Static Stretching and Combined Stretching and Post-Activation Potentiation: An Evaluation of Their Acute Effects on Bench Press Strength

Abstract

The optimization of warm-up strategies is essential to maximize athletic performance, especially in resistance training. While prolonged static stretching is associated with reduced power output, post-activation potentiation is known to increase it. However, the effects of short-term static stretching and its interaction with post-activation potentiation remain unclear. This study examined the acute effects of short-term static stretching alone and static stretching combined with post-activation potentiation on bench press power in trained individuals. The experimental method was used in this study. Twenty-four resistance-trained males successfully completed four sessions. The findings showed that static stretching alone significantly increased both peak and mean power compared to baseline. Combining static stretching with post-activation potentiation further increased the peak and mean power compared to baseline, but not by significantly more than static stretching alone. As a main conclusion, short-term static stretching can notably increase upper body strength, and although the addition of post-activation potentiation provides a numerical benefit, it does not outperform static stretching alone in this regard. Both static stretching and static stretching + post-activation potentiation may be viable warm-up strategies to improve acute bench press performance in trained individuals.

1. Introduction

Heating techniques are crucial elements of athletic preparation, especially in resistance training scenarios such as the bench press. Among these techniques, static stretching (SS) and a combination of stretching and post-activation potentiation (PAP) are notable. SS, characterized by the elongation of a muscle group to its furthest extent and holding of the position, is a conventional method for enhancing flexibility and preparing muscles. However, its immediate impact on performance, especially on force-based tasks, has been subject to criticism. Research indicates that SS may result in an immediate reduction in strength output, mostly attributed to a possible decline in muscle stiffness and neuronal activity [1]. Systematic reviews on heating efficacy suggest that SS may yield fewer positive outcomes compared to dynamic methods, as noted by [2], which underscores the intricate relationships between muscle stretching, neuromuscular activation, and performance indicators.

Conversely, integrated stretching techniques that include dynamic motions and PAP have garnered interest for their capacity to enhance immediate performance outcomes. PAP is defined by a pre-conditioned workout that stimulates muscular fibers, succeeded by a brief recovery interval before further exertion, with the objective of enhancing power and energy output. The fundamental PAP mechanisms entail temporary alterations in muscle physiology, comprising enhanced motor unit recruitment, an accelerated force development rate, and augmented muscle fiber recruitment resulting from heightened central nervous system activation [3]. According to Spokely [4], PAP not only enhances neuromuscular preparedness but also fosters certain physiological adaptations that can elevate performance in strength exercises, such as supine ones.

An extensive analysis of heating procedures must consider the historical context of these methods. Historically, athletes relied heavily on SS as a fundamental component of their warm-up routines, on the assumption that it would mitigate injuries and enhance performance [5]. Nonetheless, recent studies necessitate a revaluation of this technique, particularly in strength competitions. For rapid and explosive actions like the bench press, reliance solely on SS proved suboptimal. Botton et al. [6] indicate that SS may have detrimental effects when performed just before high-intensity activities due to alterations in muscle temperature and neuronal output.

Bicen et al. [7] revealed in their study that exercises significantly increase motivation, physical strength, and performance levels. Understanding the singular and collective impacts of these stretching techniques is essential for professionals seeking to enhance sports performance. Recent findings highlight the necessity for tailored heating regimes that correspond more accurately with the physiological requirements of distinct sports performance [8]. The increasing evidence assessing dynamic stretching and PAP underscores a paradigm shift towards more dynamic and functional warm-up procedures that optimally prepare the body for energy production and performance. The ongoing advancement in heating techniques underscores the necessity of integrating adaptive structures that embody the intricacies of muscle physiology and performance dynamics in resistance training, especially in exercises like the bench press. The immediate effects of SS versus combined stretching with post-activated strengthening (PAP) on bench performance have garnered significant attention in sports science, particularly concerning the physiological mechanisms that influence power production and overall metrics. SS, while commonly employed to enhance flexibility, has consistently been shown to potentially impair power during explosive activities, such as the bench press. Amorim et al. [9] and Xu et al. [10] conducted studies that indicated a notable decrease in power parameters following post-stage stretching interventions, suggesting that the passive elongation of muscle fibers may diminish muscle rigidity and, as a result, impair explosiveness in subsequent efforts.

