Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16 (2013) 172176

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams

Original research

Inuence of post-warm-up recovery time on swim performance in

international swimmers
Daniel J. West d , Bernie M. Dietzig b , Richard M. Bracken a , Daniel J. Cunningham a ,
Blair T. Crewther e , Christian J. Cook a,c , Liam P. Kilduff a,
a

Health and Sport Portfolio, College of Engineering, Swansea University, UK

British Swimming, Intensive Training Unit Swansea, Wales National Pool, UK
c
UK Sport, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Bath, UK
d
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, School of Life Science, Northumberland Building, Northumbria University, UK
e
Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, UK
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 October 2011
Received in revised form 13 March 2012
Accepted 16 June 2012
Keywords:
Warm-up
Swim performance
Core temperature

a b s t r a c t
Objectives: Swimmers must enter a marshalling call-room 20 min prior to racing, which results in some
swimmers completing their warm-up 45 min pre-race. Since a recovery period longer than 1520 min
may prove problematic, this study examined 200 m freestyle performance after a 20 and 45 min postwarm-up recovery period.
Design: Eight international swimmers completed this randomised and counter-balanced study.
Methods: After a standardised warm-up, swimmers rested for either 20 (20 min) or 45 min (45 min) prior
to completing a 200 m freestyle time-trial (TT). Core temperature (Tcore ), blood lactate (BL), heart rate and
rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded at baseline, post-warm-up, pre-TT, immediately post-TT
and at 3 min post-TT.
Results: Tcore was similar after the warm-up under both conditions, however, at pre-TT Tcore was greater
under 20 min (mean SD; 20 min 37.8 0.2 vs. 45 min 37.5 0.2 C; P = 0.002). BL was similar between
conditions at all-time points before the TT (P > 0.05). Swimmers demonstrated a 1.5 1.1% improvement
in performance under 20 min (20 min 125.74 3.64 vs. 45 min 127.60 3.55 s; P = 0.01). Tcore was similar
between conditions at immediately post-TT and 3 min post-TT (P > 0.05), however, BL was higher at these
time points under 20 min (P < 0.05). Heart rate and RPE were similar between conditions at all-time points
(P > 0.05).
Conclusions: 200 m freestyle performance is faster 20 min post-warm-up when compared to 45 min
probably due to better Tcore maintenance. This has implications for swim race preparation as warm-up
procedures should be completed close to entering the pre-race call room, in order to maintain elevated
core temperature.
2012 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It has been well documented that a warm-up is important for
subsequent exercise performance, e.g.13. Moreover, data from
a recent meta-analysis suggest that 79% of research has demonstrated an improvement in performance following a warm-up
procedure.4 The effectiveness of the warm-up on subsequent
performance is inuenced by warm-up intensity, duration and
the recovery time between the warm-up and event.5,6 Primarily, the improvement in performance is related to an increase in
muscle temperature. A rise in muscle temperature results in multiple physiological and metabolic changes, such as increases in

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: L.Kilduff@swansea.ac.uk (L.P. Kilduff).

anaerobic metabolism,7 increased oxygen delivery to the active

muscle,8 and increased nerve conduction rate.9 Although prior
exercise/activation may induce psychological10 and muscle-neural
changes (post-activation potentiation11,12 ) which have been shown
to improve performance, it has been suggested that the rise in muscle temperature is the major contributing factor.11
Muscle temperature rises rapidly within the rst 35 min of
exercise and reaches a plateau after 1020 min.13 On the other
hand, it has been demonstrated that muscle temperature is likely
to drop signicantly following 1520 min of the cessation of
exercise.13,14 For example, Mohr et al.,14 demonstrated that muscle temperature may drop by 2 C during the 15 min half time
break in soccer. The importance of changes in muscle temperature
on subsequent performance has been established by Sargeant,15
who demonstrated that for every 1 C rise in muscle temperature
there is a concomitant 4% improvement in leg muscle power and,

1440-2440/$ see front matter 2012 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.06.002

