100 sprinters considered in both of these studies followed a wide variety of training programs under the guidance of multiple coaches with distinct expertise and backgrounds, and this factor does not appear to have a significant influence on training outcomes.38 Hence, it seems highly improbable that an acute training strategy, regardless of its arrangement or nature (ie, volume, intensity, sequence, and type of exercises used as CAs), would be able to produce a substantial improvement in the sprint performance of competitive sprinters. However, this does not mean that PAPE methods cannot be used as effective ways to warm up sprinters and prepare them for more intense sprint-specific training sessions or even for complementary training practices where enhancements in other physical capabilities are relevant (eg, to induce acute increases in leg power and jumping ability before plyometric activities).13,39,40
Two out of the 14 studies considered in this review exhibited promising (yet distinct) results in sprint performance. In the first of them, Matusiński et al30 compared the effects of assisted versus resisted sprints on the 10- and 50-m sprint times of male and female national and international sprinters (ie, sprinters with vast experience in international competitions). Although both sexes presented significant decreases in sprint times, the extent of these decreases was considerably greater for male athletes (ie, −6.2% and −2.5% vs −2.6% and −0.8% in 10-m and 50-m sprint times, for male and female sprinters, respectively). According to the authors, the differences in PAPE responses between sexes may be explained by the greater strength capacity of male sprinters, who may be more susceptible to potentiation effects.13 Previous research reinforces this suggestion, indicating that these contrasting results between sexes are likely related to differences in muscle composition, specifically to muscle fiber percentage,40–42 with males tending to display elevated levels of myosin phosphorylation (ie, one of the potential PAPE mechanisms) after CAs, due to their higher percentage of type II fibers (compared to female athletes).42–44 Another indication that this positive effect was possibly associated with corresponding changes in muscle contractile properties is the fact that, for both male and female athletes, the mean increases in sprint speed were greater over the acceleration sprinting phase (ie, 10 m; increases equal to ∼4.5% vs ∼1.7%, for 10-m and 50-m sprints, respectively). Indeed, it is well established that the initial acceleration phase of sprinting relies heavily on the ability to apply force (and maximize net horizontal impulse) over a relatively extended period of time.45,46 This ability, in turn, appears to greatly benefit from the increases in maximal strength resulting from the acute improvements in muscle contractile properties and maximal voluntary contractions, typically observed after postactivation potentiation protocols.47–50 The similarity between the exercise used as CA (ie, resisted sprinting with 10% of body mass) and the potentiated activity51 (ie, acceleration phase of sprint running) in the study by Matusiński et al30 may also be a relevant factor to consider and examine in future research involving competitive sprinters. However, to date, it is worth noting that the current evidence does not support the necessity of using biomechanically (ie, kinetic and kinematic aspects) similar exercises in PAPE protocols.14 Finally, the second study17 utilized 2 sets of drop jumps at 75 cm as a form of CA for regional sprinters, reporting greater improvements in sprint time over longer sprint distances compared to shorter distances (ie, −2.4% in 50-m vs −1.4% in 10-m sprint times). A notable difference in this study was the use of a plyometric activity as a form of CA, as opposed to the resisted sprint drills used in the other study. When prescribed as CA, it could be speculated that plyometric exercises may induce acute increases in motor-neuron excitability, motor-unit recruitment pattern, and the activation of synergist muscles. Masamoto et al52 suggested that the responses associated with this “explosive-type loading” could enhance the excitability of the fast-twitch units which, in theory, might facilitate the function of the neuromuscular system, thus enhancing top-speed qualities. Nonetheless, these are speculations based on Masamoto’s inferences and should be confirmed by future research on the neuromuscular mechanisms responsible for improving (or not) the speed-power performance of competitive sprinters after plyometric activities.
