Cody J Wilson, João Pedro Nunes, Anthony J Blazevich
{"title":"肌肉热身对自主和诱发力-时间参数的影响:系统回顾和meta-回归分析。","authors":"Cody J Wilson, João Pedro Nunes, Anthony J Blazevich","doi":"10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While muscle contractility increases with muscle temperature, there is no consensus on the best warm-up protocol to use before resistance training or sports exercise due to the range of possible warm-up and testing combinations available. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the effects of different warm-up types (active, exercise-based vs. passive) on muscle function tested using different activation methods (voluntary vs. evoked) and performance test criteria (maximum force vs. rate-dependent contractile properties), with consideration of warm-up task specificity (specific vs. non-specific), temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin), baseline temperatures, and subject-specific variables (training status and sex).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ProQuest. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute the effect sizes (ES) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) to examine the effects of warm-up type, activation method, performance criterion, subject characteristics, and study design on temperature-related performance enhancement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 1272 articles, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria (n = 921). Increasing temperature positively affected both voluntary (3.7 % ± 1.8 %/°C, ES = 0.28 (95 %CI: 0.14, 0.41)) and evoked (3.2 % ± 1.5 %/°C, ES = 0.65 (95 %CI: 0.29, 1.00)) rate-dependent contractile properties (dynamic, fast-velocity force production, and rate of force development (RFD)) but not maximum force production (voluntary: -0.2 % ± 0.9 %/°C, ES = 0.08 (95 %CI: -0.05, 0.22); evoked: -0.1 % ± 0.8 %/°C, ES = -0.20 (95 %CI: -0.50, 0.10)). Active warm-up did not induce greater enhancements in rate-dependent contractile properties (p = 0.284), maximum force production (p = 0.723), or overall function (pooled, p = 0.093) than passive warm-up. Meta-regressions did not reveal a significant effect of study design, temperature measurement method, warm-up task specificity, training status, or sex on the effect of increasing temperature (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Increasing muscle temperature significantly enhances rate-dependent contractile function (RFD and muscle power) but not maximum force in both evoked and voluntary contractions. In contrast to expectation, no effects of warm-up modality (active vs. passive) or temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin) were detected, although insufficient data prevented robust sub-group analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":48897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","volume":" ","pages":"101024"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of muscle warm-up on voluntary and evoked force-time parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.\",\"authors\":\"Cody J Wilson, João Pedro Nunes, Anthony J Blazevich\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While muscle contractility increases with muscle temperature, there is no consensus on the best warm-up protocol to use before resistance training or sports exercise due to the range of possible warm-up and testing combinations available. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the effects of different warm-up types (active, exercise-based vs. passive) on muscle function tested using different activation methods (voluntary vs. evoked) and performance test criteria (maximum force vs. rate-dependent contractile properties), with consideration of warm-up task specificity (specific vs. non-specific), temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin), baseline temperatures, and subject-specific variables (training status and sex).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ProQuest. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute the effect sizes (ES) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) to examine the effects of warm-up type, activation method, performance criterion, subject characteristics, and study design on temperature-related performance enhancement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 1272 articles, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria (n = 921). Increasing temperature positively affected both voluntary (3.7 % ± 1.8 %/°C, ES = 0.28 (95 %CI: 0.14, 0.41)) and evoked (3.2 % ± 1.5 %/°C, ES = 0.65 (95 %CI: 0.29, 1.00)) rate-dependent contractile properties (dynamic, fast-velocity force production, and rate of force development (RFD)) but not maximum force production (voluntary: -0.2 % ± 0.9 %/°C, ES = 0.08 (95 %CI: -0.05, 0.22); evoked: -0.1 % ± 0.8 %/°C, ES = -0.20 (95 %CI: -0.50, 0.10)). Active warm-up did not induce greater enhancements in rate-dependent contractile properties (p = 0.284), maximum force production (p = 0.723), or overall function (pooled, p = 0.093) than passive warm-up. Meta-regressions did not reveal a significant effect of study design, temperature measurement method, warm-up task specificity, training status, or sex on the effect of increasing temperature (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Increasing muscle temperature significantly enhances rate-dependent contractile function (RFD and muscle power) but not maximum force in both evoked and voluntary contractions. In contrast to expectation, no effects of warm-up modality (active vs. passive) or temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin) were detected, although insufficient data prevented robust sub-group analyses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48897,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport and Health Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101024\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport and Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport and Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然肌肉收缩能力随着肌肉温度的升高而增加,但由于可能的热身和测试组合的范围,在阻力训练或运动之前使用的最佳热身方案尚未达成共识。