D.J. West et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16 (2013) 172176

conversely, every 1 C decrease in muscle temperature results in a

3% decrease in leg muscle power. Based on this research, it is recommended that the post warm-up recovery period should be more
than 5 min but less than 1520 min.16 A recovery period of between
5 and 1520 min allows for acidbase homeostasis,5 an optimal balance between phosphocreatine restoration17 and muscle
potentiation,12 and helps to prevent a drop in muscle temperature, and thus maintain the ergogenic effect of the warm-up (e.g.
2,18,6). For example, Zochowski et al.,6 examined 200 m swim time
trial performance, in 10 national standard swimmers, after a 10 or
45 min post warm-up recovery. The authors found that employing
a 10 min recovery period improved 200 m time trial performance
by 4 s, and did not increase blood lactate or heart rate responses,
when compared to the 45 min recovery period. However, from a
practical perspective employing a 10 min post warm-up recovery
is not feasible in swimmers competing in national and international competitions due to the fact swimmers must report to a
marshalling call room 20 min before the start of the race. Thus,
performing a warm-up completed within the optimal window of
520 min,16 as per the study of Zochowski et al.,6 is not possible.
In addition, through observations from the research team at
national and international events many swimmers complete their
warm-up as long as 45 min before the event.6 A similar nding was
reported in a recent observational study by Sporer et al.,19 who
stated that many elite snowboarders completed their warm-up
60 min prior to racing. Keeping in mind a rapid loss of muscle temperature after the cessation of exercise,13,14 and the detrimental
effect this has on performance,14,15 it would be prudent to establish
if there is any performance difference when completing a warmup 45 min before the event or immediately before entering the call
room. Moreover, an examination of changes in core temperature
over this time would provide useful information for both coach
and athlete.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the potential for
introducing performance gains in elite swimmers by simply nishing their current warm-up immediately before they must report to
the call room, and whether the performance differences between
20 min and 45 min are signicant enough to warrant a change in
swimmers warm up routines.

2. Methods
With university ethical approval, eight international level swimmers (4 male, 4 female; age 18.8 1.3 years; height 1.74 0.07 m;
mass 64.7 7.4 kg) from the British Swimming Intensive Training
Centre in Swansea participated in the study. All swimmers had
previously competed for their country (Wales, England or Scotland) at senior level and had reported experience with varied
times between warm-up and competition. All were informed of
the potential risks associated with the study prior to giving their
informed consent. All swimmers were following a prescribed diet
plan, which was replicated between trials.
The study followed a repeated measures design, with each subject completing 2 200 m freestyle time trials separated by 7 days,
with trials taking place at the same time of the day (15:00). Prior
to completing the time trials, subjects carried out a standardised
warm up, with the time between completion of the warm up
and the start of the time trial being either 20 (20 min) or 45 min
(45 min). The order in which the trials were completed was randomised and counter-balanced. All tests were performed in an
Olympic standard 50 m pool (pool temperature 28.4 0.2 C; air
temperature 28.2 0.4 C; humidity 54 1%; barometric pressure
760 4 mmHg).
Upon arrival to the pool, swimmers were seated for 15 min
to gain baseline measures of core temperature (Tcore ; CorTempTM

173

Table 1
Standardised warm-up.
400 m Freestyle
HR checked (4060 beats below HRmax)
200 m Pull
200 m Kick
HR checked (4060 beats below HRmax)
200 m Drill
200 m Individual Medley
HR checked (4060 beats below HRmax)
4 50 m Freestyle, Rest 15 s
At race pace (200 m PB/4)
200 m Easy
Stopwatch started to dene post warm up rest period. HR data collected

