Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Walking Path Length on Gait Parameters During the 2-Minute Walk Test in Healthy Young Adults
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomechanics
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/biomechanics5040083
biomechanics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Warm-Up on Muscle Strength and Body Temperature in Athletes with Disabilities

by
Pablo Santana Prata
1,2,
Felipe J. Aidar
1,2,3,
Taísa Pereira Santos
1,2,
Ângelo de Almeida Paz
1,2,3,
Sarah Lisia da Silva Paixão
2,3,
Rozani Cristina Alves
1,2,
Osvaldo Costa Moreira
4 and
Pantelis T. Nikolaidis
5,*
1
Graduate Program of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão 49100-000, Brazil
2
Group of Studies and Research of Performance, Sport, Health and Paralympic Sports—GPEPS, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão 49100-000, Brazil
3
Graduate Program of Physiological Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão 49100-000, Brazil
4
Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Viçosa—Florestal Campus, Florestal 35690-000, Brazil
5
School of Health and Caring Sciences, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomechanics 2025, 5(4), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5040083 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 18 July 2025 / Revised: 19 September 2025 / Accepted: 30 September 2025 / Published: 11 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sports Biomechanics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Introduction: Paralympic powerlifting (PP) is a sport in which the bench press is the sole exercise. Warm-up routines are considered essential for optimal performance. Objectives: This study aims to analyze different types of warm-up protocols—traditional warm-up (TW), post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE), and without warm-up (WW)—and their effects on dynamic strength indicators, core temperature, and skin temperature in athletes with disabilities. Methods: Fourteen nationally ranked PP athletes participated in the study. Their performance was evaluated following different warm-up protocols. Dynamic variables analyzed included Maximum Velocity (VMax), Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), and Power output. Additionally, tympanic and skin temperatures were measured. Results: No significant differences were observed in dynamic strength indicators across the different warm-up protocols. Thermographic analysis revealed differences only in the triceps muscle between PAPE and TW (p < 0.001), TW and WW (p = 0.004), and PAPE and WW (p = 0.015). Differences were also observed between TW and WW (p = 0.026). Ten minutes post-warm-up, differences were noted between PAPE and WW (p < 0.001) and between TW and WW (p = 0.001). In the WW condition, significant differences were found between pre-warm-up and 10 min post-warm-up (p = 0.031), as well as between post-warm-up and 10 min later (p = 0.003). Conclusions: The study evaluated the potential impact of warm-ups on dynamic indicators of strength, core temperature, and skin temperature. No differences were found between the warm-up methods for strength indicators. Regarding skin temperature, only the triceps showed differences between the PAPE and Traditional methods. Regarding core temperature, after warm-up and 10 min later, the methods without warm-up showed higher temperatures than the PAPE and Traditional methods. Therefore, in practical applications, warm-up methods do not appear to interfere with strength indicators, with lower skin temperatures for the triceps in the PAPE methods.

1. Introduction

Paralympic powerlifting (PP) is an adapted version of traditional powerlifting, where the sole exercise performed is the bench press. This sport is designed for individuals with physical disabilities affecting the lower limbs, such as cerebral palsy, dwarfism, and other conditions [1]. In PP, athletes must lie on a bench during the lift, with their lower limbs resting on the bench, and they can also secure their lower limbs with safety straps. This position differs from conventional powerlifting [2,3,4,5].
Similar to other strength sports, warming up in PP is essential for optimizing performance, as it induces systemic adaptations that prepare the body for subsequent exercise [6,7]. The effects of warm-up include improved nerve conduction, increased body temperature, metabolic changes, and enhanced strength levels [8]. Furthermore, warming up reduces joint stiffness, improves blood flow, and increases oxygen consumption [6,9,10]. Consequently, warm-up routines not only help prevent injuries but also promote greater activation of muscular, neural, and mental systems, enhancing preparation and focus [11].
To evaluate the specific warm-up protocols for the bench press, it was observed that strength performance is optimized with specific and higher-load warm-ups. Furthermore, in the same study, it was reported that warm-ups involving few repetitions and low loads are insufficient to enhance bench press performance [12,13]. Similarly, muscle activation was found to be greater after 10 min of warm-up using higher loads (90% of 1RM) [14]. In line with these findings, when assessing different types of warm-up, no significant effects were observed on the performance of Paralympic powerlifting (PP) athletes; however, thermographic imaging indicated that traditional warm-ups with higher loads were more effective in preparing these athletes [10]. Conversely, different types of warm-up, including specific and no warm-up, did not produce significant differences in strength indicators among elite PP athletes [15].
The most common types of warm-ups used in strength sports include traditional warm-ups, specific warm-ups, and post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). These approaches often incorporate activities tailored to the demands of the sport or exercise [10,15]. Traditional warm-ups consist of general sequential exercises aimed at increasing body temperature, elevating heart rate, and preparing the musculoskeletal system for more intense efforts [8,16]. Studies have described physiological adaptations to warm-up that theoretically support a positive effect of warm-up on subsequent performance. These effects are mostly associated with an increase in body temperature [15,17,18], where a Tympanic temperature was used to estimate the central body temperature [19,20]. Specific warm-ups are designed to adapt the body to the movements and specific demands of the sport by incorporating motor gestures directly related to the primary exercise. This approach seeks to optimize technical and motor performance while reducing injury risk. During specific warm-ups, priority is given to muscles, joints, and neuromuscular systems involved in the sport-specific movements [8,16,21]. Warm-ups utilizing PAPE involve submaximal or maximal loads followed by a specific rest period to enhance strength output [22,23,24]. However, existing studies remain inconclusive regarding the most effective type of warm-up [21,25], and studies with these athletes are still scarce. Associated with this, other studies have demonstrated different movement patterns between PP and conventional powerlifting, making it important to evaluate PP, given the differences in movement and even in the rules of the sports [3,26,27].
As no studies regarding PAPE in Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) athletes were identified in the consulted databases, the evaluation focused on the effects of PAPE on the bench press. Notably, it was found that performing the bench press with the legs raised does not affect performance in healthy individuals [28]. Thus, considering that PP athletes execute the movement with their legs positioned on the bench [29], this posture does not compromise performance for Paralympic athletes. Moreover, it has been proposed that PAPE enhances performance in upper-body exercises, such as those undertaken by PP athletes [30]. Regarding PAPE, research demonstrates that a traditional PAPE protocol improves the number of repetitions performed to voluntary failure during the bench press [31].
Thus, we identify a key issue: the lack of consensus on the most suitable warm-up type for sports, particularly Paralympic modalities such as PP. Our hypothesis is that PAPE heating would be superior to other heating methods for the indicators analyzed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