Conversely, the application of combined stretching with PAP has yielded more advantageous outcomes concerning bench measurements. The PAP system, which involves intense resistance exercises followed by less explosive efforts, is predicated on the notion that prior high-intensity contractions can enhance subsequent performance by neural facilitation [11]. The empirical data from Liu et al. [12] corroborates this concept, demonstrating that participants who engaged in combined stretching with PAP had substantial enhancements in bench power, as assessed by both speed and strength metrics, in contrast to those who underwent SS.

The precise outcomes of the frequently assessed performance encompass peak power, average power, and speed during bench exercises. Studies have indicated a statistically significant enhancement in peak power when employing stretching in conjunction with PAP, as opposed to SS methods. Participants employing mixed methods exhibited enhanced velocity in their initial lifting, signifying increased neuromuscular availability [13].

The varying impacts on physiological response indicators elucidate the underlying mechanisms. Blood lactate levels, commonly linked to anaerobic metabolism, have been observed to markedly increase after intense bouts of extraordinary resistance static elongations [14]. Conversely, SS is believed to induce an accumulation of lactate in the lower circulation, possibly due to the muscle’s relaxed state, which may impair subsequent performance.

The perceived effort, assessed using the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale, varies markedly among different heating preparations. Participants who engaged in simultaneous stretching with PAP typically reported lower RPE levels during bench tests compared to those who performed SS, suggesting a more efficient recruitment of muscular fibers and enhanced readiness for exertion [15]. Furthermore, electromyography (EMG) readings indicate that SS may diminish muscle activation, evidenced by decreased electrical activity in the pectoral and triceps muscles during performance assessments. Conversely, the PAP strategy frequently results in heightened EMG activity prior to lifting, thereby facilitating greater force production [16].

We contrasted the effects of these heating modalities on performance outcomes and physiological markers; athletes and coaches must meticulously evaluate their unique performance objectives when designing heating regimes. Although SS can be beneficial for flexibility training, its use just before explosive resistance exercises, such as the bench press, may be inadvisable due to its potential inhibitory effects on power output. Conversely, the integration of PAP methods along with dynamic stretching may offer a superior method for enhancing critical performance measures in strength athletes.

Considering the findings listed thus far, no research has been found investigating the effects of short-term SS alone or in combination with post-activation strengthening on bench press strength in trained individuals. There is a need for further research on this topic, and a significant research gap exists in the field.

The purpose of this study examined the acute short-term effects of SS alone and SS combined with post-activation potentiation on bench press power in trained individuals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Model

The experimental method was used in this study. Twenty-four resistance-trained males successfully completed four sessions.

2.2. Participants

This study was conducted with 24 male volunteer participants (age: 32.9 ± 4.0 years; height: 179.2 ± 5.0 cm; body weight: 84.2 ± 7.4 kg; training experience: 13.9 ± 2.5 years) who had at least 2 years of experience of regular resistance training 3 times/week and had not had any upper extremity injury in the last 6 months. Exclusion criteria included acute or chronic upper extremity injury, history of cardiovascular or neuromuscular disease, heavy training in the last 24 h, and medication that may affect performance.

2.3. Data Collection and Procedure

Data was collected across 4 separate sessions, each separated by at least 48 h to allow for adequate recovery and minimize interference between sessions. A standardized warm-up protocol was applied before testing procedures in each session (Sessions 2, 3, and 4 required performance testing; Session 1 required One Rep Max testing (1RM)): 10 min of running at 8 km/h, followed by dynamic whole-body stretches. Each stretch type was performed for approximately 30 s. The warm-up concluded with specific bench press warm-up sets at 20%, 40%, and 60% of the participant’s estimated 1RM (based on previous experience or Session 1 results). Sessions 3 and 4 were conducted sequentially rather than in a randomized order. Height and body weight were measured in the first session. An accelerometer (Pasco-PS3223, Gladiator Technologies, Washington, USA) attached to the barbell was used to measure peak/mean power and velocity during bench press repetitions in Sessions 2, 3, and 4.

Experimental Procedure. Performance measurements of peak and mean power in Sessions 2, 3, and 4 were taken during bench press repetitions performed at 70% of the participant’s 1RM, as determined in Session 1.

Session 1 (1RM Determination): Following anthropometric measurements and the standardized warm-up (adjusted for 1RM testing), the participants’ bench press 1-repetition maximum (1RM) was determined using a standard incremental protocol. No other performance data were collected in this session.