Ingestible Core Body Temperature Sensor, HQ Inc.), capillary

blood lactate (Biosen C-Line Sport, EKF-diagnostic GmgH, Barleben,
Germany), heart rate (RS400; Polar) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE20 ). During this time they were familiarised with the
trial procedures. Once baseline measures were collected, participants completed a standardised, heart rate monitored warm-up,
which was prescribed by the team coach (Table 1). Once completed, participants remained at rest for 20 (20 min) or 45 (45 min)
min before subsequently completing a 200 m time trial. Swimmers
were required to complete the 200 m swimming at maximal effort.
Swimmers started on the racing blocks, beginning with a dive to
simulate race conditions. A video recording of the 200 m time trial
allowed for stroke rate and count to be determined and also time
trial performance.
Sampling points for Tcore , blood lactate, heart rate and RPE were
immediately post-warm up, pre-time trial, immediately post-time
trial and at 3 min post-time trial.
Tcore was collected via the ingestion of a temperature sensor
(CorTempTM Ingestible Core Body Temperature Sensor, HQ Inc.),
which transmitted a radio signal to an external sensor (CorTempTM
Data Recorder, HQ Inc.), which subsequently converted the signal
into digital format. Swimmers ingested the sensor 3 h prior to the
experimental trials.21 The ingestible core temperature device has
been demonstrated to be both reliable and valid.21
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version
16; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), with signicance set at P 0.05. Data
were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA on two factors
(condition time) with Bonferroni adjustments and dependent ttests carried out where relevant. Where statistical signicance is
indicated, 95% condence intervals are presented for an estimate of
the population mean difference. Data are presented as mean SD.
3. Results
All 8 participants demonstrated a reduction in 200 m swim
time under 20 min (20 min 125.74 3.64 vs. 45 min 127.60 3.55 s;
P = 0.01; 95% Condence Interval 0.912.80 s), with improvements
ranging from  0.62 to 4.2 s across participants (Fig. 1A). When
examining 200 m swim time in quartiles, 20 min elicited faster
times than 45 min over the 1st (20 min 29.05 1.27 vs. 45 min
29.52 1.40 s; P = 0.01; 95% Condence Interval 0.180.76 s), 2nd
(20 min 32.27 0.94 vs. 45 min 32.84 1.05 s; P = 0.01; 95% Condence Interval 0.250.89 s) and 3rd 50 m (20 min 32.54 1.01
vs. 45 min 33.05 0.75 s; P = 0.02; 95% Condence Interval
0.170.84 s), however times were similar over the last 50 m (20 min
31.89 1.05 vs. 45 min 32.20 0.78 s; P = 0.17).
Stroke rate was not different between conditions, with similar minimum (20 min 44.60 3.06; 45 min 44.29 2.68; P = 0.64),
maximum (20 min 51.05 2.80; 45 min 50.65 3.11; P = 0.67) and
average (20 min 47.20 2.28; 45 min 46.67 2.62; P = 0.45) strokes
rates.

174

D.J. West et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16 (2013) 172176

200 m Swim Time (s)

A 135
130

125

120

38.5

45min

20min

20min

Core Temperature (C)

45min

38.0

37.5

37.0

36.5

16.0

Lactate (mmol.l-1)

14.0

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0

4. Discussion

4.0
2.0
0.0

Baseline

 + 0.8 0.3; 45 min  + 0.7 0.2 C; P = 0.55). During the postwarm-up recovery period, Tcore declined under both conditions,
however, the decline under 20 min was less compared to 45 min
(20 min  0.3 0.1 vs. 45 min  0.7 0.2 C; P = 0.05; 95% Condence Interval = 0.090.63 C). At pre-TT, Tcore was greater under
20 min, in comparison with 45 min (20 min 37.8 0.2 vs. 45 min
37.5 0.2 C; P = 0.002; 95% Condence Interval = 0.220.44 C),
and was still elevated above baseline, however Tcore had returned
to baseline under 45 min (Fig. 1B). Tcore was not different between
conditions at post-TT or at 3 min post-TT.
Blood lactate responses are presented in Fig. 1C. There was
a signicant time effect (P < 0.001; Partial-eta2 = 0.951) and a
signicant time condition interaction within the blood lactate
responses to the trials (P = 0.02; Partial-eta2 = 0.608). Baseline blood
lactate concentrations were similar between conditions (20 min
1.5 0.3; 45 min 1.3 0.3 mmol l1 ; P = 0.34; Fig. 1C). Blood lactate
concentrations increased from baseline to post-warm-up under
both conditions, with similar increases in concentrations between
conditions (20 min  + 2.6 1.7; 45 min  + 2.5 1.6 mmol l1 ;
P = 0.73). At pre-TT, blood lactate concentrations were similar
(Fig. 1C), however at post-TT concentrations were greater under
20 min (20 min 12.2 1.8 vs. 45 min 9.5 2.1 mmol l1 ; P = 0.001;
95% Condence Interval 0.030.46 mmol l1 ; Fig. 1C). The change
in concentrations during the time trial were similar between conditions (20 min  + 8.2 1.5; 45 min  + 8.0 2.1 mmol l1 ; P = 0.81).
Blood lactate concentrations remained greater at 3 min post-TT
under 20 min (20 min 12.7 2.0 vs. 45 min 9.8 2.9 mmol l1 ;
P = 0.01; 95% Condence Interval 0.864.93 mmol l1 ; Fig. 1C).
Heart rate and participant RPE are presented in Table 2. There
was a signicant time effect on both the heart rate (P < 0.001;
Partial-eta2 = 0.964) and RPE (P < 0.001; Partial-eta2 = 0.954)
responses to the trials, however, there was no conditional effect
on either measure (P > 0.05).