This study evaluated the performance of Paralympic Powerlifting athletes under three warm-up conditions: PAPE, traditional warm-up (TW), and without warm-up (WW). Dynamic mechanical variables were analyzed to assess performance outcomes, while skin and tympanic temperatures were monitored to evaluate physiological responses. Strength assessments were conducted using an adapted bench press protocol following each warm-up condition [29].
The study was conducted over two weeks. In the first week, athletes underwent a familiarization phase to adapt to the testing protocols, which included assessments of one-repetition maximum (1RM), maximum velocity (VMax), mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and power output. During the second week, formal tests for 1RM, MPV, VMax, and power were performed. The order of the warm-up conditions—PAPE, TW, and WW—was determined through random allocation, ensuring an equal number of participants per condition and a 48 h interval between trials. It should be noted that studies with PP athletes have indicated that 48 h would be sufficient for the athletes’ recovery [14,15]; however, to avoid any interference during the rest of the week, the athletes did not do any other physical activity. Athletes began testing under one of the three warm-up protocols, with the conditions rotated every 48 h to minimize potential order effects. This crossover design ensured that all participants experienced each warm-up condition. Skin and tympanic temperatures were monitored throughout the process, and dynamic mechanical variables were analyzed to assess performance outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 1.
To ensure the quality of its presentation, this study adhered to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines for reporting randomized clinical trials [32]. These guidelines provided a structured and detailed framework for documenting the study design, execution, and outcomes, ensuring methodological transparency and rigor. The adherence to CONSORT 2010 standards allowed for a comprehensive and systematic reporting process, as illustrated in Figure 2.

2.2. Sample

The study involved 14 nationally ranked Paralympic powerlifting athletes, all of whom met the eligibility criteria based on the functional classification standards established by the International Paralympic Committee [29]. The inclusion criteria required all athletes to have a minimum of 18 months of training experience and participation in national competitions. Exclusion criteria included the presence of pain, inability to perform the tests, missing any of the test sessions, voluntary withdrawal from the study, and refusal to accept the invitation to participate. Among the participants, various physical disabilities were reported: three had sequelae from poliomyelitis, three were amputees, three had spinal cord injuries caused by trauma below the eighth vertebra, and five had congenital malformations (arthrogryposis). Nevertheless, all athletes were deemed eligible for the sport according to the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) criteria [29].
The athletes voluntarily participated in the study in accordance with Resolution 466/2012 of the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP) under the National Health Council. The study adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1964, revised in 2013). It was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe (ID-CAAE: 67953622.7.0000.5546), with technical opinion number 6.523.247 issued on 22 November 2023.

2.3. Instruments and Procedures

All assessments were conducted at the Federal University of Sergipe in a climate-controlled room maintained at a temperature between 23 °C and 25 °C, between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Temperature and relative humidity were monitored throughout the tests. It should be noted that the evaluations were conducted in a coastal city in northeastern Brazil, where average temperatures and relative humidity vary very little throughout the year. During the first week, athletes underwent a familiarization process with the tests described in Table 1. In the second week, the tests were performed according to each participant’s availability. A minimum rest period of 48 h was ensured before each experiment, and participants were instructed to maintain a consistent routine during the evaluation days, avoiding high-fatigue exercises and caffeine consumption. Upon arriving at the weightlifting room, athletes rested for five minutes to measure their heart rate (HR). Data collection began only when their HR was below 60% of the theoretical maximum value (calculated as 220 minus age) [33]. The volunteers were randomly selected using a lottery method to determine the order in which they would perform the PAPE warm-up, TW, and WW conditions. Participants rested for ten minutes before each condition, after which the strength tests were conducted [34]. The ten minutes are justified because, after being called for attempts, the athlete has two minutes to position themselves and begin the lift. After the lift, the athlete leaves the competition area, and the bench press is prepared for the next athlete, who has the time mentioned above to begin the lift. It should be noted that each round has a minimum of five athletes and a maximum of 10 athletes, meaning that the time for each lift exceeds at least 10 min [29].
The interventions were conducted using an adapted bench press measuring 210 cm in total length, along with a 220 cm Olympic bar weighing 20 kg and official weight plates (Eleiko, Halmstad, Sweden) certified for use in International Paralympic Committee (IPC) competitions [29].

2.4. Maximum Load Test (1RM) and Dynamic Strength Indicators

During the first week, the one-repetition maximum (1RM) determination protocol involved iterative trials starting with the athletes’ self-estimated maximum capacity. Loads were systematically adjusted in 2.4–2.5% increments through progressive loading or deloading until identifying the precise maximal liftable weight while maintaining proper technical execution. This incremental adjustment continued iteratively until achieving a load permitting only one complete repetition with full range of motion, thereby establishing the validated 1RM baseline for subsequent testing phases [35,36]. A rest period of 3 to 5 min was implemented between each attempt to ensure adequate recovery and maintain performance consistency.
A validated and reliable linear position transducer Speed4Lift® (Vitruve, Madrid, Spain) was attached to the barbell to measure movement velocity. Maximum velocity averages were collected at the 1RM load (Figure 3). This device, which has demonstrated high accuracy for velocity measurements under heavy loads (velocities ≤ 1.0 m/s) in Paralympic powerlifting protocols, provided real-time kinematic data through a smartphone app interface [37]. The system’s 100 Hz sampling rate and ±1 mm precision enabled precise tracking of barbell displacement dynamics during maximal effort lifts [38,39] (Figure 3).