Despite these few exceptions, the results of the current meta-analysis are quite clear: The PAPE protocols currently developed cannot significantly enhance the sprint performance of competitive sprinters. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, this does not imply that this training strategy is ineffective and should therefore be disregarded by sprint coaches. A more in-depth analysis of the studies included in this review suggests that significant improvements in jumping ability and peak power may be observed in sprinters as a result of various types of CAs,17,19,31 an inference that can be supported by previous meta-analyses on this specific topic.39,40,53 It is important to emphasize that these reviews were not exclusively conducted with competitive sprinters, and the results showed that the extent of the acute effects on leg power and jump performance depends on a series of factors, such as the exercise type (ie, ballistic or heavy-weight exercises), athlete’s strength level, recovery periods following the CA, loading intensity (ie, light, moderate, or high), and the number of sets and repetitions (ie, single vs multiple sets).39,40,53 Therefore, despite these consistent and positive indications, a specific systematic review with meta-analysis on the effects of CAs on the power and jump performance of competitive sprinters is still needed. Lastly, it is also important to consider the fact that potentiation effects tend to be superior in stronger individuals and athletic-trained populations, which may significantly benefit a group composed of competitive sprinters.
The current meta-analysis showed that it may not be possible to acutely increase the sprint speed or decrease the sprint time of competitive sprinters through the use of different and multiple types of CAs. Along with the abovementioned data, this finding confirms that sprinting speed is a highly stable and consistent physical capacity, with very little room for improvement, especially in competitive sprinters. In fact, a simple observation of the progression of the 100 m world record over time,54 starting from the breaking of the 10-second barrier by Jim Hines at the 1968 Olympic Games with an official time of 9.95 seconds, reinforces this argument. During this 55-year period, the fastest time achieved by a sprinter was only ∼3.7% faster than the time established by Hines. This translates into a modest annual improvement of ∼0.07% in the 100-m race time (based on the fastest time achieved over this period). It is worth noting that this improvement was greatly influenced by the extraordinary achievement of Usain Bolt in 2009, when he set the astonishing record of 9.58 seconds. This contrasts with the ∼9% improvement observed in the evolution of the world record for the marathon during this period (ie, comparing the world record of 2 h, 12 min, and 12 s established by Derek Clayton in 196755 with the current record of 2 h and 35 s set by Kelvin Kiptum in October 2023). Undoubtedly, for mathematical reasons, competitions with longer durations also provide greater scope for the evolution of athletic performance (which limits even more the evolution of elite sprint performance). Based on these numbers and being realistic, it would not be easy to find a strategy capable of substantially inducing acute (or even chronic) increases in the sprint performance of competitive sprinters.
This review is limited by the impossibility of comparing the effects of different types of CAs (eg, resisted sprints vs plyometrics, ballistics vs nonballistic exercises) on the sprint performance of sprinters. This limitation is due to the scarcity of high-quality studies on this topic. Furthermore, the majority of these relevant studies utilized very different PAPE protocols in their experimental designs, thus precluding any comparison in this regard. Nevertheless, this study sheds light on a crucial issue: The actual performance of elite sprinters may not be enhanced with the utilization of pre-CAs (ie, PAPE protocols), at least in the current form in which they are implemented. Coaches and sport scientists should collaborate and combine their efforts to develop more efficient PAPE protocols for enhancing acceleration and top-speed qualities in these highly specialized athletes. Therefore, future studies should evaluate the specific acute physiological and performance effects of each CA while considering the acceleration and maximum speed phases separately.56 Meanwhile, the absence of significant changes at a very specific population of athletes does not negate the possibility of positive changes at an individual level. For this reason, future studies should consider athletes’ training background, including the level of familiarization and adaptation to the CAs selected, while presenting the individual responses to the evaluated protocols. Finally, most studies evaluate both the control and experimental warm-up protocols within the same session, which would likely introduce some interference between the protocols. Future studies should include appropriate study designs, following the recommendations by MacInthosh et al57 and Boullosa et al,14 to better isolate the specific effects of each CA on different sprinting abilities. Authors are also encouraged to investigate whether different rest intervals (eg, <2 min vs 4–6 min vs 8–10 min) between CAs and the verification test can impact the results, as acute fatigue could be a significant factor in this context.58 In this regard, it should be noted that we included studies with a wide range of recovery times between the CAs and the verification (performance) tests, which may impact the current results.