Post-WU

Pre-TT

Post-TT

3min Post

Sampling Point
Fig. 1. Individual 200 m swim time changes (A), Tcore (B) and blood lactate (C)
responses to the trials. In Figure B and C, hollow sample points indicate different to
baseline (P < 0.05). * indicates between trial difference at the respective time point
(P < 0.05). Data presented as mean SD (n = 8).

Tcore responses are presented in Fig. 1B. There was a signicant time effect (P < 0.001; Partial-eta2 = 0.864) and a signicant
time condition interaction within the Tcore responses to the trials
(P = 0.02; Partial-eta2 = 0.427). Baseline Tcore was similar between
conditions (20 min 37.3 0.2; 45 min 37.4 0.4 C; P = 0.27). Tcore
increased with the warm-up under both conditions (Fig. 1B), and
was similar immediately post warm up (Fig. 1B). The rise in
Tcore with each warm-up was similar between conditions (20 min

This study compared the 200 m freestyle performance of an elite

swimming group after a 20 and 45 min post warm-up recovery
period. The results demonstrated that employing a 20 min post
warm-up recovery period improved 200 m freestyle performance
by 1.5 1.1%, through a better maintenance of core temperature,
when compared to a 45 min recovery period. These ndings further those of Zochowski et al.,6 who found a 1.4% improvement in
200 m freestyle performance after a 10 min post warm-up recovery,
in comparison with a 45 min recovery period.
After the post warm-up recovery period, and immediately prior
to the 200 m time trial, Tcore under 20 min remained signicantly
elevated above 45 min (Fig. 1B). According to Saltin et al.,13 core
temperature will drop signicantly following 1520 min of the cessation of exercise; this was demonstrated within our data with a
decline in Tcore from immediately post warm-up to pre-time trial
under both conditions (Fig. 1B). However, the decline in Tcore over
this time was signicantly lower under 20 min, in comparison with
45 min (20 min  0.3 0.1 vs. 45 min  0.7 0.2 C; P = 0.05).

Table 2
Heart rate and RPE responses to the trials.
Sample point
Rest

Post-WU

Pre-TT

Post-TT

3 min Post

Heart rate (bpm)

20 min
45 min

83 17
79 11

123 14a
127 10a

98 15a
95 9a

167 7a
159 15a

110 9a
107 13a

RPE

20 min
45 min

71
61

11 1a
11 2a

92a
8 2a

18 1a
18 2a

14 2a
12 2a

Data presented as mean SD (n = 8).

a
Indicates different to rest (P < 0.05).

D.J. West et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16 (2013) 172176