2.5. Warm-Up Through Post Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE)

The PAPE warm-up protocol consisted of three sequential phases. It began with a 6 s maximal isometric contraction at the mid-range bench press position (90° elbow flexion) to stimulate neuromuscular potentiation. This was followed by two explosive concentric repetitions performed at 90% of the predetermined one-repetition maximum (1RM), focusing on maximizing the rate of force development. Finally, the protocol concluded with three dynamic repetitions at 40% 1RM, executed at the highest possible velocity during the concentric phase to capitalize on the post-tetanic potentiation effect. This structured approach aimed to optimize acute performance by combining heavy-load conditioning with velocity-specific priming [40].

2.6. Traditional Warm-Up (TW)

The participants performed a structured upper-limb warm-up protocol comprising three preparatory exercises: shoulder abduction with dumbbells, military press with dumbbells, and medial/lateral arm rotations with dumbbells to activate the rotator cuff. Each exercise involved one set of 20 repetitions, completed within approximately 10 min. This general warm-up was followed by a sport-specific phase on the flat bench press using an unloaded Olympic barbell (20 kg). The specific protocol included 10 slow repetitions (3.0 s eccentric phase, 1.0 s concentric phase) and 10 rapid repetitions (1.0 s eccentric and concentric phases). Subsequently, athletes progressed through a graded loading sequence: five repetitions at 30% of their predetermined one-repetition maximum (1RM), three repetitions at 50% 1RM, and single repetitions at 70%, 80%, and 90% of 1RM. A standardized 5 min rest interval was enforced between each loading tier to ensure neuromuscular recovery and maintain performance consistency. This phased approach systematically prepared the musculoskeletal and nervous systems for maximal effort while mitigating injury risk [10,15].

2.7. Without Warm-Up

Participants exclusively performed the general warm-up protocol and remained at rest during the scheduled specific warm-up phase until testing commenced. This approach ensured that physiological and neuromuscular readiness was standardized across conditions, isolating the effects of the general preparatory exercises from any specific activation strategies. By abstaining from sport-specific warm-up activities during this phase, the study controlled for potential confounding variables related to acute neuromuscular facilitation, allowing direct comparison of baseline performance metrics under controlled experimental conditions [10,15].

2.8. Thermal Imaging

The experimental protocol was executed in a rigorously controlled environment devoid of natural light and directional air currents affecting the measurement zone. Ambient conditions were stabilized at 24.0 ± 2.0 °C with relative humidity maintained at 50 ± 5% using a precision HVAC system. A certified digital thermo-hygrometer, Hikari HTH-240 (Hikari, Shenzhen, China), provided continuous monitoring of these parameters, ensuring adherence to standardized thermal and hygrometric conditions throughout all testing phases. This environmental control protocol minimized external variables that could influence neuromuscular performance or thermoregulatory responses during data collection [41,42].
Participants were instructed to refrain from engaging in intense physical activity within the 24 h preceding the evaluation, as well as to avoid alcohol and caffeine consumption. Additionally, they were advised not to apply creams or lotions to their skin in the six hours prior to testing. For the acquisition of thermograms, athletes remained seated and were required to avoid sudden movements, crossing their arms, or scratching themselves for a minimum acclimation period of 10 min. This protocol ensured standardized conditions for thermographic imaging and minimized external factors that could influence skin temperature readings [10,15,43].
Thermal imaging was performed using a FLIR T640sc infrared camera (FLIR Systems, Stockholm, Sweden), featuring a measurement range of −40 °C to 2000 °C, accuracy of ±2%, thermal sensitivity < 0.035 °C, and a spectral band of 7.5–14 µm. The device operated at a 30 Hz frame rate with a 640 × 480 pixel resolution. Image analysis was conducted using FLIR Tools software (2020, FLIR Systems, Stockholm, Sweden). Thermographic assessments focused on the anterior and posterior regions of the trunk, as well as bilateral upper limbs, with standardized regions of interest (ROIs) defined in accordance with international thermography guidelines for sports science applications (Figure 3) [10,15].

2.9. Tympanic Temperature

Tympanic temperature was measured as a reliable method for estimating core body temperature using the Braun ThermoScan® device. This method is clinically validated and supported by technological innovations that ensure accurate and consistent readings. The Braun ThermoScan® Braun Thermoscan IRT 4520 (Braun GmbH, Kronberg, Germany) [19,20], adjusted for variations in the anatomy of the ear canal, such as depth and curvature. Its pre-warmed sensor tip minimizes cooling effects, ensuring reliable measurements even under varying ambient conditions. The tympanic membrane, which shares blood supply with the hypothalamus, provides a physiologically relevant site for assessing core temperature. The device captures up to 62 infrared readings per measurement at a rate of 10 Hz, analyzing these data to identify thermal equilibrium points rather than relying on single peak detection. This approach enhances precision and consistency, making it particularly effective during rapid temperature fluctuations. Clinical studies have demonstrated the Braun ThermoScan’s equivalence to rectal thermometry in newborns and its superiority over oral or axillary methods in diverse scenarios, further supporting its use in both athletic and medical settings [19]. Upon arriving at the testing site, athletes remained seated for 5 min prior to the measurement of tympanic temperature. The choice of tympanic temperature as the method of assessment was based on its reliability and the comfort it offers to athletes. Measurements were recorded at three distinct time points: before the warm-up, immediately after the warm-up, and 10 min post-warm-up, just prior to the adapted bench press attempt. This protocol ensured consistent conditions and allowed for tracking temperature changes associated with the warm-up phases and their potential impact on performance (Figure 3) [10,15,44,45].