Practical Applications
Warming-up routines are essential to prepare athletes to cope well with the ever-increasing physical and technical demands of training and competition, and PAPE is considered one of the key objectives of these regular practices.13,15 In this context, CAs are commonly used by coaches and practitioners to induce PAPE in athletes engaged in a variety of sport disciplines. Currently, it is not possible to identify a superior warming-up protocol or CA for enhancing the competitive performance of these athletes. Sprint coaches should be aware of this, while also ensuring that effective warming-up strategies are always implemented to adequately prepare their athletes for the subsequent task. For this purpose, warm-up protocols should be designed to increase body temperature, the main factor for performance enhancements, while minimizing the acute fatigue with the implementation of low-volume protocols, using CAs and loads for which the athletes are fully familiarized and adapted. Although the current evidence is limited, the biomechanical similarity between the CA and the sport-specific task to be potentiated is another aspect to take into account when searching for more efficient PAPE schemes, especially when dealing with elite athletes.51 In this sense, it would be advisable to use different exercises depending on the sprinting phase to be enhanced/potentiated (ie, acceleration vs top-speed).
Conclusions
Postactivation performance-enhancement (PAPE) strategies do not effectively enhance the sprint performance of competitive sprinters over shorter (eg, 20 m) or longer (eg, 60 m) distances. Sprint coaches and sport scientists should collaborate to develop new and more consistent PAPE protocols. This could be particularly beneficial for elite sprinters, as they often exhibit minimal variations in their competitive times throughout their professional careers.
References
- 1.↑
Haugen T, McGhie D, Ettema G. Sprint running: from fundamental mechanics to practice-a review. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2019;119(6):1273–1287. doi:
- 2.
Haugen T, Seiler S, Sandbakk O, Tonnessen E. The training and development of elite sprint performance: an integration of scientific and best practice literature. Sports Med Open. 2019;5(1):44. doi:
- 3.↑
Loturco I, Freitas TT, Zabaloy S, et al. Speed training practices of Brazilian Olympic sprint and jump coaches: toward a deeper understanding of their choices and insights. J Hum Kinet. 2023;89:187–211. doi:
- 4.↑
Freitas TT, Alcaraz PE, Calleja-González J, et al. Differences in change of direction speed and deficit between male and female national rugby sevens players. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(11):3170–3176. doi:
- 5.↑
Freitas TT, Pereira LA, Alcaraz PE, et al. Interrelationships between multiple speed tests in youth soccer: are players equally efficient at performing different sprint and change of direction tasks? J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(4):848–853. doi:
- 6.↑
Loturco I, Pereira LA, Fílter A, et al. Curve sprinting in soccer: relationship with linear sprints and vertical jump performance. Biol Sport. 2020;37(3):277–283. doi:
- 7.↑
Kadlubowski B, Keiner M, Stefer T, Kapsecker A, Hartmann H, Wirth K. Influence of linear-sprint performance, concentric power and maximum strength on change of direction performance in elite youth soccer players. German J Exerc Sport Res. 2021;51(1):116–121. doi:
- 8.↑
Loturco I, Pereira LA, Freitas TT, et al. Plyometric training practices of Brazilian Olympic sprint and jump coaches: toward a deeper understanding of their choices and insights. J Hum Kinet. 2023;88:131–150. doi:
- 9.
