Journal of Trainology (J Trainol 2023;12:24-28)

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Does the addition of lower-body aerobic exercise as a warm-up

improve upper-body resistance training performance
more than a specific warm-up alone?
Naoki Ushirooka, Kotaro Muratomi, Shin Omura, Satoru Tanigawa

Objective: This study aimed to examine whether the addition of lower-body aerobic exercise as a warm-up (LGW) improves
upper-body resistance training (RT) performance more than a specific warm-up (SW) alone and to investigate whether
maximal muscular strength modulates the performance-enhancing effect of LGW.
Design: Randomized crossover design.
Methods: Fourteen male participants performed 3 sets of 80%1RM bench press under two warm-up conditions. In one con-
dition, the participants performed only a SW for the bench press exercise. In the other condition (LGW + SW), the partici-
pants performed cycling for 20 minutes and the SW for the bench press exercise.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of repetitions (REPTOTAL) and the mean propul-
sive velocity (MPV) of the barbell during the concentric phase between the SW and LGW + SW. Also, 1RM did not modu-
late the relationship between SW and LGW + SW for REPTOTAL and maximum MPV among all sets.
Conclusion: This study suggests that the LGW in addition to the SW does not have large additional effects on performance
during upper-body RT. In addition, maximal muscular strength does not modulate the performance-enhancing effect of
the LGW on upper-body RT performed at 80%1RM.
(Journal of Trainology 2023;12:24-28)
Key words:  acute effect  cross-transfer  muscle fiber  general warm-up  muscle strength

INTRODUCTION associated with an increase in muscle temperature,9,10 and

A warm-up involves preparatory exercises before the main lower-body aerobic exercise increases upper-limb muscle tem-
activity and is considered beneficial for improving perfor- perature.11 Therefore, an LG W also has the potential to
mance and reducing the risk of injury.1,2 A widely practiced improve performance during upper-body RT. However, the
warm-up consists of a general warm-up (GW) and a specific only study to our knowledge that examined the effects of LGW
warm-up (SW). The GW involves low-intensity aerobic exer- on upper body RT reported that LGW did not increase the
cise to increase muscle temperature, while the SW involves number of repetitions (REP) for bench press and arm curl.12
exercises to activate a neuromuscular system and rehearse These results would be attributed to the facts that Ribeiro et
main activity. al. (2014) recruited participants who had not performed RT
Maximal muscular strength is considered an important for at least 6 months, and had the participants perform repeti-
physical variable in any athletic performance,3 and resistance tions-failure tasks four times in a week. These facts are con-
training (RT) is an effective means of enhancing maximal sidered to have led to fatigue and influenced the results, so
muscular strength. General guidelines recommend perform- further studies with due consideration of fatigue are needed.
ing a warm-up before RT.4 In fact, some scientific evidence It has been suggested that increasing total load (sets x repe-
supports the effects of an SW on RT,5,6 but few reports are titions x load) leads to greater muscular adaptation.13 If there
available on a GW. A few studies have reported that 15-20 is no time limit, adding sets or other resistance exercises are
minutes of cycling at 40-60% of maximum heart rate effective means of increasing the total load. On the other
(HR MAX) improved one repetition maximum (1RM) leg hand, for those who would like to perform not only RT but
press.7,8 These results suggest that lower-body aerobic exer- also light aerobic exercise, which is beneficial for body mass
cise as a GW (LGW) improves the quantity and quality of low- and body fat loss as well as health14 within a limited training
er-body RT. time, increasing REP in each set without adding other sets
The performance-enhancing effects of a warm-up would be and resistance exercises are effective means of increasing the

Received July 15, 2023; accepted November 9, 2023

From the Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan (N.U., K.M., S.O.) and Faculty of Health
and Sports Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan (S.T.)
Communicated by Takashi Abe, Ph.D.
Correspondence to: Naoki Ushirooka, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki
305-8574, Japan
E-mail address: [email protected]
Journal of Trainology 2023;12:24-28 ©2023 The Active Aging Research Center http://trainology.org