Session 2 (Baseline Performance): Following the standardized warm-up, baseline performance metrics (peak/mean power) were established. Participants performed 10–12 repetitions of the bench press exercise at 70% 1RM. Peak power was defined as the highest value recorded across the set. Mean power was calculated as the average power across all successful repetitions in the set.

Session 3 (Post-SS Performance): Following the standardized warm-up, participants performed an SS protocol targeting the pectoralis major muscle (2 sets of 30 s static stretches, with a 30 s rest between sets). Immediately after the SS protocol, participants performed bench press repetitions at 70% 1RM, and peak and mean power were measured again using the same analysis method as in Session 2.

Session 4 (Post-SS + PAP Performance): Following the standardized warm-up and specific bench press warm-up, participants first performed the same SS protocol (2 × 30 s). This was immediately followed by the PAP conditioning activity: 2 sets of 3 repetitions of bench press exercise at 90% of their 1RM, with 2–3 min rest between sets. After a standardized 5 min PAP rest period following this heavy stimulus, participants performed the performance measurement—bench press repetitions at 70% 1RM—and peak and mean power were measured again using the same analysis method as in Session 2.

All sessions were conducted at a similar time of day, and the same researcher conducted all tests. Previous tests did not interfere with subsequent tests because a minimum rest period of 48 h was ensured between each test session. All tests were conducted at the same time of day, roughly two hours after lunch, which minimized the effects of biological rhythms on the test results. These arrangements were made to increase the reliability and validity of this study and arguably contributed to more consistent results. Figure 1 show chematic representation of the study design.

2.4. Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Girne American University Ethics Committee (approval number [2023/2024-12]) and the Ethics Committee for Human Experiments at Ritsumeikan University (BKC-LSMH-2023-081) and was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. At every stage of the investigation, participants were given descriptive information, and it was stated that volunteering was essential.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

SPSS 26.0 was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, range) were calculated for participant characteristics and performance variables from Sessions 2, 3, and 4. Shapiro–Wilk tests confirmed normality for the power variables (p > 0.05). Power data (peak and mean) measured at 70% 1RM were analyzed. A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the peak power and mean power values across the three conditions, represented by Session 2 (Baseline), Session 3 (Post-SS), and Session 4 (Post-SS + PAP). Mauchly’s test assessed sphericity, with corrections applied if necessary. Significant main effects were followed by Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests for pairwise comparisons [17]. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated [18]. A priori power analysis confirmed adequate sample size (n = 24). Significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Characteristics of Participants and Performance Measurements: The physical characteristics of the 24 male participants are presented in

Table 1. Physical characteristics and power measurements at 70% 1RM (mean ± SD and range).

Parameters	Means ± SD	Range
Physical Characteristics
Age (year)	32.9 ± 4.0	25–39
Height (cm)	179.2 ± 5.0	169–186
Weight (kg)	84.2 ± 7.4	70–96
Training experience (year)	13.9 ± 2.5	8–20
1RM bench press (kg)	97.5 ±12.0	85–120
Performance Measurements
Baseline peak power (W)	657.3 ± 92.8	409–814
Peak power after SS (W)	687.3 ± 80.6	494–798
Peak power after SS + PAP (W)	712.5 ± 77.5	575–870
Baseline mean power (W)	605.8 ± 89.6	399–794
Mean power SS (W)	642.1 ± 81.1	430–751
Mean power SS + PAP (W)	655.9 ± 58.6	545–745

Note: SS = static stretching; PAP = post-activation potentiation. Baseline data collected in Session 2. Post-SS in Session 3. Post-SS + PAP in Session 4. All power measured during reps at 70% 1RM.

. The participants were well experienced in resistance training, with an average training history of 13.9 ± 2.5 years and a mean bench press 1RM determined in Session 1 of 97.5 ± 12.0 kg. Table 1 also displays the descriptive statistics for the peak and mean power measurements obtained during the bench press repetitions at 70% 1RM across the three experimental conditions: Session 2 (Baseline), Session 3 (Post-SS), and Session 4 (Post-SS + PAP).