因此,本研究的目的是确定不同的热身类型(主动的、基于运动的、被动的)对肌肉功能的影响,使用不同的激活方法(自愿的、诱发的)和性能测试标准(最大力量、速率依赖的收缩特性),考虑热身任务的特异性(特异性的、非特异性的)、温度测量方法(肌肉的、皮肤的)、基线温度、以及特定科目的变量(训练状态和性别)。方法:系统检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane、Embase、ProQuest等数据库。采用随机效应meta分析和meta回归计算效应量(ES)和95%置信区间(95% ci),检验热身类型、激活方式、运动标准、受试者特征和研究设计对温度相关运动能力增强的影响。结果:共检索到1272篇文献,其中33篇符合纳入标准(n = 921)。温度升高对自发性(3.7%±1.8%/°C, ES = 0.28 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.41))和诱发性(3.2%±1.5%/°C, ES = 0.65 (95%CI: 0.29, 1.00))速率相关的收缩特性(动态、快速发力和发力速率(RFD))均有积极影响,但对最大发力(自发性:-0.2%±0.9%/°C, ES = 0.08 (95%CI: -0.05, 0.22)没有积极影响;诱发:-0.1%±0.8% /°C, ES = -0.20(95%置信区间ci: -0.50, 0.10))。与被动热身相比,主动热身在速率相关的收缩性能(p = 0.284)、最大发力(p = 0.723)或整体功能(p = 0.093)方面并没有产生更大的增强。meta回归未显示研究设计、温度测量方法、热身任务特异性、训练状态或性别对温度升高效果的显著影响(p < 0.05)。结论:升高肌肉温度可显著增强速率依赖性收缩功能(RFD和肌力),但不能增强诱发性收缩和自发性收缩的最大收缩力。与预期相反,没有检测到热身方式(主动vs被动)或温度测量方法(肌肉vs皮肤)的影响,尽管数据不足,无法进行稳健的亚组分析。
The effect of muscle warm-up on voluntary and evoked force-time parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.
Background: While muscle contractility increases with muscle temperature, there is no consensus on the best warm-up protocol to use before resistance training or sports exercise due to the range of possible warm-up and testing combinations available. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the effects of different warm-up types (active, exercise-based vs. passive) on muscle function tested using different activation methods (voluntary vs. evoked) and performance test criteria (maximum force vs. rate-dependent contractile properties), with consideration of warm-up task specificity (specific vs. non-specific), temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin), baseline temperatures, and subject-specific variables (training status and sex).
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ProQuest. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute the effect sizes (ES) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) to examine the effects of warm-up type, activation method, performance criterion, subject characteristics, and study design on temperature-related performance enhancement.
Results: The search yielded 1272 articles, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria (n = 921). Increasing temperature positively affected both voluntary (3.7 % ± 1.8 %/°C, ES = 0.28 (95 %CI: 0.14, 0.41)) and evoked (3.2 % ± 1.5 %/°C, ES = 0.65 (95 %CI: 0.29, 1.00)) rate-dependent contractile properties (dynamic, fast-velocity force production, and rate of force development (RFD)) but not maximum force production (voluntary: -0.2 % ± 0.9 %/°C, ES = 0.08 (95 %CI: -0.05, 0.22); evoked: -0.1 % ± 0.8 %/°C, ES = -0.20 (95 %CI: -0.50, 0.10)). Active warm-up did not induce greater enhancements in rate-dependent contractile properties (p = 0.284), maximum force production (p = 0.723), or overall function (pooled, p = 0.093) than passive warm-up. Meta-regressions did not reveal a significant effect of study design, temperature measurement method, warm-up task specificity, training status, or sex on the effect of increasing temperature (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Increasing muscle temperature significantly enhances rate-dependent contractile function (RFD and muscle power) but not maximum force in both evoked and voluntary contractions. In contrast to expectation, no effects of warm-up modality (active vs. passive) or temperature measurement method (muscle vs. skin) were detected, although insufficient data prevented robust sub-group analyses.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Sport and Health Science (JSHS) is an international, multidisciplinary journal that aims to advance the fields of sport, exercise, physical activity, and health sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport, JSHS is dedicated to promoting original and impactful research, as well as topical reviews, editorials, opinions, and commentary papers.
With a focus on physical and mental health, injury and disease prevention, traditional Chinese exercise, and human performance, JSHS offers a platform for scholars and researchers to share their findings and contribute to the advancement of these fields. Our journal is peer-reviewed, ensuring that all published works meet the highest academic standards.
Supported by a carefully selected international editorial board, JSHS upholds impeccable integrity and provides an efficient publication platform. We invite submissions from scholars and researchers worldwide, and we are committed to disseminating insightful and influential research in the field of sport and health science.