2.10. Statistics

The descriptive analysis employed measures of central tendency, expressed as mean (X) ± standard deviation (SD), along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify the normality of the variables, given the sample size. Performance comparisons between experimental conditions were conducted using repeated-measures ANOVA, with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests applied for strength outcomes and thermal imaging data, and two-way ANOVA utilized for tympanic temperature analysis. Statistical processing was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 (IBM, New York, NY, USA), while graphical representations were generated using GraphPad Prism version 8.1 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). A significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted for all analyses. Effect sizes were calculated using partial eta squared (η2p), with thresholds defined as low effect (≤0.05), medium effect (0.05–0.25), high effect (0.25–0.50), and very high effect (>0.50). This statistical approach ensured robust evaluation of intervention effects while accounting for the within-subject variability inherent to crossover designs [46].

3. Results

Table 1 presents the results regarding skin temperature following different types of heating. In addition, Figure 4 displays data related to changes in core temperature.
In the temperature of the Pectoral, Clavicular, and Sternal portions, there was no difference between the heating types. However, when evaluated two by two, the PAPE method showed a difference in relation to the method without heating (p = 0.030, Cohen’s d = 0.624, moderate effect, and p = 0.043, Cohen’s d = 0.575, small effect, respectively). In the deltoid muscle, there were no differences between the methods. In the Triceps, there were differences between PAPE and Traditional (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.624, moderate effect η2p = 0.371, High Effect).
A difference was observed at the time after, between PAPE Warm-up (36.19 ± 0.35 °C, 95% CI 35.99–36.38) and Without Warm-up (36.53 ± 0.28 °C, 95% CI 36.37–36.68, “a” p = 0.015) and there was also a difference TW (36.17 ± 0.35 °C, 95% CI 35.97–36.36) and WW (36.53 ± 0.28 °C, 95% CI 36.37–36.68, “b” p = 0.026). At 10 min later, there were differences between PAPE (36.13 ± 0.39 °C, 95% CI 35.91–36.34) and WW (36.71 ± 0.29 °C, 95% CI 36.55–36.87, “c” p < 0.001), and between TW (36.37 ± 0.29 °C, 95% CI 36.21–36.54) and WW (36.71 ± 0.29 °C, 95% CI 36.55–36.87, “d” p = 0.001, η2p = 0.110). In the WW condition, there was a difference between the time before (36.55 ± 0.35 °C, 95% CI 36.35–36.74) and the time 10 min later (36.71 ± 0.29 °C, 95% CI 36.55–36.87, “e” p = 0.031), and between the time after (36.53 ± 0.28 °C, 95% CI 36.37–36.68) and 10 min later (36.71 ± 0.29 °C, 95% CI 36.55–36.87, “f” p < 0.003, η2p = 0.539, very high effect).
Figure 5 shows the graphs relating to the dynamic force indicators. The different types of warm-up, PAPE, TW, and WW, did not reveal any difference in the dynamic indicators of strength, Power, MPV, and VMax.
No differences were observed in the dynamic indicators of force, Mean Propulsive Velocity, Maximum Velocity, and Power.

4. Discussion

The results revealed differences in triceps temperature following a traditional warm-up. Regarding core temperature, thermal changes were observed at different time points. Mean propulsive velocity demonstrated a slight advantage for the group without warm-up; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Maximum velocity (VMax) also showed variations between warm-up conditions, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Power (P) exhibited gains in the group without warm-up, yet these results were not statistically significant.
Our study demonstrated that different warm-up protocols produced distinct increases in skin and core temperature in key muscle regions, with both traditional warm-up (TW) and post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) protocols effectively elevating physiological markers compared to baseline [8,44,47]. Increases in skin temperature over the triceps and clavicular pectoralis regions were consistent with patterns of active engagement observed in previous thermographic studies during resistance exercise [10,48]. However, importantly, these thermal responses did not translate to measurable improvements in force-related outcomes.
This finding challenges the common assumption that elevated temperature directly enhances muscular strength performance. While increased tissue temperature is traditionally associated with greater muscle compliance, neural conduction, and perfusion [8,37,45], our results indicate that, under the conditions of Paralympic powerlifting bench press, these physiological changes were not sufficient to improve velocity or maximal force indexes. Thus, despite achieving higher muscle temperature, neither TW nor PAPE yielded performance benefits compared to control conditions.
Core temperature remained elevated for at least 10 min following both TW and PAPE, aligning with literature showing persistent post-warm-up thermogenic effects [10,15,49]. This persistence is often interpreted as advantageous for sustaining readiness during repeated maximal efforts. Nevertheless, in our cohort, these thermal adaptations had no meaningful impact on maximal velocity or mean propulsive velocity (MPV). Hence, while core temperature may serve as a marker of general physiological activation, it cannot be assumed to predict force performance in Paralympic or conventional powerlifting contexts.