24
 Ushirooka et al. Warm-up effect on upper body performance by adding lower body aerobic exercise 25

total load. Therefore, it is meaningful to investigate the effect and lower back muscles for 20 seconds each. Then, the partic-
of LGW on REP by performing a repetitions-failure task. ipants performed 10, 8, and 3 repetitions of bench press using,
In addition, although warm-up needs to be individualized 20 kg, 50%, and 70% of their estimated 1RM. The rest peri-
to optimize the effectiveness, but few studies have examined ods between sets were 2 minutes. After the warm-up, 3-6 tri-
the relationship between individual characteristics and perfor- als were performed to determine the 1RM. After each trial,
mance improvement. Gray et al. (2005) have reported that the load was increased or decreased by 5 or 10 kg. This pro-
individuals with a higher percentage of myosin heavy chain cess was repeated until failure. The rest periods between each
(MHC) IIA had greater increases in average and peak power trial were 3-5 minutes. The participants were instructed to
during sprint cycling by increasing muscle temperature.10 In keep the back of their heads, shoulders, and hips in contact
addition, the relative MHC IIA content can account for with the bench during the exercise. Both feet were firmly
approximately 30% of the shared variance in isoinertial, iso- grounded, and their knees were bent at approximately 90
metric, and isokinetic strength indices.15 Thus, maximal mus- degrees. The range of motion was defined as lowering the
cular strength is an indicator of MHC IIA content and has the barbell until it touched the chest and raising it until the elbow
potential to be a variable that modulates the performance- joint was fully extended. The participants were instructed not
enhancing effect of LGW. to bounce the barbell on their chest, and the grip width was
Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether the addi- standardized by measuring the distance between their index
tion of the LGW improves performance during the upper-body fingers.
repetitions-failure task more than a SW alone and maximal
muscular strength is a variable that modulates the perfor- Specific warm-up protocol
mance-enhancing effects of the LGW. The participants arrived at the laboratory and rested for 5
minutes. Then, they performed 1 set each of the bench press
METHODS at 40%1RM for 5 repetitions, at 60%1RM for 3 repetitions,
Experimental approach to the problem and 80%1RM for 1 repetition. The rest period between sets
This study employed a crossover design, in which the par- was 2 minutes. Based on previous studies, this protocol was
ticipants performed 3 sets of bench press at 80%1RM until designed to meet 4 conditions: progressively increasing load,
voluntary exhaustion under 2 different warm-up conditions including sets performed at 60-80%1RM, and multiple repeti-
more than three days after measuring their maximal muscular tions and sets.17,18
strength. In one condition (SW), the participants performed
only a specific warm-up for the bench press exercise. In the General and specific warm-up protocol
other condition (LGW + SW), the participants performed a gen- The participants arrived at the laboratory and rested for 5
eral warm-up with cycling and a specific warm-up for the minutes. Afterward, they performed cycling at 60-70 rpm
bench press exercise. The order of the two conditions was ran- using Wattbike trainer (Wattbike Ltd, Nottingham, UK) for
domized. The two conditions were separated by at least 4 20 minutes. During cycling, the participants monitored their
days and performed at the same time of the day. The tempera- heart rate and adjusted the pedal load to maintain 60% of the
ture in the laboratory was maintained within a standardized predicted HR MAX (calculated as 208 - [0.7*age]).19 Based on
range of 22-24°C. In addition, we instructed the participants previous studies, the intensity and duration of the LGW were
to abstain from strenuous physical activity, creatine, and caf- selected to increase upper-limb muscle temperature by
feine for 48 hours before the experiment. approximately 1°C.11 The SW was performed 2 minutes after
the LGW.
Participants
This study included fourteen men (age: 23.0 ± 1.6 years, Performance test
body mass: 73.7 ± 12.4 kg, height: 176.4 ± 6.4 cm, training 3 minutes after the end of the warm-up protocol, the partic-
experience: 5.0 ± 2.0 years, training frequency: 2.4 ± 1.1 times/ ipants performed 3 sets of bench press at 80%1RM with each
week, bench press 1RM: 87.5 ± 13.3 kg) who had at least one set performed to failure. The barbell was lowered for 2 sec-
year of RT experience. In addition, the participants were able onds and raised as quickly as possible. The rest period
to perform bench press with a load greater than their body between sets was 3 minutes. The participants followed the
mass and had no upper-body injuries. This study was approved same instructions for the proper form that were provided dur-
by the ethics review board of the University of Tsukuba. ing the 1RM measurement.
Written informed consent was obtained from all of the partic-
ipants before beginning any experimental procedures. Data measurement
Polar H10 (Polar Electro Oy., Kempele, Finland) was used
Maximal muscular strength measurements to measure the heart rate (HR). HR was recorded at a sam-
Following standard procedures,16 the bench press 1RM was pling frequency of 1 Hz. The average heart rate at each set
directly measured. First, the participants performed 5 minutes and rest was calculated and analyzed.
of cycling using Wattbike trainer (Wattbike Ltd, Nottingham, Lactate Pro 2 (Arkray Inc., Kyoto, Japan) was used to mea-
UK) and 5 static stretching exercises of the muscle groups sure the blood lactate (BLa). The blood samples were collect-
involved in the bench press: around the wrist, shoulder, chest, ed one minute before the start and one minute after the end of
26 Journal of Trainology 2023;12:24-28

Table 1 Measured variables during performance test

Set 1 pre Set 1 post Set 2 pre Set 2 post Set 3 pre Set 3 post
SW 1.8 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 1.6 6.5 ± 0.9 7.0 ± 1.3 7.0 ± 1.3
BLa [mmol/l] LGW + SW 2.2 ± 0.6 5.2 ± 0.9 6.3 ± 1.5 7.1 ± 1.5 7.5 ± 2.0 7.6 ± 1.8
ES 0.53 0.51 0.24 0.17 0.24 0.46
Set 1 Rest 1 Set 2 Rest 2 Set 3
SW 109.3 ± 16.9 87.2 ± 11.4 108.6 ± 16.4 87.8 ± 11.6 106.8 ± 15.8
HR [bpm] LGW + SW 114.3 ± 15.0 94.1 ± 10.9 115.6 ± 12.4 94.3 ± 8.9 110.0 ± 11.7
ES 0.45 0.58 0.41 0.60 0.31
Set 1 Set 2* Set 3 Total
SW 10.2 ± 1.8 6.1 ± 1.0 4.3 ± 1.5 20.6 ± 3.3
REP [n] LGW + SW 10.1 ± 1.7 6.9 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 1.0 20.9 ± 2.5
ES 0.07 0.66 0.51 0.16
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
SW 0.41 ± 0.08 0.32 ± 0.06 0.28 ± 0.04
MPV [m/s] LGW + SW 0.41 ± 0.07 0.33 ± 0.07 0.27 ± 0.05
ES 0.00 0.31 0.22

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation

BLa, blood lactate; ES, effect size; HR, heart rate; LGW, lower-body aerobic exercise performed as a general warm-up; MPV, mean propulsive velocity;
REP, the number of repetitions; SW, specific warm-up
* p < 0.05 (SW vs. LGW + SW)

each set. effect or main effect for the condition, post-hoc comparisons
REP for each set was recorded. One repetition was counted were conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with
when the barbell was lowered until it touched the chest and Bonferroni correction to compare SW with LGW + SW.
then raised until the elbow joint was fully extended. A moderation analysis was performed to test whether
During the performance test, we measured the mean pro- directly measured 1RM is a variable that modulates the effect
pulsive velocity (MPV) of the barbell during the concentric of LGW on REPTOTAL and maximum MPV during the perfor-
phase which has a strong correlation with 1RM.20 For each mance test.22 The analysis was performed in two cases: for all
repetition, MPV was measured using Vitruve (SPEED4LIFTS participants and for the 13 participants excluding one partici-
S.L., Madrid, Spain) at a sampling frequency of 100 Hz. The pant whose 1RM was 2.83*SD higher than the mean value.
maximum value of each set and the maximum value among 1RM of the 13 participants, excluding the participant whose
all sets were analyzed. 1RM was 2.83*SD higher than the mean value, were within
the mean ± 1.0*SD.
Statistical analysis The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. To assess the
The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to check whether all magnitude of differences between SW and LGW + SW, effect
variables were normally distributed. The results showed that sizes (Pearson’s r) were calculated using the t-values from
MPV and the total number of repetitions (REP TOTAL) were paired t-tests and z-values from non-parametric tests as
normally distributed, while BLa, HR, and REP were not. appropriate.23,24 All statistical analyses were performed using
Therefore, for verification of differences between SW and the SPSS software version 28.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, USA).
LGW + SW in MPV, we used a parametric two-way (condition
x time or set) ANOVA test. Before performing a parametric RESULTS
two-way ANOVA, Mauchly’s test was used to test for spheric- Blood lactate
ity. When a violation of sphericity occurred, the Greenhouse- There was no statistically significant interaction effect
Geisser corrected p-value was reported. In cases of a signifi- (condition x time) for BLa (p = 0.298). However, there was a
cant interaction effect or main effect for the condition, post- significant main effect for the condition (p = 0.025), and BLa
hoc comparisons were conducted using paired t-tests with was significantly higher in the LGW + SW than in the SW (p =
Bonferroni correction to compare SW with LGW + SW. Paired 0.013). Also, main effect for the time was revealed for BLa
t-test was also used to compare REPTOTAL between the two (p < 0.001).
conditions.
For verification of differences between SW and LGW + SW in Heart rate
BLa, HR, and REP, we used an aligned rank transformed There was no statistically significant interaction effect
repeated-measures nonparametric two-way (condition x time (condition x time) for HR (p = 0.973). However, there was a
or set) ANOVA test.21 In cases of a significant interaction significant main effect for the condition (p = 0.024), but there
 Ushirooka et al. Warm-up effect on upper body performance by adding lower body aerobic exercise 27

was no statistically significant difference between the LGW + increased muscle temperature. In contrast, the performance
SW and the SW. Also, main effect for the time was revealed for test in our study was the 80%1RM bench press, not sprint
HR (p < 0.001). cycling. This difference would be one of the reasons why
1RM did not modulate the performance-enhancing effects of
The number of repetitions LGW. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the rela-
There was a significant interaction effect (condition x set) tionship between muscle fiber composition and changes in
for REP (p = 0.004), and the LGW + SW was significantly performance due to increased muscle temperature during
higher than the SW in Set 2 (p = 0.013). No statistically signif- high-force, low-velocity exercise. Therefore, there is a need to
icant difference was revealed for Set 1 (p = 0.782), Set 3 (p = investigate the relationship between muscle fiber composition
0.059), and REPTOTAL (p = 0.565) between the LGW + SW and and changes in performance due to increases in muscle tem-
SW. perature during high-force, low-velocity exercise, such as
resistance exercise, and to further investigate whether muscu-
Mean propulsive velocity during the concentric phase lar strength modulates the performance-enhancing effects of
There was no statistically significant interaction effect LGW during high-velocity exercises, such as sprint cycling
(condition x set) for MPV (p = 0.383). Also, no main effect for and bench press throw.
the condition was revealed for MPV (p = 0.959). A main However, this study has several limitations which should be
effect for the set was revealed for MPV (p < 0.001). addressed. The first limitation is that this study did not mea-
sure muscle temperature, muscle blood flow, and muscle fiber
Moderation analysis composition. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the
Analysis for all participants showed that 1RM modulated effects of these physiological variables on the variability of
the relationship between SW and LGW + SW for MPV MAXIMUM performance during RT. The second limitation is that this
(r = - 0.544, p = 0.044), but not modulated REP TOTAL (r = study only examined the acute effects of the LGW, so the
0.180, p = 0.538). Analysis for the 13 participants, excluding effects of the LG W on long-term muscle adaptation are
one participant whose 1RM was 2.83*SD greater than the unclear. A third limitation is that the participants in this study
mean value, showed that 1RM did not modulate the relation- were only young men who routinely perform RT. In order to
ship between SW and LGW + SW for REPTOTAL (r = 0.049, p = obtain more universal findings on the effects of the LGW on
0.873) and MPV MAXIMUM (r = 0.230, p = 0.450). upper-body RT, it is necessary to examine the effects of the
LGW on individuals who have different maximal muscular
DISCUSSION strength from those of the participants in this study (e.g.,
This study revealed that the LGW did not significantly powerlifters, women).
increase REPTOTAL and MPV during the bench press exercise.
On the other hand, the LGW tended to sustainably increase CONCLUSION
HR during the performance test and significantly increased This study suggests that the LGW in addition to the SW does
REP in Set 2. The increase in HR would be associated with an not have large additional effects on performance during
increase in muscle blood f low, which would promote the upper-body RT. In addition, maximal muscular strength does
removal of lactate and hydrogen ions produced during exer- not modulate the performance-enhancing effect of LGW on
cise.25 Therefore, the increase in HR may contribute to reduc- upper-body RT performed at 80%1RM.
ing fatigue-induced performance deficits. Bogdanis et al.
(1996) have reported that cycling at 40% maximal oxygen ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
uptake to increase HR during the rest period between sets of The authors would like to thank the participants of this
sprint cycling (2 sets x 30 seconds) prevented a decrease in study. All authors declare to have no conflict of interest.
cadence from the 1st set to the 2nd set.25 Thus, the sustained
increase in HR resulting from performing the LGW may con- REFERENCES
tribute to preventing the reduction in REP from Set 1 to Set 2. 1) Bishop D. Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm up
Regarding the moderation analysis, we confirmed that the and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med 2003; 33: 483-498.
2) Safran MR, Garrett WE, Junior Seaber, AV et al. The role of warm-up in
participants whose 1RM was 2.83*SD higher than the mean
muscular injury prevention. Am J Sports Med 1988; 16: 123-129.
had a very large influence on the results. Specifically, the cor- 3) Young WB, Jenner A, Griffiths K. Acute enhancement of power
relation coefficient (r) changed by 0.724 when the participant performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res 1998; 12: 82-84.
was included and excluded. Therefore, we decided that the 4) Coburn JW, Moh HM. NSCA’s Essentials of Personal Training 2nd
results of the 13 participants without the participant were Edition. Human Kinetics 2012.
more appropriate and discussed them. Contrary to our predic- 5) Alves RR, Viana RB, Silva MH et al. Postactivation potentiation improves
performance in a resistance training session in trained men. J Strength
tion, this study suggested that 1RM did not modulate the per-
Cond Res 2021; 35: 3296-3299.
formance-enhancing effects of the LGW. In formulating this
6) Conrado de Freitas M, Rossi FE, Colognesi LA et al. Postactivation
prediction, Gray et al. (2005), to whom we refer, reported that potentiation improves acute resistance exercise performance and muscular
individuals with a greater percentage of MHC IIA, which is force in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 1357-1363.
associated with muscular strength,15 had greater increases in 7) Abad CC, Prado ML, Ugrinowitsch C et al. Combination of general and
average and peak power during sprint cycling as a result of specific warm-ups improves leg-press one repetition maximum compared
28 Journal of Trainology 2023;12:24-28

with specific warm-up in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 2011; assessment of muscular strength and power. JEPonline 2001; 4: 1-21.
25: 2242-2245. 17) Wilson JM, Duncan NM, Marin PJ et al. Meta-analysis of postactivation
8) Barroso R, Silva-Batista C, Tricoli V et al. The effects of different potentiation and power: effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender,
intensities and durations of the general warm-up on leg press 1RM. J rest periods, and training status. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 854-859.
Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 1009-1013. 18) Ribeiro B, Pereira A, Neves PP et al. The Role of Specific Warm-up during
9) de Ruiter CJ, Jones DA, Sargeant AJ et al. Temperature effect on the rates Bench Press and Squat Exercises: A Novel Approach. Int J Environ Res
of isometric force development and relaxation in the fresh and fatigued Public Health 2020; 17: 6882.
human adductor pollicis muscle. Exp Physiol 1999; 84: 1137-1150. 19) Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate
10) Gray SR, De Vito G, Nimmo MA et al. Skeletal muscle ATP turnover and revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 153-156.
muscle fiber conduction velocity are elevated at higher muscle 20) García-Ramos A, Pérez-Castilla A, Villar Macias FJ et al. Differences in
temperatures during maximal power output development in humans. Am J the one-repetition maximum and load-velocity profile between the flat and
Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2005; 290: 376-382. arched bench press in competitive powerlifters. Sports Biomech 2021; 20:
11) Kenny GP, Jay O. Sex differences in postexercise esophageal and muscle 261-273.
tissue temperature response. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 21) Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D et al. The aligned Rank transform for
2007; 292: 1632-1640. nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures.
12) Ribeiro AS, Romanzini M, Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effect of different warm- Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in
up procedures on the performance of resistance training exercises. Percept Computing Systems 2011; 143-146.
Mot Skills 2014; 119: 133-145. 22) Montoya AK. Moderation analysis in two-instance repeated measures
13) American College of Sports Medicine, American College of Sports designs: Probing methods and multiple moderator models. Behav Res
Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for Methods 2019; 51: 61-82.
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687-708. 23) Rosnow RL. Beginning behavioral research: A conceptual primer. 2nd eds.
14) Donnelly JE, Hill JO, Jacobsen DJ et al. Effects of a 16-month randomized New Jerseyt: Prentice-Hall 1996.
controlled exercise trial on body weight and composition in young, 24) Kerby DS. The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching
overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial. Arch Intern Med nonparametric correlation. Innov Teach 2014; 3.
2003; 163: 1343-1350. 25) Bogdanis GC, Nevill, ME, Lakomy HK, et al. Effects of active recovery
15) JJürimäe J, Abernethy PJ, Quigley BM et al. Differences in muscle on power output during repeated maximal sprint cycling. Eur J Appl
contractile characteristics among bodybuilders, endurance trainers and Physiol Occup Physiol 1996; 74: 461-469.
control subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1997; 75: 357-362. 26) Racinais S, Oksa J. Temperature and neuromuscular function. Scand J Med
16) Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I: Accurate Sci Sports 2010; 20: 1-18.