Although at pre-time trial Tcore had declined under both conditions,

Tcore had returned to baseline values under 45 min, whereas temperatures remained elevated above baseline under 20 min (Fig. 1B).
Based on this studys data, it appears that a recovery period in
excess of 20 min is needed for core temperatures to return to baseline levels. The maintenance of an elevated Tcore under 20 min is
the likely mechanism responsible for the improved 200 m time trial
performance under this condition.
The 200 m swim time trial performance improved by
1.86 1.37 s under 20 min, in comparison with 45 min, amounting to a 1.5% improvement in performance. According to Pyne
et al.,22 an improvement in performance by as little as 0.4% can
substantially increase the swimmers chances of winning a medal.
Thus, the observed improvement of 1.5% would appear to be
of great signicance to an elite swimmer. An elevated core temperature and, most importantly, an elevated muscle temperature
would have aided performance.11,15 Sargeant15 examined the effect
of hot water immersion on 20 s maximal sprint cycle efforts,
and demonstrated that increasing muscle temperature by 2.7 C
increased peak power output by 11%. A rise in muscle temperature can also increase oxygen delivery to the active musculature
through increased blood ow and increased dissociation of oxygen from haemoglobin.11,7 An increase in muscle temperature has
also been demonstrated to increase nerve conduction rate9 and
potentially reduce the viscous resistance of muscle bres during
contraction.11,23
The warm-up procedures, independent of muscle temperature,
can also potentially increase baseline VO2 and oxygen kinetics.11
An increase in oxygen delivery and utilisation will potentially spare
the utilisation of anaerobic sources initially, and preserve the high
energy yielding substrates and pathways for latter in the exercise
bout.11 Moreover, the metabolic acidosis from the warm-up (as
demonstrated by a higher lactate under 20 min) may have contributed to an increase in VO2 kinetics which may have furthered
the rate of oxygen delivery to the active musculature.16 Overall,
this data has highlighted the importance of maintaining an elevated core temperature following the warm-up; as such it would be
prudent for future research to focus on the preservation of muscle
temperature following the warm-up and leading into real competition.
The higher Tcore under 20 min, induced by a combination of
the warm-up and a shorter recovery period, may have induced an
increased lactate formation during the time trial.7 Indeed, blood
lactate concentrations were higher immediately and at 3 min posttime trial under 20 min in comparison with 45 min (Fig. 1C). The
greater blood lactate concentrations under 20 min are likely due
to an increased glycolytic ux, as the result of an increase in muscle temperature.7 Febbraio et al.,7 demonstrated that increasing
muscle temperature by 2 C prior to a 2 min cycle at 115% VO2max
increased muscle glycogenolysis, glycolysis and high energy phosphate degradation during exercise, which increased blood lactate
appearance, in comparison to a thermo-neutral control trial. Speculatively, an increase in muscle temperature may increase the
activity of key enzymes involved in ATP breakdown, which in turn
would enhance adenine nucleotide degradation and subsequent
allosteric activation of key glycolytic enzymes (e.g. phosphofructokinase and lactate dehydrogenase). Greater activity from these
enzymes would also increase glycolytic ux and subsequent lactate
formation. Furthermore, an up-regulation of this pathway may be
a contributing factor in the improved performance demonstrated
under 20 min.11,7
Although a limitation of this study was the measure of core temperature as opposed to muscle temperature, this does not detract
from the meaningfulness of this data as both core and muscle temperature have an inuence on performance.14,16 Due to the nature
of this study the measurement of muscle temperature was not

175

feasible and based on pervious research it is likely that muscle temperature would have followed a similar time course changes as the
ones measured in the current study.14 This study furthers the existing literature available on post warm-up recovery in swimmers.
Zochowski et al.,6 demonstrated that employing a 10 min recovery period between the warm-up and subsequent event led to an
improvement in 200 m freestyle performance, in comparison with a
45 min post warm-up recovery. However, these ndings lack some
practical application, in that swimmers during international competition must enter a call-room 20 min prior to their race. As there
is a rapid loss in muscle temperature within 1520 min of nishing
exercise,13 which will reduce performance,14,15 the optimal postwarm-up recovery period is recommended to be between 5 and
1520 min.16 From this perspective, it would seem that no benets
may be gained if swimming populations complete their warmup immediately before entering the call room, or 45 min before
racing. However, we have demonstrated that employing a 20 min
post warm-up recovery period will help to maintain an elevated
core temperature and improve 200 m freestyle performance, when
compared to a 45 min post warm-up recovery period.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the effects of a 20 and 45 min post warm-up recovery period on 200 m freestyle performance were assessed in a group
of elite swimmers. Our results demonstrated that a 20 min postwarm-up recovery period will help to maintain an elevated core
temperature and also improve 200 m freestyle performance under
time-trial conditions.
6. Practical implications
Swimming coaches should aim to prescribe the pre-race warmup immediately before an athlete enters the marshaling call
room.
As a result of implementing the warm-up immediately before
entering the pre-race call room, swimmers may experience an
elevated core temperature prior to racing, which will aid in subsequent performance.
Swimming coaches should acknowledge that the ambient temperature of the swimming pool is likely to play a role in
the maintenance/loss of core temperature after completing the
warm-up.
Given the strong link between temperature and optimal performance in swimming, alternative strategies for the maintenance,
or even elevation, of core and muscle temperature should be
investigated. Future research should examine the best methods
to maintain core temperature at post-warm up levels, and the
subsequent effects on swim performance. A potential avenue of
research could be the use of heat maintenance jackets during the
time between the cessation of the warm-up and competition.
Acknowledgements
None. There was no nancial support for this study.
References
1. Burkett LN, Phillips WT, Ziuraitis J. The best warm-up for the vertical jump in
college-age athletic men. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19(3):673676.
2. Burnley M, Doust JH, Jones AM. Effects of prior warm-up regime on severeintensity cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37(5):838845.
3. Faigenbaum AD, McFarland JE, Schwerdtman JA et al. Dynamic warm-up protocols, with and without a weight vest, and tness performance in high school
female athletes. J Athl Train 2006; 41(4):357363.
4. Fradkin AJ, Zazryn TR, Smoliga JM. Effects of warming-up on physical performance: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 2010;
24(1):140148.