Healy R, Kenny IC, Harrison AJ. Resistance training practices of sprint coaches. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(7):1939–1948. doi:
- 10.↑
Loturco I, Haugen T, Freitas TT, et al. Strength and conditioning practices of Brazilian Olympic sprint and jump coaches. J Hum Kinet. 2023;86(1):175–194. doi:
- 11.↑
Loturco I, Fernandes V, Bishop C, et al. Variations in physical and competitive performance of highly trained sprinters across an annual training season. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37(5):1104–1110. doi:
- 12.↑
Haugen TA, Solberg PA, Foster C, Morán-Navarro R, Breitschädel F, Hopkins WG. Peak age and performance progression in world-class track-and-field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(9):1122–1129. doi:
- 13.↑
Boullosa D. Post-activation performance enhancement strategies in sport: a brief review for practitioners. Hum Mov. 2021;22(3):101–109. doi:
- 14.↑
Boullosa D, Beato M, Dello Iacono A, et al. A new taxonomy for postactivation potentiation in sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020;15(8):1197–1200. doi:
- 15.↑
McGowan CJ, Pyne DB, Thompson KG, Rattray B. Warm-up strategies for sport and exercise: mechanisms and applications. Sports Med. 2015;45(11):1523–1546. doi:
- 16.↑
Racinais S, Cocking S, Périard JD. Sports and environmental temperature: from warming-up to heating-up. Temperature. 2017;4(3):227–257. doi:
- 17.↑
Bomfim-Lima J, Marin D, Barquilha G, et al. Acute effects of drop jump potentiation protocol on sprint and countermovement vertical jump performance. Hum Mov. 2011;12(4):324–330. doi:
- 18.↑
Yoshimoto T, Takai Y, Kanehisa H. Acute effects of different conditioning activities on running performance of sprinters. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1203. doi:
- 19.↑
Kümmel J, Bergmann J, Prieske O, Kramer A, Granacher U, Gruber M. Effects of conditioning hops on drop jump and sprint performance: a randomized crossover pilot study in elite athletes. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2016;8(1):27. doi:
- 20.↑
Lim JJ, Kong PW. Effects of isometric and dynamic postactivation potentiation protocols on maximal sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(10):2730–2736. doi:
- 21.↑
Thompson KMA, Whinton AK, Ferth S, Spriet LL, Burr JF. Moderate load resisted sprints do not improve subsequent sprint performance in varsity-level sprinters. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(1):72–77. doi:
- 22.↑
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi:
- 23.↑
Cohen J. Some issues in power analysis: effect size. In: Cohen J, ed. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988:531–535.
- 24.↑
Benoist d’Azy C, Pereira B, Chiambaretta F, Dutheil F. Oxidative and anti-oxidative stress markers in chronic glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0166915. doi:
- 25.↑
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. doi:
- 26.↑
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:5928. doi:
- 27.↑
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
- 28.↑
de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129–133. doi:
- 29.↑
Gerakaki ME, Evangelidis PE, Tziortzis S, Paradisis GP. Acute effects of dynamic whole body vibration in well trained track & field sprinters. J Phys Educ Sport. 2013;13:270–277.
- 30.↑
Matusiński A, Gołas A, Zajac A, Maszczyk A. Acute effects of resisted and assisted locomotor activation on sprint performance. Biol Sport. 2022;39(4):1049–1054. doi:
- 31.↑
Matusiński A, Pietraszewski P, Krzysztofik M, Gołaś A. The effects of resisted post-activation sprint performance enhancement in elite female sprinters. Front Physiol. 2021;12:651659. doi:
- 32.↑
Ojeda ÁCH, Maliqueo SAG, Serrano PAC, et al. Acute effect of an intra-set variable resistance of back squats over 30-m sprint times of female sprinters. Arch Med Deporte. 2019;36:29–35.
- 33.↑
Pereira LA, Boullosa D, Moura T, et al. Post-activation performance enhancement in sprinters: effects of hard versus sand surfaces. J Hum Kinet. 2022;82:173–180. doi:
- 34.↑
Tomlinson KA, Hansen K, Helzer D, et al. The effects of loaded plyometric exercise during warm-up on subsequent sprint performance in collegiate track athletes: a randomized trial. Sports. 2020;8:101. doi:
- 35.↑
Kotuła K, Matusiński A, Zając A, Krzysztofik M. Sprint resisted and assisted priming for peak performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2023;37:2354–2361.