This outcome underscores a central paradox: the physiological markers most often used to justify warm-up protocols—temperature, circulation, metabolic readiness—did not correspond to the strength task outcome in this study. The practical implication is that raising body temperature should not be considered an isolated goal of preparatory strategies unless consistently linked to improved performance measures.
TW and PAPE both produced similar elevations in temperature, but their force outcomes did not differ significantly, reinforcing that neither method conferred superiority for enhancing bench press strength in elite Paralympic athletes [50,51]. While some literature suggests that TW provides better thermal stability and sustained readiness, and that PAPE can acutely increase concentric velocity in ballistic tasks, our findings show that such benefits did not manifest under the controlled conditions of powerlifting bench press. Indeed, PAPE’s theorized advantage of potentiation was not observed, aligning with meta-analytic evidence reporting only small or inconsistent effects in applied settings [41,52,53].
The contrasting reports in the literature may be explained by methodological heterogeneity. Studies showing benefits often employed ballistic exercises such as bench press throws, in which potentiation of type II fibers translates more directly into explosive output [28,54]. In our study, by contrast, performance was measured in the maximal-load bench press, where technical consistency and stability demands may attenuate any acute PAPE effect. This discrepancy emphasizes that the efficacy of potentiation strategies is context-dependent and should not be generalized across all resistance-based sports.
For Paralympic athletes, preparatory routines must account for unique biomechanical and neuromuscular constraints linked to impairment profiles [7,8]. While maintaining elevated temperature could theoretically support oxygen delivery or conduction velocity, such benefits may be offset by fatigue or stabilization demands during maximal bench press attempts. Moreover, no evidence from our dataset indicates that improved thermal markers enhanced technical efficiency or force output in this population. This confirms that preparation strategies in Paralympic contexts may need to focus more on neuromuscular coordination, technical rehearsal, and psychological readiness rather than prioritizing temperature increases alone.
Our null findings are consistent with recent reports questioning the magnitude of PAPE benefits. Meta-analyses highlight modest or negligible improvements in strength and power across heterogeneous athletic populations [51,52,53,54,55,56]. In particular, contrasting results have been linked to recovery intervals, loading schemes, and exercise specificity, all of which affect the potentiation–fatigue balance [28,57,58,59]. Under conditions requiring strict performance control, such as Paralympic bench press competition, the narrow margin for neural potentiation may render these protocols ineffective.
Similarly, although TW remains widely recommended in practice for its established physiological benefits [45,57], its direct translation into enhanced lifting performance is less well supported. Our study reinforces this by showing that increased tissue temperature and thermal stability alone are insufficient to elicit measurable performance gains. Consequently, future research should critically reevaluate the emphasis placed on temperature-based justifications for warm-up prescriptions.
From an applied perspective, coaches and practitioners in Paralympic powerlifting should recognize that neither TW nor PAPE demonstrated superior outcomes in maximal bench press strength performance [15,23,28]. While both approaches successfully raised thermal markers, these changes did not enhance key competitive outcomes such as velocity or maximal force. Therefore, warm-up protocols should not be prescribed under the assumption of guaranteed performance benefits solely due to temperature elevation.
Instead, preparatory routines may be optimized by integrating individualized strategies that prioritize psychological readiness, technical rehearsal, and specific muscle activation consistent with each athlete’s impairment profile. Hybrid methods combining aspects of TW and PAPE may still warrant exploration, but only when contextualized by clear performance goals rather than generalized physiological assumptions.
Interpretation of these findings must acknowledge methodological limitations, including small sample size, heterogeneity in impairment classification, and absence of subgroup analysis by weight category. These factors may have influenced variability in performance responses and restricted the generalizability of conclusions. Future studies should adopt larger, stratified cohorts to better isolate the effects of preparation type across different Paralympic athlete subgroups.
Additionally, although thermography and tympanic measures provided robust monitoring of temperature responses, inclusion of neuromuscular or biomechanical markers—such as electromyography or tendon stiffness measures—could better clarify mechanistic links between warm-up, activation, and output. Integrative designs combining multiple physiological tools may help determine whether null performance effects are due to compensatory mechanisms or genuine irrelevance of temperature to maximal-force tasks.