176

D.J. West et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 16 (2013) 172176

5. Bishop D, Bonetti D, Dawson B. The effect of three different warm up intensities on sprint kayak performance in trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;
33(6):10261032.
6. Zochowski T, Johnson E, Sleivert GG. Effects of varying post-warm-up recovery
time on 200 m time trial swim performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2007;
2(2):201211.
7. Febbraio MA, Carey MF, Snow RJ et al. Inuence of elevated muscle temperature on metabolism during intense, dynamic exercise. Am J Physiol 1996;
271(5):12511255.
8. McCutcheon LJ, Geor RJ, Hinchcliff KW. Effects of prior exercise on muscle metabolism during sprint exercise in humans. J Appl Physiol 1999;
87(5):19141922.
9. Karvonen J. Importance of warm up and cool down on exercise performance, In:
Medicine and sports training and coaching. Karger, Basel, 1992 [Chapter 3].
10. Malareki I. Investigation of physiological justication of so-called warming up.
Acta Physiol Pol 1954; 5(1):543546.
11. Bishop D. Warm up I, potential mechanisms and the effects of passive warm up
and exercise performance. Sports Med 2003; 33(6):439464.
12. Kilduff LP, Cunningham DJ, Owen NJ et al. Effect of postactivation potentiation
on swimming starts in international sprint swimmers. J Strength Cond Res 2011;
25(9):24182423.
13. Saltin B, Gagge AP, Stolwijk JAJ. Muscle temperature during submaximal exercise
in man. J Appl Physiol 1968; 25(6):679688.

14. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Nybo L, Nielsen J, Bangsbo J. Muscle temperature and sprint
performance during soccer matches benecial effect of re-warm-up at half
time. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004; 14(3):156162.
15. Sargeant AJ. Effect of muscle temperature on leg extension force and short-term
power output in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 1987; 56(6):693698.
16. Bishop D. Warm up II, performance changes following active warm up and how
to structure the warm up. Sports Med 2003; 33(7):483498.
17. Dawson B, Goodman C, Lawrence S et al. Muscle phosphocreatine repletion following single and repeated short sprint efforts. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1997;
7(4):206213.
18. Hajoglou A, Foster C, De Koning JJ et al. Effect of warm-up on cycle time trial
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37(9):16081614.
19. Sporer BC, Cote A, Sleivert G. Warm up practices in elite snowboard athletes. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform [in press].
20. Borg GA. Psychological bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;
14:377381.
21. Byrne C, Lim CL. The ingestible telemetric body core temperature sensor: a review of validity and exercise applications. Br J Sports Med 2006;
41(3):126133.
22. Pyne DB, Trewin CB, Hopkins WG. Progression and variability of competitive
performance of Olympic swimmers. J Sports Sci 2004; 22(7):613620.
23. Buchthal F, Kaiser E, Knappeis GG. Elasticity, viscosity and plasticity in the cross
striated muscle bre. Acta Physiol Scand 1944; 8(1):1637.