Changes in Peak Power: The one-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of condition (Session 2 vs. Session 3 vs. Session 4) on peak power measured at 70% 1RM (F (2, 46) = 14.13, p < 0.0001). Post hoc analyses using Bonferroni correction were performed to examine pairwise differences (

Table 2. Pairwise comparison of peak power values (70% 1RM) between conditions.

Difference Between Peak Power Sessions	Difference (W)	Std Error	p Value	Effect Size
Peak power values of baseline and after SS sessions (W)	−30.4 W	7.49	0.0006 *	0.33
Peak power values of baseline and after SS + PAP session (W)	−55.21 W	8.28	<0.0001 *	0.62
Peak power values of SS and SS + PAP sessions(W)	−25.17 W	7.77	0.062	0.32

Note: p < 0.05 *. The effect size was calculated with Cohen’s d. SS = Static stretching; PAP = post-activation potentiation.

).

Comparing Session 3 (Post-SS) to Session 2 (Baseline), peak power was found to be significantly higher after SS (mean difference = 30.0 W, corrected p = 0.0006, d = 0.33). This represents a 4.57% increase from baseline. This finding directly contradicts Hypothesis 1 (H1), which predicted a decrease in peak power after SS; therefore, H1 is rejected.

Changes in Mean Power: Similarly, the repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a statistically significant main effect of condition on mean power measured at 70% 1RM (F (2, 46) = 16.21, p < 0.0001). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction were conducted (

Table 3. Pairwise comparison of mean power values (~70% 1RM) between conditions.

Difference Between Peak Power Sessions	Difference (W)	Std Error	p Value	Effect Size
Mean power values of initial SS sessions and after	−36.33	7.50	0.0002 *	0.43
Mean power values of the initial SS + PAP sessions and after	−50.08	9.31	0.0001 *	0.64
Mean power values after SS and SS + PAP sessions	−13.75	5.37	0.21	0.20

Note: p < 0.05 *. The effect size was calculated with Cohen’s d.; SS = static stretching; PAP = post-activation potentiation.

).

Comparing Session 3 (Post-SS) to Session 2 (Baseline), mean power was significantly higher following SS (mean difference = 36.3 W, corrected p = 0.0002, d = 0.43). This represents a 6.00% increase from baseline. This finding directly contradicts Hypothesis 2 (H2), which predicted a decrease in mean power after SS; therefore, H2 is rejected.

Comparing Session 4 (Post-SS + PAP) to Session 2 (Baseline), the mean power was also significantly higher after the combined intervention (mean difference = 50.1 W, corrected p = 0.0001, d = 0.64), representing an 8.27% increase from baseline. This supports Hypothesis 6 (H6), indicating a significant effect of the SS + PAP condition compared to baseline.

Crucially, comparing Session 4 (Post-SS + PAP) to Session 3 (Post-SS), the observed increase in mean power (mean difference = 13.8 W) was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction (corrected p = 0.2100, d = 0.20). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 (H4), which predicted that the addition of PAP would result in significantly greater mean power than SS alone, is rejected. Effect sizes ranged from small to medium for mean power. Table 3 presents the pairwise comparison of the mean power values at approximately 70 percent of one-repetition maximum across conditions.

4. Discussion

This study sought to elucidate the acute effects of short-duration SS alone and SS combined with a post-activation potentiation (PAP) protocol on bench press power output at 70% 1RM in experienced, resistance-trained men. This study yielded several relevant findings, most notably an unexpected enhancement in power following the SS protocol, and a lack of statistically significant additive benefits when combining this SS with the specific PAP protocol employed. These results might challenge some widely held views on SS and might provide nuanced insights into warm-up strategies for upper body power.

A central and unexpected outcome of this research was the significant improvement in both peak (+4.57%) and mean (+6.00%) power observed after the short-duration SS intervention (two sets of 30 s) compared to the baseline condition. This finding directly contradicts our initial hypotheses, which, grounded in a considerable portion of the existing literature [19,20,21,22], anticipated a performance decrement following SS. Much of that literature highlights potential negative consequences of SS, such as reduced muscle–tendon stiffness impairing elastic energy storage and return [23,24], possible neural inhibition [25], and altered force production mechanisms [26], particularly when stretches are held for prolonged durations (often >60 s). The observed power enhancement in our study strongly suggests that these detrimental mechanisms were either not substantially invoked or were overshadowed by positive physiological responses under the specific conditions tested.

Several factors likely contributed to this beneficial effect of short-duration SS. Foremost among these is the duration of the stretch. The literature increasingly supports a duration-dependent response, where detrimental effects are more commonly associated with longer stretching protocols [23,27]. The brief 2 × 30 s protocol used here aligns with durations sometimes found to have negligible or even slightly positive impacts on performance [28,29]. It is plausible that this duration was sufficient to induce potentially beneficial effects, such as increased muscle temperature and blood flow or improved joint positioning and range of motion, allowing for more efficient movement execution [24,30,31] without significantly compromising the neuromuscular properties crucial for power generation in the bench press. Furthermore, task specificity is critical. The bench press, while involving elastic components, may rely less critically on maximal stretching–shortening cycle efficiency compared to lower body explosive activities like jumping or sprinting, where SS-induced impairments are more consistently reported [20,21]. Upper body musculature may also exhibit different responses to stretching compared to lower limb muscles [32]. Lastly, the experienced training status of the participants (~14 years’ experience) could play a role; experienced athletes might possess more resilient neuromuscular systems less susceptible to potential negative effects of brief stretching, or they may be better equipped to translate subtle benefits into improved performance [31]. Collectively, these factors emphasize that the acute impact of SS is highly context-dependent, and for this specific protocol, task, and population, short-duration SS proved advantageous.

This study also evaluated the effect of adding a PAP protocol (two sets of three reps at 90% 1RM) following the initial beneficial SS warm-up. While the combined SS + PAP condition resulted in the numerically highest peak and mean power values, and these were significantly greater than the baseline condition (confirming H5 and H6), the direct comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between the SS + PAP condition and the SS-only condition after appropriate correction for multiple comparisons (rejecting H3 and H4). This indicates that within the statistical resolution of this study, the heavy PAP stimulus did not provide a significant additional power enhancement beyond that already achieved through the effective SS protocol alone.

This lack of a statistically significant additive PAP effect, contrary to our hypotheses H3 and H4, which anticipated superiority based on the general PAP literature [32,33,34], merits careful consideration. One potential explanation is a functional ceiling effect; the initial SS protocol was surprisingly effective on its own, significantly elevating performance from baseline. Detecting a further statistically significant increase from this already elevated state might require a larger true effect size or greater statistical power than detecting changes from the lower baseline. Secondly, the PAP protocol itself introduces both potentiation and fatigue. The heavy loads (90% 1RM) inevitably induce some level of muscular fatigue, which can counteract the potentiating mechanisms [34,35,36]. It is possible that the chosen PAP parameters (intensity of 90% 1RM, two sets, and the 5 min rest interval) resulted in a fatigue–potentiation balance that yielded a net effect not significantly different from the SS-only condition. The optimal PAP protocol can be highly specific and influenced by preceding activities [33,34]. Thirdly, although this study was adequately powered to detect differences from baseline, the statistical power might have been marginal for detecting the potentially smaller difference between the two active interventions (SS vs. SS + PAP), as suggested by the small-to-medium effect sizes (d = 0.32 and 0.20) observed for this specific comparison. Finally, there could be complex interactions in which the physiological state induced by the beneficial SS subtly altered the muscle’s response to the subsequent PAP stimulus.

From a neuromuscular perspective, the short-duration SS may have created an optimal physiological environment that limited the potential for further enhancement through PAP. When muscles undergo brief stretching, several processes occur simultaneously: motor units are recruited in a specific pattern, muscle spindles adjust their sensitivity, and the nervous system recalibrates its control strategies [18]. This neural recalibration might have already optimized the coordination between agonist and antagonist muscles, potentially improving the efficiency of force transmission during the bench press [9,21]. Additionally, the stretching protocol could have triggered a moderate increase in muscle activation through a mechanism called post-stretch facilitation, where the nervous system temporarily increases its drive to the stretched muscles [25]. If this facilitation effect was already near-maximal after the SS protocol, the heavy loads used in the PAP protocol might not have been able to produce substantially greater neural activation, thus explaining the plateau in performance enhancement.

The temporal dynamics of physiological changes following SS and PAP may also explain our findings. SS induces immediate changes in muscle properties that evolve over minutes, including alterations in the muscle’s mechanical properties and changes in the nervous system’s control patterns [10,34]. When the PAP protocol was applied immediately after stretching, these stretching-induced changes were still actively developing. The heavy contractions during PAP typically work by increasing calcium sensitivity in muscle fibers and enhancing the readiness of motor neurons to fire [10,12]. However, the heavy contractions during PAP may have been working against the neural inhibition induced by the preceding SS. Research indicates that SS can decrease, rather than improve, the excitability of the motor neuron pool, which could have negated some of the potential benefits from the PAP stimulus [35]. Furthermore, the 5 min rest period following the PAP stimulus might not have been optimal for this specific sequence, as the ideal recovery time can vary depending on the preceding activities and the current state of the neuromuscular system [5,14].

Another important consideration involves the balance between peripheral (muscle-level) and central (nervous system-level) factors. The beneficial effects of short-duration stretching likely stemmed from a combination of improved muscle compliance, enhanced blood flow, and optimized neural control patterns [9,23,34]. These improvements occur through different pathways than traditional PAP mechanisms, which primarily involve the phosphorylation of regulatory proteins in the muscle and increased recruitment of high-threshold motor units [10,12]. When these two sets of mechanisms were combined in our study, they may have competed for the same physiological resources or created conflicting demands on the neuromuscular system. For instance, while stretching may have optimized muscle length for force production at 70% 1RM, the subsequent heavy contractions at 90% 1RM could have temporarily disrupted this optimization without providing sufficient additional potentiation to overcome this disruption [19]. This suggests that the interaction between different warm-up modalities is not simply additive but involves complex physiological trade-offs that determine the net effect on performance.

Despite the lack of a significant difference between SS and SS + PAP, it is important to acknowledge that both interventions significantly improved performance over baseline. The PAP phenomenon, involving mechanisms such as myosin light chain phosphorylation and enhanced neural drive [34], is well established for its potential to acutely boost performance [32,34,36]. Our results simply suggest that when layered onto an already effective preparatory activity (the beneficial short SS), the additional detectable benefit of this specific PAP protocol was limited in this cohort.

The findings should be interpreted with consideration of this study’s limitations. The participation of only experienced males limits the generalizability of the results to females, novices, or different age groups who might respond differently [25,37]. Only one specific duration and method of SS and one specific PAP protocol (intensity, volume, rest) were investigated; variations in these parameters could substantially alter the outcomes [33,38]. Furthermore, only the acute effects were measured, providing no information on long-term adaptations resulting from chronic application of these protocols [35]. Secondly, the experimental conditions (Sessions 2, 3, and 4) were conducted sequentially rather than in a randomized, counterbalanced order. This introduces the potential for order effects, such as a learning effect from repeated testing. While we believe this effect was minimized due to the long training experience of the participants (approx. 14 years) and the familiarization during Session 1, the lack of randomization remains a methodological limitation, and the results should be interpreted with this in mind.

From a practical perspective, this study offers valuable, albeit nuanced, guidance for warm-up design targeting acute bench press power (at 70% 1RM) in trained males. Firstly, it strongly suggests that short-duration SS (for instance, 2 × 30 s) targeting the primary movers is not necessarily detrimental and can be beneficial, challenging blanket recommendations against pre-exercise SS. Secondly, while combining brief SS with a heavy PAP stimulus resulted in numerically higher power, this specific combination did not offer a statistically significant advantage over the simpler SS-only protocol. Therefore, coaches and athletes could confidently employ short-duration SS as an effective and efficient warm-up strategy in this context. If attempting to maximize potentiation further, the exploration of alternative PAP protocols (varying load, volume, or rest duration) following brief SS might be warranted, but the need for this additional complexity is not strongly supported by the current data. Careful monitoring of individual responses to manage the fatigue–potentiation interplay remains crucial [39].

This work was carried out within the specified limitations. The obtained results can be interpreted and evaluated in this context.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that a short-duration SS protocol unexpectedly but significantly enhanced acute bench press power output in experienced male participants. While adding a subsequent PAP conditioning activity also significantly improved power from baseline and yielded numerically higher results, it failed to provide a statistically significant additional benefit compared to the effective SS protocol alone. These conclusions highlight the context dependency of SS effects and suggest that brief SS can be a valuable component of warm-ups for upper body power, while the additive value of specific PAP protocols requires careful consideration of the overall warm-up structure and potential fatigue interactions. Similar to this study, further research could be conducted with larger experimental groups and those containing female participants and different age groups.