5. Conclusions

The present study revealed that both TW and PAPE reliably increased muscle and core temperature but did not translate into performance improvements in Paralympic bench press. These results challenge prevailing assumptions that raising body temperature inherently optimizes force production. While thermal adaptations remain important for general readiness, they are not direct predictors of strength outcomes in this context.
The surprising null effect observed underscores the importance of critically aligning warm-up strategies with the specific demands of competition. Rather than relying on generalized models linking temperature to performance, practitioners should develop warm-up protocols grounded in task specificity, athlete individuality, and empirical validation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S.P. and F.J.A.; methodology, F.J.A.; software, T.P.S.; validation, Â.d.A.P. and S.L.d.S.P. formal analysis, R.C.A.; investigation, P.S.P.; and F.J.A., resources, O.C.M. and P.T.N.; data curation, F.J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.P.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, F.J.A.; supervision, O.C.M. and P.T.N.; project administration, F.J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was performed in line with Resolution 466/2012 of the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP) of the National Health Council and following the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964, revised in 2013) of the World Medical Association. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe (ID-CAAE: 67953622.7.0000.5546) under statement number 6.523.247, dated 22 November 2023.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support this study can be obtained from the address: www.ufs.br/, department of Physical Education, accessed on 12 September 2025.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Para Powerlifting News & Events. Available online: https://www.paralympic.org/powerlifting (accessed on 18 October 2024).
  2. Aidar, F.J.; Clemente, F.M.; de Lima, L.F.; de Matos, D.G.; Ferreira, A.R.P.; Marçal, A.C.; Moreira, O.C.; Bulhões-Correia, A.; de Almeida-Neto, P.F.; Díaz-de-Durana, A.L.; et al. Evaluation of Training with Elastic Bands on Strength and Fatigue Indicators in Paralympic Powerlifting. Sports 2021, 9, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aidar, F.J.; Brito, C.J.; de Matos, D.G.; de Oliveira, L.A.S.; de Souza, R.F.; de Almeida-Neto, P.F.; de Araújo Tinoco Cabral, B.G.; Neiva, H.P.; Neto, F.R.; Reis, V.M.; et al. Force-velocity relationship in Paralympic powerlifting: Two or multiple-point methods to determine a maximum repetition. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2022, 14, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blazevich, A.J.; Babault, N. Post-activation Potentiation Versus Post-activation Performance Enhancement in Humans: Historical Perspective, Underlying Mechanisms, and Current Issues. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boullosa, D. Post-activation performance enhancement strategies in sport: A brief review for practitioners. Hum. Mov. 2021, 22, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Afonso, J.; Brito, J.; Abade, E.; Rendeiro-Pinho, G.; Baptista, I.; Figueiredo, P.; Nakamura, F.Y. Revisiting the ‘Whys’ and ‘Hows’ of the Warm-Up: Are We Asking the Right Questions? Sports Med. 2024, 54, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Patti, A.; Giustino, V.; Hirose, N.; Messina, G.; Cataldi, S.; Grigoli, G.; Marchese, A.; Mulè, G.; Drid, P.; Palma, A.; et al. Effects of an experimental short-time high-intensity warm-up on explosive muscle strength performance in soccer players: A pilot study. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 984305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McGowan, C.J.; Pyne, D.B.; Thompson, K.G.; Rattray, B. Warm-Up Strategies for Sport and Exercise: Mechanisms and Applications. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 1523–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Borba, D.d.A.; Ferreira-Júnior, J.B.; Santos, L.A.d.; Carmo, M.C.d.; Coelho, L.G.M. Effect of post-activation potentiation in Athletics: A systematic review. Rev. Bras. Cineantropom. Desempenho Hum. 2017, 19, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Aquino Resende, M.; Aidar, F.J.; Vasconcelos Resende, R.B.; Reis, G.C.; de Oliveira Barros, L.; de Matos, D.G.; Marçal, A.C.; de Almeida-Neto, P.F.; Díaz-de-Durana, A.L.; Merino-Fernández, M.; et al. Are Strength Indicators and Skin Temperature Affected by the Type of Warm-Up in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes? Healthcare 2021, 9, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Winwood, P.W.; Pritchard, H.J.; Wilson, D.; Dudson, M.; Keogh, J.W.L. The Competition-Day Preparation Strategies of Strongman Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 2308–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ribeiro, B.; Pereira, A.; Neves, P.P.; Sousa, A.C.; Ferraz, R.; Marques, M.C.; Marinho, D.A.; Neiva, H.P. The Role of Specific Warm-up during Bench Press and Squat Exercises: A Novel Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Viveiros, L.; Gioia, K.; Nasser, I.; Acetto, V.; Farias, D.; Willardson, J.M.; Miranda, H. High-load and low-volume warm-up increases performance in a resistance training session. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2024, 40, 1487–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tsoukos, A.; Brown, L.E.; Terzis, G.; Veligekas, P.; Bogdanis, G.C. Potentiation of Bench Press Throw Performance Using a Heavy Load and Velocity-Based Repetition Control. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, S72–S79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Resende, M.d.A.; Vasconcelos Resende, R.B.; Reis, G.C.; Barros, L.d.O.; Bezerra, M.R.S.; de Matos, D.G.; Marçal, A.C.; de Almeida-Neto, P.F.; Cabral, B.G.d.A.T.; Neiva, H.P.; et al. The Influence of Warm-Up on Body Temperature and Strength Performance in Brazilian National-Level Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes. Medicina 2020, 56, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shellock, F.G.; Prentice, W.E. Warming-Up and Stretching for Improved Physical Performance and Prevention of Sports-Related Injuries. Sports Med. 1985, 2, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Racinais, S.; Oksa, J. Temperature and neuromuscular function. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2010, 20 (Suppl. 3), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bishop, D. Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med. 2003, 33, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fogt, D.L.; Henning, A.L.; Venable, A.S.; McFarlin, B.K. Non-invasive Measures of Core Temperature versus Ingestible Thermistor during Exercise in the Heat. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2017, 10, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Robertson, M.; Hill, B. Monitoring temperature. Br. J. Nurs. 2019, 28, 344–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gil, M.H.; Neiva, H.P.; Sousa, A.C.; Marques, M.C.; Marinho, D.A. Current Approaches on Warming up for Sports Performance: A Critical Review. Strength Cond. J. 2019, 41, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iversen, V.M.; Norum, M.