- 36.↑
Zimmermann HB, Knihs D, Diefenthaeler F, MacIntosh B, Dal Pupo J. Continuous jumps enhance twitch peak torque and sprint performance in highly trained sprint athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2021;16(4):565–572. doi:
- 37.↑
Zisi M, Stavridis I, Agilara GO, Economou T, Paradisis G. The acute effects of heavy sled towing on acceleration performance and sprint mechanical and kinematic characteristics. Sports. 2022;10:77. doi:
- 38.↑
Loturco I. Rethinking sport science to improve coach-researcher interactions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(11):1231–1232. doi:
- 39.↑
Dobbs WC, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Effect of postactivation potentiation on explosive vertical jump: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(7):2009–2018. doi:
- 40.↑
Maloney SJ, Turner AN, Fletcher IM. Ballistic exercise as a pre-activation stimulus: a review of the literature and practical applications. Sports Med. 2014;44(10):1347–1359. doi:
- 41.
Chiu LZ, Fry AC, Weiss LW, Schilling BK, Brown LE, Smith SL. Postactivation potentiation response in athletic and recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:671–677.
- 42.↑
Gołaś A, Maszczyk A, Zajac A, Mikołajec K, Stastny P. Optimizing post activation potentiation for explosive activities in competitive sports. J Hum Kinet. 2016;52(1):95–106. doi:
- 43.
Arabatzi F, Patikas D, Zafeiridis A, et al. The post-activation potentiation effect on squat jump performance: age and sex effect. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2014;26(2):187–194. doi:
- 44.↑
Rosa-Caldwell ME, Greene NP. Muscle metabolism and atrophy: let’s talk about sex. Biol Sex Differ. 2019;10(1):43. doi:
- 45.↑
Kawamori N, Nosaka K, Newton RU. Relationships between ground reaction impulse and sprint acceleration performance in team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(3):568–573. doi:
- 46.↑
McFarlane B. Speed development: a look inside the biomechanics and dynamics of speed. Strength Cond J. 1987;9(5):35–42. doi:
- 47.↑
Abe T, Kawamoto K, Yasuda T, Kearns CE, Midorikawa T, Sato Y. Eight days KAATSU-resistance training improved sprint but not jump performance in collegiate male track and field athletes. Int J KAATSU Training Res. 2005;1(1):19–23. doi:
- 48.
Docherty D, Hodgson MJ. The application of postactivation potentiation to elite sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007;2(4):439–444. doi:
- 49.
Docherty D, Robbins D, Hodgson M. Complex training revisited: a review of its current status as a viable training approach. Strength Cond J. 2004;26:52–57.
- 50.↑
Sale DG. Postactivation potentiation: role in human performance. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2002;30(3):138–143. doi:
- 51.↑
Cormier P, Freitas TT, Loturco I, et al. Within session exercise sequencing during programming for complex training: historical perspectives, terminology, and training considerations. Sports Med. 2022;52(10):2371–2389. doi:
- 52.↑
Masamoto N, Larson R, Gates T, Faigenbaum A. Acute effects of plyometric exercise on maximum squat performance in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17:68–71.
- 53.↑
Wilson JM, Duncan NM, Marin PJ, et al. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(3):854–859. doi:
- 54.↑
World Athletics. World record progression of 100 metres. 2023. https://worldathletics.org/records/by-progression/16647. Accessed August 10, 2023.
- 55.↑
IAAF. IAAF world championships London 2017 statistics handbook. 2023. https://worldathletics.org/ebooks/2017/WCH/index.html#page=676. Accessed August 10, 2023.
- 56.↑
Silva DS, Boullosa D, Pereira EVM, et al. Does the sequence of plyometric and dynamic stretching exercises influence subsequent sprint performance? A randomized crossover intervention study. Biol Sport. 2023;41(2):13–18. doi:
- 57.↑
Macintosh BR, Robillard ME, Tomaras EK. Should postactivation potentiation be the goal of your warm-up? Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012;37(3):546–550. doi:
- 58.↑
Simitzi VE, Tsoukos A, Kostikiadis IN. The acute effects of different high-intensity conditioning activities on sprint performance differ between sprinters of different strength and power characteristics. Kinesiology. 2021;53:193–205.