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Fimland, M.S. No Time to Lift? Designing Time-Efficient Training Programs for Strength and Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 2079–2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Park, D.S.; Kwon, I.S.; Yoon, J.H. The effects of different types of warm-up exercises on golf performance. J. Men’s Health 2021, 17, 132–138. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yu, W.; Feng, D.; Zhong, Y.; Luo, X.; Xu, Q.; Yu, J. Examining the Influence of Warm-Up Static and Dynamic Stretching, as well as Post-Activation Potentiation Effects, on the Acute Enhancement of Gymnastic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2024, 23, 156–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Neves, P.P.; Alves, A.R.; Marinho, D.A.; Neiva, H.P.; Neves, P.P.; Alves, A.R.; Marinho, D.A.; Neiva, H.P. Warming-Up for Resistance Training and Muscular Performance: A Narrative Review. In Contemporary Advances in Sports Science; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-1-83969-141-6. [Google Scholar]
  26. Loturco, I.; Pereira, L.A.; Winckler, C.; Santos, W.L.; Kobal, R.; McGuigan, M. Load-Velocity Relationship in National Paralympic Powerlifters: A Case Study. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2019, 14, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mesquita Souza, R.L.; Aidar, F.J.; Villar, R.; Greco, G.; Santos, L.D.; Poli, L.; Lima de Santana, J.; Carvutto, R.; Gama de Matos, D.; Badicu, G.; et al. Assessment of asymmetry at different intensities between conventional and paralympic powerlifting athletes. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Krzysztofik, M.; Wilk, M.; Stastny, P.; Golas, A. Post-activation Performance Enhancement in the Bench Press Throw: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Physiol. 2021, 11, 598628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. IPC—Paralympics News, Sports and Results. Available online: https://www.paralympic.org/home (accessed on 23 September 2024).
  30. Finlay, M.J.; Bridge, C.A.; Greig, M.; Page, R.M. Upper-Body Post-activation Performance Enhancement for Athletic Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Recommendations for Future Research. Sports Med. 2022, 52, 847–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Garbisu-Hualde, A.; Gutierrez, L.; Santos-Concejero, J. Post-Activation Performance Enhancement as a Strategy to Improve Bench Press Performance to Volitional Failure. J. Hum. Kinet. 2023, 88, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schulz, K.F.; Altman, D.G.; Moher, D.; the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Karvonen, M.J.; Kentala, E.; Mustala, O. The effects of training on heart rate; a longitudinal study. Ann. Med. Exp. Biol. Fenn. 1957, 35, 307–315. [Google Scholar]
  34. Adelsberger, R.; Tröster, G. Effects of stretching and warm-up routines on stability and balance during weight-lifting: A pilot investigation. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Soares Freitas Sampaio, C.R.; Aidar, F.J.; Ferreira, A.R.P.; dos Santos, J.L.; Marçal, A.C.; de Matos, D.G.; de Souza, R.F.; Moreira, O.C.; Guerra, I.; Fernandes Filho, J.; et al. Can Creatine Supplementation Interfere with Muscle Strength and Fatigue in Brazilian National Level Paralympic Powerlifting? Nutrients 2020, 12, 2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fleck, S.J.; Kraemer, W.J. Designing Resistance Training Programs, 4th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-7360-8170-2. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez-Castilla, A.; Piepoli, A.; Delgado-García, G.; Garrido-Blanca, G.; García-Ramos, A. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Seven Commercially Available Devices for the Assessment of Movement Velocity at Different Intensities During the Bench Press. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dote-Montero, M.; Pelayo-Tejo, I.; Molina-Garcia, P.; Carle-Calo, A.; García-Ramos, A.; Chirosa-Ríos, L.J.; Chirosa-Ríos, I.J.; Amaro-Gahete, F.J. Effects of post-tetanic potentiation induced by whole-body electrostimulation and post-activation potentiation on maximum isometric strength. Biol. Sport. 2022, 39, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. García Ramos, A.; Haff, G.; Padial, P.; Feriche, B. Reliability of power and velocity variables collected during the traditional and ballistic bench press exercise. Sports Biomech. 2016, 17, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Esformes, J.I.; Keenan, M.; Moody, J.; Bampouras, T.M. Effect of Different Types of Conditioning Contraction on Upper Body Postactivation Potentiation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Filho, G.F.d.S.; Aidar, F.J.; Getirana-Mota, M.; Brito, C.J.; Aedo-Muñoz, E.; de Almeida Paz, Â.; de Souza Leite Júnior, J.A.; Vieira, E.L.M.; Nikolaidis, P.T. Analysis of Velocity, Power and Skin Temperature in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes with Fixed and Variable Resistance. Sports 2024, 12, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Santos, L.C.V.; Aidar, F.J.; Villar, R.; Greco, G.; de Santana, J.L.; Marçal, A.C.; de Almeida-Neto, P.F.; de Araújo Tinoco Cabral, B.G.; Badicu, G.; Nobari, H.; et al. Evaluation of the Training Session in Elite Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes Based on Biomechanical and Thermal Indicators. Sports 2023, 11, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wilk, M.; Filip, A.; Krzysztofik, M.; Gepfert, M.; Zajac, A.; Del Coso, J. Acute Caffeine Intake Enhances Mean Power Output and Bar Velocity during the Bench Press Throw in Athletes Habituated to Caffeine. Nutrients 2020, 12, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gil, M.H.; Neiva, H.P.; Alves, A.R.; Sousa, A.C.; Duarte-Mendes, P.; Marques, M.C.; Marinho, D.A. Does the inclusion of ballistic exercises during warm-up enhance short distance running performance? J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2020, 60, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Neiva, H.P.; Marques, M.C.; Barbosa, T.M.; Izquierdo, M.; Viana, J.L.; Marinho, D.A. Effects of 10min vs. 20min passive rest after warm-up on 100m freestyle time-trial performance: A randomized crossover study. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2017, 20, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Woods, A.; Bishop, P.; Jones, E. Warm-Up and Stretching in the Prevention of Muscular Injury. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kuniszyk-Jóźkowiak, W.; Jaszczuk, J.; Czaplicki, A.; Szyszka, P. Variability of shoulder girdle temperature in the initial phase of the snatch in weightlifting. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2019, 21, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fraga, G.S.; Aidar, F.J.; Matos, D.G.; Marçal, A.C.; Santos, J.L.; Souza, R.F.; Carneiro, A.L.; Vasconcelos, A.B.; Da Silva-Grigoletto, M.E.; van den Tillaar, R.; et al. Effects of Ibuprofen Intake in Muscle Damage, Body Temperature and Muscle Power in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stadnyk, A.M.J.; Rehrer, N.J.; Handcock, P.J.; Meredith-Jones, K.A.; Cotter, J.D. No clear benefit of muscle heating on hypertrophy and strength with resistance training. Temperature 2018, 5, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maroto-Izquierdo, S.; Bautista, I.J.; Martín Rivera, F. Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) after a single bout of high-intensity flywheel resistance training. Biol. Sport 2020, 37, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Moreira, D.G.; Costello, J.T.; Brito, C.J.; Adamczyk, J.G.; Ammer, K.; Bach, A.J.E.; Costa, C.M.A.; Eglin, C.; Fernandes, A.A.; Fernández-Cuevas, I.; et al. Thermographic imaging in sports and exercise medicine: A Delphi study and consensus statement on the measurement of human skin temperature. J. Therm. Biol. 2017, 69, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rappelt, L.; Held, S.; Wiedenmann, T.; Micke, F.; Donath, L. Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) protocols do not further increase jumping performance beyond warm-up effects: Findings from three acute randomized crossover trials. Front. Physiol. 2024, 15, 1447421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Garbisu-Hualde, A.; Gutierrez, L.; Fernández-Peña, E.; Santos-Concejero, J. Intermittent Voluntary Isometric Contractions Effects on Performance Enhancement and Sticking Region Kinematics in the Bench Press. J. Hum. Kinet. 2023, 87, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hodgson, M.; Docherty, D.; Robbins, D. Post-activation potentiation: Underlying physiology and implications for motor performance. Sports Med. 2005, 35, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Labidi, M.; Ihsan, M.; Behan, F.P.; Alhammoud, M.; Smith, T.; Mohamed, M.; Tourny, C.; Racinais, S. Six weeks of localized heat therapy does not affect muscle mass, strength and contractile properties in healthy active humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2021, 121, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Boullosa, D.; Del Rosso, S.; Behm, D.; Foster, C. Title: Post-Activation Potentiation (PAP) in Endurance Sports: A Review. Eur. J. Sport. Sci. 2018, 18, 595–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Krzysztofik, M.; Wilk, M.; Filip, A.; Zmijewski, P.; Zajac, A.; Tufano, J.J. Can Post-Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE) Improve Resistance Training Volume during the Bench Press Exercise? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tillin, N.; Bishop, D.J. Factors Modulating Post-Activation Potentiation and its Effect on Performance of Subsequent Explosive Activities. Sports Med. 2009, 39, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomechanics 05 00083 g001
Figure 1. Experimental design (Weekly test schedule). Legend: RM: Maximum Repetition; VMax: Maximum Velocity; MPV: Mean Propulsive Velocity; Power: Power; Temp core: Core temperature; Thermal image: Thermal image.
Figure 1. Experimental design (Weekly test schedule). Legend: RM: Maximum Repetition; VMax: Maximum Velocity; MPV: Mean Propulsive Velocity; Power: Power; Temp core: Core temperature; Thermal image: Thermal image.
Biomechanics 05 00083 g001
Biomechanics 05 00083 g002
Figure 2. Consort 2010 Flow Diagram [32].
Figure 2. Consort 2010 Flow Diagram [32].
Biomechanics 05 00083 g002
Biomechanics 05 00083 g003
Figure 3. Detail of the positioning of the linear encoder coupled to the bar (A). Representation of the collection of tympanic temperature (B), Infrared thermography photographic model (C).
Figure 3. Detail of the positioning of the linear encoder coupled to the bar (A). Representation of the collection of tympanic temperature (B), Infrared thermography photographic model (C).
Biomechanics 05 00083 g003
Biomechanics 05 00083 g004
Figure 4. Tympanic temperature variation (°C) before, immediately after and 10 min after heating. PAPE: post-activation performance enhancement, TW: Traditional Warm-up, WW: Without Warm-up. The letters represent the differences between methods, inter class (“a”, “b”, “c”, “d”) or between moments, intra class (“e”, “f”).
Figure 4. Tympanic temperature variation (°C) before, immediately after and 10 min after heating. PAPE: post-activation performance enhancement, TW: Traditional Warm-up, WW: Without Warm-up. The letters represent the differences between methods, inter class (“a”, “b”, “c”, “d”) or between moments, intra class (“e”, “f”).
Biomechanics 05 00083 g004
Biomechanics 05 00083 g005
Figure 5. Evaluation of (A) MPV(m/s), (B) Vmax(m/s), and (C) Power (W), with different types of warm-up. PAPE: Post-Activation Performance Improvement; TW: Traditional Warm-up; WW: Without Warm-Up.
Figure 5. Evaluation of (A) MPV(m/s), (B) Vmax(m/s), and (C) Power (W), with different types of warm-up. PAPE: Post-Activation Performance Improvement; TW: Traditional Warm-up; WW: Without Warm-Up.
Biomechanics 05 00083 g005
Table 1. Skin temperature (°C) (mean ± standard deviation, 95% CI) in relation to different types of warm-up.
Table 1. Skin temperature (°C) (mean ± standard deviation, 95% CI) in relation to different types of warm-up.
Warm-UpPectoral Clavicular
X ± DP
(95% CI)		Sternal Pectoral
X ± DP
(95% CI)		Deltoid
X ± DP
(95% CI)		Triceps
X ± DP
(95% CI)
PAPE33.79 ± 1.51
(32.95–34.63)		32.43 ± 2.05
(31.29–33.56)		33.65 ± 1.24
(32.96–34.33)		30.97 ± 1.08 a
(30.38–31.57)
Traditional Warm-up34.04 ± 1.43
(33.25–34.83)		33.17 ± 1.62
(32.27–34.06)		33.74 ± 1.38
(32.98–34.50)		32.06 ± 1.16 a
(31.42–32.70)
Without Warm-up34.44 ± 1.16
(33.79–35.09)		33.25 ± 1.28
(32.54–33.95)		33.96 ± 1.11
(33.35–34.57)		31.29 ± 1.16
(30.64–31.93)
p0.1590.0610.743“a” p < 0.001
η2pXXXXXXXXX0.371
p < 0.05 (two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests, ES η2p). η2p = partial eta squared (low effect (≤0.05), medium effect (0.05 to 0.25), large effect (0.25 to 0.50), and very large effect (>0.50). Homologous letters indicate differences (p > 0.05) (Ex: a-a).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prata, P.S.; Aidar, F.J.; Santos, T.P.; de Almeida Paz, Â.; da Silva Paixão, S.L.; Alves, R.C.; Moreira, O.C.; Nikolaidis, P.T. The Effect of Warm-Up on Muscle Strength and Body Temperature in Athletes with Disabilities. Biomechanics 2025, 5, 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5040083

AMA Style

Prata PS, Aidar FJ, Santos TP, de Almeida Paz Â, da Silva Paixão SL, Alves RC, Moreira OC, Nikolaidis PT. The Effect of Warm-Up on Muscle Strength and Body Temperature in Athletes with Disabilities. Biomechanics. 2025; 5(4):83. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5040083

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prata, Pablo Santana, Felipe J. Aidar, Taísa Pereira Santos, Ângelo de Almeida Paz, Sarah Lisia da Silva Paixão, Rozani Cristina Alves, Osvaldo Costa Moreira, and Pantelis T. Nikolaidis. 2025. "The Effect of Warm-Up on Muscle Strength and Body Temperature in Athletes with Disabilities" Biomechanics 5, no. 4: 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5040083

APA Style

Prata, P. S., Aidar, F. J., Santos, T. P., de Almeida Paz, Â., da Silva Paixão, S. L., Alves, R. C., Moreira, O. C., & Nikolaidis, P. T. (2025). The Effect of Warm-Up on Muscle Strength and Body Temperature in Athletes with Disabilities. Biomechanics, 5(4), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics5040083

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop