WW i — _____.__—_— '——‘—— ”— '_——— ____. ,___—_— _—___—— .____—. ________— HTHS A? \ ZXEERNEWA‘ EN‘V‘ESTIGAEiQN QF THE VT (:13 Q? THREE iNTENSWIES OF WARM-UP ON RE‘NNING PERFQRMANCE Thesis {0:- H19 Degree 0‘ M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSETY Robert Lawrence Hasseler 1959 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES . n your record. FINES W111 be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 3311 1"f MAR )6 23 AN WT“: INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THREE INTENSI TIES 0F WARM-UP C-N RUNNIIG PERMRMANCE A Thesis Pmsented to the College of Edmation of Michigan State University of Agriculture 3111 Applied Science In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation by Robert Lawrence Hasseler June 1959 AC MEEDGEHENTS The author'Wishes to extend his thanks to Dr. Henry J. Montoya for his assistance and guidance in the preparation of this thesis. Sincere thanks is also expressed to the five subjects. who through their interest and cooperation, made this study possible. Robert L. Hasseler TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ITHEPROBIEM-oo-WW ..... . StatementoftheProblem............. ImportanceoftheStudy............... LimitationsofttnStudy. . . . . . .. . . . . . II m OF THE MATM O O O C C O O O I O O I O 0 Studies Concluding Positive Effects From Warm-up . Studies Concluding No Efi’ect Or A Negative Effect frmwam’upoe00.000.000.000... III METHODOImY... IVAMSISANDmEmTATIONOFTHEDATA........ Results..................... V SUMMARY. (DMUSIONS. AND MWATIONS. . . . . . Sumary...................... Conclusions.................... Reconnendations.................. Emmm . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 PAGE U‘lU'tb) 13 l? 17 23 23 23 21+ 25 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Group and Individual Schedule of "All-out” Runs Utilizim EachwamCup e o o e o o e e e o e e o 0 1h LIST (1' TAKES TABLE PAGE I Analysis of Variance. 3-Way Classification . . . . . 17 II Analysis of Variance. 2-Way Classification . . . . . 19 III Analysis of the Relationship Between Ternperature and "All-Out" Perfwmncee e o o O O O o e O o e e g Q 20 IV Analysis of the Relationship Between Humidity and ”All-out" Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 V Difference of Means in Seconds of Performance After Three Intensities of Harm-up . . . . . . . . . . . 22 CHAPTERI THEPROBLEH Numerous studies have been completed comparing the effect of various methods of warm-up on performance. Few studies can be located which compare the effects of performance with varying intensities of the same warm-up. This constitutes the purpose of this study. Today, as the four minute mile is being constantly achieved. more ani more attention is being directed toward those factors which affect and are responsible for running performance. Such factors include: conditioning and training. diet. warm-up and mental attitude. The available literature reveals the inconsistency of proof of warm-ups affect on performance. There is general acceptance that warm- up is beneficial in the prevention of injury. Disagreement exists as to how warm-up may be advantageous. Hypotheses include: (1) the increase of blood circulation and oxygen availability to the cells (2) the decrease of plvsical and psychological tension (3) the preven- tion of muscle strain (1+) the raising of the muscle temperature and increasirg of the functional efficiency of mscles and organs and (5) the raisirg of the blood and body temperature to increase efficiency. Runners encounter difficulty in determining the amount of warm- up necessary or desirable for best results. A team member may employ an outstanding runner's warm-up although it may be less advantageous to his performance. Coaches should utilize research and experience in developirg a warm-up which will not detrimntany affect performance. It is entirely possible that the warm-up mcessary for optimum perfor- mance may be an individual problan. W. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect on the lergth of an all-out run on the treadmill of: (1) no warn-up (2) a modified warm-up; one minute and thirty seconds of running on the treadmill at 8.01 miles an hour. preceded by the following calisthenics and then waitirg ten minutes before an “all-out” run (A) five vertical Jumps - counting 1.2.3.1+ .. 2.203s“ " 39203:“: etc. (B) five toe touches with the legs straight - same count (C) five hurdle stretches on each leg - sane count (3) a vigorous warn-up; two minutes of running on the treadmill at 9.11% miles per hour. preceded by tie foll- owirg calisthenics and then waiting fifteen minutes before an 'all-out'run (A) these exercises are the same as those for modified wam-up. The duration has changed from five to eight. (B) eight vertical Jumps - sane count eight alternate toe touches - same count eight hurdle stretches - same count A treadmill was utilized to establish a situation in which the pace variant in the ”all-out“ run could be controlled. as well as making it possible to measure temperattre and humidity. The psycho- logical variant can never be completely controlled. The variability of this factor should be relatively constant in each of the twenty-one runs of each subject. mm. The assumption that warm-up before vigorous activity decreases injury. such as muscle strain. has merit through long use an! should be followed until more proof is available. There is inconsistency in research results of warm-ups effect on performance. Some experimenters such as Hale.1 indicate that warm-up does not improve performance. Others. such as Thompson.2 suggest that there is benefit. Even assumim that warm-up is effective. the problem remains of decid- ing what degree or type is most significant in positively affecting performnce. If significant results are attained in this study. some indication of the degree of warm-up for best performance will be obtained. Limitations of the study. Ensuing results are derived from data from the five subjects. Each runner has twenty-one recorded times. provid- ing depth and consistency to validate generalisation from the results. These subjects were not trained runners and were given no instruction in runnizg form. breathim or arm wage. The study does not presume to determine the best warm-up per individual for erldurame running. The interest lies in'the degree of warm-up which best improves performance. not how the condition is attained. The calisthenics. distances and speeds selected were arbi- trary and should not necessarily be followed in light of favorable results. The data will in no way indicate that any degree of warm-up is best for controllirg the number and degree of injuries. 1c.J. Hale. mammmmwmm. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Sprirgfield College. Massachusetts. 19%. p. 1&9. 2Hugh Thompson. "Effect of Warm-up Upon Physical Performance in Selected Activities." W W. 29:231. May 1958. The reader must determine if the results obtained from college freshmen are applicable to young high school runners or to older runners with a great deal of experience and training. Determine also if a run of 9.14 miles per hour on an eight and one-half degree incline is a speed run as well as an eniurance run and if the warm-up showing the best statistical significance can be applied to warm-up for a sprint race. Investigation should be attempted utilizing more varied temper- atures to measure that effect on performance. Varied distances and speeds should be-studied to compare observed results. Finally. trained runners should be studied and the results compared with untrained run- ners. Perhaps practice warm-ups should vary considerably; dictated by the distance to be run and the individual who is running. CHAPI‘EB II RELATED LITERATURE Various approaches have been incorporated in attempting to solve the problaa of the effect of warm-up on performance. The avail- able literature ini icates that the intensity and duration of the warm- up. the type of subject med; trained or untrained. and the type of warn-up used may all be contributing factors in the ensuirg results. Some investigators found warm-up beneficial. while others claimed no effect or a detrimental result. Variance of results of previous studies leave some impression as to the divergent methods of attacking the problem and of the conflicting results. These studies are grouped as to positive and negative results. each group then being chronologically arranged. Asmussen and Boje1 used preliminary work. short wave diatlmmy. hot baths. showers and massage as techniques of wens-up. The subjects ran sprints and endurance runs. The authors measured increase in work capacity with these results: (1) preliminary warm-up increased work capacity 5.88% for sprints and 14.00% for endurance runs (2) diathermy increased work capacity 5.52% for sprints and 5.775 for endurance runs (3) hot baths showed an increase of work'capacity for the sprints of 6.10% (h) massage had least effect with .66$ for sprints and 1.811 for endurance runs. Asmussen ani Bone conclmied that these increases were 13. Asmussen and 0. Boje. "Body Temperature ard Capacity for Work." Acts WW. 10:1. 196- due to an increase in muscle temperature. Muido2 also found significant improvement after warm-up when paralleling the study of Asmussen and Boje. He credited his results to an increase in blood temperature. Subject Influenced by Per Cent of Improvement 3 preliminary work 1.4 - 2.6 3 hot baths 1.9 - 2.1 2 dmthew 103 - 1.9 Blank3 tested sixteen track and field athletes in the 120 yard run ard 38 non-athletes in the 100 yard run. He found a significant difference (p = .01) in improved running time in favor of warm-up. Carlile“ tested ten winners in a 200 yard swim for time and found a significant improvement (p = .01) in performance time after an eight minute hot shower. There was some variability with one boy' s time becoming slower. Carlile concluded that eight minutes may be too long for some individuals and suggested that some passive {re-race heating of the body plus active work constitute a valuable adjunct to warmirg-up in taperate climates. Swegon. Iankosky and Williams tested male college students on repeated trials of the preferred arm extension movement. Each trial 2ieond Huido. '"The Influence of Body Temperature on Perfomance in Swimmfi mm W. 12:102. 19%. 3Lane B. Blank. "Effects of Warm-up 0n Speed,” m M, 35:10. February 1955. “Forbes Carlile. ”Effect of Preliminary Passive War-aim on Swimming.“ Research 9mm. 27:110. May 1956. 5Donald Swegon, Gene Iankosky. James A. Williams. ”Effect of Repetition Upon Speed of Preferred Arm Extension." W W. 27:71}, May 1956. resulted in faster movement. Fifty trials were better than twenty. The authors concluded that (1) individuals vary censiderably in successive repetitions of the simple movement of arm extension (2) Repetition. as a form of warm-up. tended to produce faster movement times. Pachero6 tested vertical jump performance with the Henry apparatus with: no warm-up isometric stretching before tie jump stationary running (isotonic) before the jump knee bends (a combination of the previous jump) All of the following results were significant. (1) stationary running was M7993 more effective than knee bends (2) stationary running was 2.68% more effective than stretching (3) stretching was 2.05% more effective than knee bends. In comparison to no warm-up these results were obtained: (1) knee bends were 2.88% higher (2) stretching was ”1.98% higher (3) running in place was 7.8‘,‘ higher. This would seem to indicate that warm-up is beneficial in a power activity. Michael, Skubic and Rochelle7 used no warm-up. related warm-up and unrelated warm-up, in testirg the effect of each on the softball throw. Related warm-up consisted of tossing and catching a ball at five various distances for one minute each. Unrelated warm-up included one minute each of jumping jacks. toe touching. «alternate toe touching, an! two minutes of sprint running. Throws after the unrelated warm-up were 7 1; 2.1? feet farther __ 6Betty Pachero, 'Improvement in Jumping Performance Due to Prelmfmary Exercise,” Research Quarterly. 28: 55. March 1957. 7Ernest Michael. Vera Skubic. Rene Rochelle. "Effect of Warm—up on the Softball Throw for Distance." W. 28:357. December 1957. than no warm-up. Throws after related warm—up were 5 g 1.75 feet farther than no warm-up. Both are significant at the P I .01 level. Thompsonf3 compared scores of five selected activities after no warm-up. formal warm-up. and informal warm-up. Fermi warm-up consisted of the activity to be performed while informal warm-up included general and free exercise. such as arm swinging. stationary running . etc . Activity Formal VS. No Warm-up Informal VS. No Warm-up Swiming speed ca (3.96) .01 CR (1.68) not at .05 emurance CR (2.13) .01 CR ( .56) not at .05 BB foul shoot CR (9.07) .01 Bowling accuracy OR (2.9“) .01 Typing speed on ( .53) not at .05 ca (1.92) not at .05 accuracy CR (1.35) not at .05 CR ( .75) not at .05 Strength CR ( .06) not at .05 (leg dynamometer) There appears to be wide variability in the effect of warm-up on individual performance. Formal warm-up improved group performance in swiming. foul-shooting and bowling at the P = .01 level of signi- ficance. DeVries9 compared no warm-up, a swimming warm-up of 500 yards. 3. six minute hot-as-possible shower. calisthenics and massage. each done before competitive 100 yard swims. Warm-up for the whole group improved times by a mean difference of .104 seconds. (P = .05) Considering the group as a whole. hot 8Hugh Thompson, "Effect of warm-up Upon Physical Performnce In Selected Activities.“ W W. 29:231. Hay 1958. 9Herbert A. DeVries, ”Effects of Various Warm-up Procedures on 100 Yard Times of Competitive Swimmers.” km W. March 1959, p. 11. showers. calisthenics and massage had no significant effects. 0n the seven freestylers calisthenics had the only significant effect (.37 seconds). Calisthenics had the only significant effect with the breast- strokers (1.52 seconds) (P = .01). A DeVries concludes that time can be improved by proper warm-up and can be impaired by improper warm-up. The type of warm-up is dependent on the stroke used. Calisthenics implement best results where strength in the stroke plays a large role. The following sttxiies show warm-up to either not affect perfor- mance or to cause detrimental results. ' Karpovioh and Pestresoylo showed that riding times on a bicycle ergometer were actually reduced when a warm-up was taken prior to the ride. Halen studied the effects of mssage on tin 1440 yard run in relation to performance. He used preliminary exercise. massage and digital stroking as forms of warm-up. The first of two experiments was in the spring on an outdoor track. The second was on an indoor track. EXPERDENT ONE Warm-up ’ Mean Time Per Cent of Increase Massage ‘ 55.8“ 1 .17 preliminary ex. 56.17 .58 digital strokirg 56.50 -- lOi’eter V. Karpovich and K. Pestresoy. ”Effect of Gelatin Upon Muscular Work in Man." Assam 9.91m 21 W. 13182. 19%. 110. J. Hale. Mfimkmzcmthafllamm. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Springfield College. Massachusetts. 19%, p. 1+9. 10 EXPERDENT TWO no warm-up 59.21 -39 digital stroking 59.1w .. Hale stated that he cannot compare the two different groups because of environmntal conditions. There was no significant introve— ment in performance. however. so he concluded that neither massage. preliminary exercise. nor dig ital stroking increased performance in the #40 yard run. . Ripple12 ran eighth grade boys a maximum all-out 50 yard run as a want-up. He then ran his subjects five times at 50 yards with a five minute rest betvteen each. The first race had no beneficial effect on the second. Fatigue was observable durirg the fourth and fifth runs. Hipple comluded that warm-up is not important for eighth grade boys. . Possibly all-out runs are not good warm-ups. Care must be taken in generalizirg from this study in application to older athletes. Sills and ()‘Reilley13 measured the number of times the right foot hit the groum in five ten—second bouts of spot running. using rest. exercise ani cold application as warm-up. Each impraed perfor- mnce to some degree. rest more so than exercise. Karpovich and Halal” pointed out that there were no significant 12Joseph Hipple. "Running Warm-up and Fatigue in Junior High 3011001 sprint!” W W0 26:214’6’ Mayo 19550 lWren}. Sills and Vernon O'Reilley. "Cold Spray Compared to Rest and Exercise in Effect on Performance.“ W W. 28:217. May 1956. 1“'Peter V. Karpovich and C. J . Hale. "The Effect of Warming-up Upon Physical Performance." lama]. at Amman Mica}. Association. 162:1117. November 1956. 11 differences in the running times of the “#0 yard run or the sprint type ride on the bicycle ergometer when either preliminary exercise. deep massage or digital stroking methods of warm-up were used. No signi— ficant differences resulted when these methods were compared to no warm-up scores of the same activities. , Skubic arr! I-Iodgkinsl5 tested the effect of warm-up on speed. accuracy and strength including. riding the bicycle. basketball shoot. Warm-up included three groups; no warm-up. general softball throw. In none of theses three groups was there warm-up and related warm-up. a significant difference in scores. This is in opposition to Thompson and Michael. Skubic and Rochelle who used similar warm-up groupings. The authors concluded that light warm-up of short duration has no affect on performance. Scores. were slightly better when preceded by related warm-up. although not significantly. Lotter16 measured the effect of warm-up. stationary runnirg while swingirg the arms in a complete circle. on the maximum rate of repeated arm-shoulder movements. There was no significant difference after two minutes of warm-up or after four minutes. He concluded that warm-up was without effect here and that speed of movement on the second crank-turnirg test was faster due to the result of practice. The reader must now be aware of the contradictory evidence 15Vera Skubic and Jean Hodgkins. "Effect of Harm-up on Speed. Accuracy and Strength.” mach W. 28:147. May 1957. 14411113111 Latter. "Effects of Fatigue and Harm-up on Speed of 4m ”overwrite." W W. May 1958. p. 57- 12 concerning the effectiveness of warm-up. even when the same general types of warm-up are used. This indicates that intensity is extremely important in determining the worth of any particular practice. A know- ledge of the positive effects of general areas of intensity of warm-up would be useful in solving the warm-up controversy. Determining the effect of no warm-up. a modified warm-up and a vigorous warm-up on performance would be very beneficial in identifying areas in which more detailed work should be done. as well as different types of warm-up of this intensity. This constitutes the basis for this study. 0mm III DESIGN 01' THE HPERIHENT This study involved five male college students. F our ran on the treadmill three days a week: Monday. iednesday and Friday for seven weeks and one ran only Mondays and Fridays for seven weeks. Before recording am scores. a two week training period was utilized to familiarize all subjects with the routine and to decrease variability in scores except for the training variable. Improvement was largely continuous and linear. The variables consisted of three types of warm-up differing in degree of intensity. Each subject used a different warm-up on different days of the week accordirg to the accompanying chart (Fig. 1. page 14). At the end of each week each subject had run each of the three different groups. After the specified warm-up. the runner mounted the treadmill and ran at the set speed of 9.1“ miles per hour. This was an all-out run. The mill was inclined eight and one-half degrees. Scores were recorded until there were seven sets of data for four of the runners and five sets for the fifth runner. m. The subjects were all male college freshmen who were inter- ested in improving their ptvsical condition and fitness. Four of them . were motivated by their plans to g'try-out" for a spring sport and wished to develop and/or maintain condition. They realized that there were no material rewards for participation. The subjects ran from three to FIGURE 1 1 - no warm-up 2 - modified warm-up 3 - vigorous warm-up Month - Day Subjects ‘ 'TALLMAN ALLIS coon FOULKE mm Jan. 26 Monday 3 1 3 l 2 " 28 Wednesday 1 3 2 3 l "' 30 Friday 2 l 2 3 Feb. 2 Monday 2 2. 1 2 3 " it Wednesday 2 1 3 1 2 " 6 Friday 3 2 3 1 " 11 Wednesday 1 2 1 2 3 " 13 Friday 1 3 l 2 Feb. 16 Monday 1 2 1 2 3 ' 18 Wednesday 2 3 2 3 1 " 20 Friday 1 3 1 2 Feb. 23 Monday 3 3 2 3 1 ' 25 Wednesday 2 1 3 1 2 " 27 Friday ' 2 l 2 3 Mar. 2 Monday 1 l 3 l 2 " it Wednesday 3 2 1 2 3 " 6 Friday 3 2 3 1 Mar. 9 Monday 1 2 3 2 1 " 11 wednesday 3 3 2 3 2 " 13 Friday 1 2 1 3 Mar. 16 Monday 2 15 five in the afternoon on their designated days, each runnirg approx- imately the same time each day. To the author's knowledge, there was no previous vigorous activity for two hours before any run. The sub- jects were asked to walk to each session. two having only to go next door after sitting in class. They dressed in the laboratory where the treadmill was located and also showered there. At no time was am! subject led to believe that one method of warm-up was superior to another in positively affecting performance. The runners reported that they neither ate nor drank amthing one hour previous to their run. The runners did not know how the treatment of data was done. The author took no stand as to which group was best. WWW- In the perfor- mance run after warm-up the time the runner remained on the bed of the mill was initiated when both feet touched the bed uni completed when both feet left the bed. The runner ran ”all-out“ until he could not keep the pace. resulting in driftirg toward the back of the mill. The legs were always first to give out making recognition of an ”all-out" performance relatively easy. There were two “spotters” at all times who caught the runner as he came off the back of the mill. . One revolution of the tread was measured so that the distance of each run could be computed. The number of revolutions per minute at 9.1“ miles per hour was forty-four. If a subject missed a run. the next scheduled run used the warm- “? missed. with each successive warm-up being moved one day beyond its original schedule. There were a total of three such instances. The preceding chart shows a group schedule designed to eliminate 16 a certain warm-up always occurring on the same day. by variation. for example, might have been the result of the week-end rather than the warm-up. Temperature and humidity were kept on each runner each time he ran, recording just as he stepped on the mill. W. In using the treadmill in the laboratory. factors can be eliminated which would be variable on the track. Wind am! the effect of other elements can be controlled or eliminated. Arm pace change durirg the "all-out" run can be greatly elimin- ated. The subject must run at the set speed as 101'; as he can hold that pace. Outside. one could not be sure of this. This establishes a constant in each of the runs. The runners saw only daily scores. not associating tram with the three groups as to which was developing the best mean time. In this way no trend was initiated to unconsciously create a bias. When running. the subjects were given the times at one minute. two minutes and then each half minute in every case. The treadmill rotations were checked every second week to make certain that the number of revolutions per minute remained constant. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RBENTATION OF THE DATA The problem of identifying a warm-up which has an optimum effect on performance for an individual has motivated this study. Five Michigan State University freshmen participated in this eXperiment. The subjects' 'all-out" times were recorded after each of three intensities of warm-up. Temperature and hunidity for each run was also recorded. The results of the analysis of variance using four subjects is shown in Table 1. This table shows that a significant variation of TABLE 1 ANALYSIS or VARIANCE 34m cussmcnnon FOR u SUBJECTS, 3 INTENSITIES or wmmp 7 REPETITIONS FOR mum ===::, __ .1 1 _ Source Sum of Degrees of Variance F Squares Freedom Estimate' Value Sig. Subjects (Blocks) 36.793 3 12.26.} 219.000 .001 Harm-up (Columns) .900 2 .1450 8.056 .001 Training (Rows) . 6.363 6 1.061 18.9146 .001 Interaction (SW) .956 6 .159 2.839 .01-.05 Interaction (SdzT) 1.85“ 18 .103 1.839 .05-.06 Interaction (me) .625 12 .052 Interaction (SflzTErW) 2.068 36 .057 raw plus S&T&H 2 . 693 3+8 .056 18 run time between individuals exists. The I" score was approximately 27 times the number needed for the .1 percent level of significance. Training had a definite effect on the performance time of the subjects as a group (P . .133). showing that the "all-out" runs lengthened as repetitions increased. The table also reveals warm-up having a signifi- can effect (P _—_ .lfi) on the subjects' perfomances as a group. The experiment was designed so the interaction of warm-up (W) and Training (T) would be insignificant. The schedule of each subject using each warm—up on different days of each week guaranteed no subject recording a number of scores of the same warm-up in the same week. Because this interaction was insignificant it could be combined with the triple interaction to provide greater degrees of freedom. In studying the interaction of subjects and training. an F of between the 5 and 6 percent level of significance suggested that the effect of training varied among subjects. The interaction of warm-up and the subjects resulted in an 1" score between the .l and 1 percent level of significance. This signified that the effect of warm-up on subject performance varies from person to person. The analysis of variance in Table II disclosed the significance of any variance in warm-up for each subject. with the first subject, the variation was significant. havirg six times the 1" score needed. The secord andjfourth subjects had insig- nificant variation. The third runner had an I" score between the .1 and 1 percent level of significance. The fifth runner had an 1" score at the 7 percent level of significance. showing some variation in perfor- mence with warm-up. The training effect on performance was significant 19 TABLE II ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Z-WAY GIASSIFICATION PER SUBJECT Sum of Degrees of Subject Source Squares Freedom MS F Sig . Total 5 .06 20 Tra inirg 2 .9? 6 .495 38.077 .001 wemup 1.9L» 2 .970 7u.615 .001 Within .15 12 .013 Total 2. 854 20 Training 1.654 6 .274 2 .978 .06 Warm-up .106 2 .053 . 576 insig . Within 1.103 12 .092 Total 2.075 20 Training 1 .278 6 .213 8 .520 .001 Warm-up .503 2 . 252 10 .080 .01—.001 Within .294 12 .025 Total 2 .769 2 Tra ining 1.582 6 .264 3 .034 .05 Warm-up . 149 2 . 07 5 . 862 insig . Within 1.038 12 .087 Total 2 .770 15 .499 8.911 .01- .001 Training 1.996 4 .165 2.946 insig. Warm-up .329 2 .056 Within .445 8 at the .1 percent level of significance for two subjects. between the .1 and 1 percent level for another. at the 5 percent level for another and between the 5 and 6 percent level for the fifth runner. Table III (p.. 20) shows the insignificant effect of temperature on performnce in this study. The range of the temperatures should be noted. The study of temperature extremes and variations are not attempted here. The temperatm'e an! humidity were recorded as a measure 20 TABLE III ANALYSIS OF 004VARIANCE BETWEEN TEMPERATIRE" AND "ALL-CUT" PERFORMANCE .. _ ‘- “ V F Value Attained Degrees of F Needed Correlation Subjects (regression ratio) Freedom for P = .05 Coefficient l .696 1 and 11 “.8“ -.362 2 .710 l and 11 b.84 -.O95 3 .890 1 and 11 4.84 -.212 4 1.560 1 and 11 4.84 .109 5 1.780 1 and 7 5.59 -.255 '"Temperature Range - 700 6 89° Temperature Mean — 75.94 of control; showing that the small variation of each had no significant effect on the ”all-out" runs. Neither the value attained for F nor the correlation coefficients were significant. The insignificant effect of humidity on the "all-out” runs was calculated in.Tab1e IV (p. 21). Again. the range of degrees should be noted. The regression ratios were not significant. nor were the corre- lation coefficients. The effect of humidity per subject can be Observed. 21 TABLE IV ANAEYSIS OF VARIANCE BEIWEEJ HUMIDITY" AM) ”ALL-OUT" PERFCRMANCE *A L—AA; .__._-—_ Vfiv —_ v— _ F'Vhlue Attained Degrees of F Needed Correlation subjects (regression ratio) Freedom for P=.05 Coefficient 1 .181 1 am 11 4.84 .227 2 1.010 1 and 11 4.84 .310 3 .119 1 and 11 4.84 -.081 4 1.340 1 and 11 4.84 -.133 5 .104 l and 7 5.59 « .081 *Hmnidity Range - 29% - 52% Humidity Mean - 36.93% _The mean difference of performance. in seconds. after the three intensities of warmpup for each.subject. is seen in Table V (p. 22). Notice that for each runner the modified warm-up produced a better mean "all-out" run time than no warm-up. 22 TABLE V DIFFEENCE 0F MEANS IN SMCNDS Modified Warm-up (0-) Modified Warm-up (+) Vigorous Warm-up (-) art! art! ard No Harm-up (-)- Vigorous Warm-up (-) No Warm-up (.) 1 V2809 O 6.8“ -22008 2 .17.1 .2148 . l$.38 3 Q' 105 ’ 90% 1’ 7098 a 0' 2052 910.7” 0' 8022 5 ‘ 9066 913.68 O “.02 The same is true in comparirg modified wam-up with the vigorous wamup. although the variations should be noted. This difference in times was significant for two subjects and insignificant for three subjects. It is interesting to observe that for four of the subjects the man times for the vigorous warm-up were less than the no warm-up means. One runner had a difference which almost equalled the sum of the other four means. Recall tint fifteen minutes of restirg was allowed between warm-up and performance in the vigorous warm-up. Perhaps too vigorous a warm-up before a performance can result in a detrimental effect which might be due to an oxygen debt built up before the run begins. CHAPTER V smear, CONCLIBIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Five male college freshmen ran ”all-cut” on a treadmill a total of 21 times each. Before each run. each subject utilized one of three intensities of warm-up. resulting in seven performances after each warm-up. The purpose of the uperiment was to determine the effect of three intensities of warm-up on performnce and to ascertain if the effect varied with the individual. The statistical treatment shows that warm-up significantly affected group performnce (P = .001). Warm-up was significant for two subjects. insignificant for three. The modified warm-up. in each case, resulted in better means times than no warm-up or vigorous warm-up. W The following conclusions appear justified on the basis of the statistical data presented: 1. Within the limits of this experiment neither temperature nor humidity significantly effected performance. 2. The effect of warm-up on perfomance for the subjects as a group was significant, but varied with the individual. 3. The mean score for each subject was higher after a modified warm-up than after either no wam-up or a vigorous warm-up. 1+. Caution should be a concern in utilizing a vigorous wam-up before performnce, as the data suggests such a warm-up my be detrimental to performance. 2” WW The following recommdaticns are proposed for related study involving warm-up. 1. Develop a parallel study to observe the effects of these warm-ups on Speed running. 2. Employ trained runners as subjects while using initially the sane methods as in this study. 3. More congreh ensive research should be attempted in learning the effect of vigorous warm-up on performance. BIHJMRAPHY 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY K1016 Doherty, Kenneth J. Mam m m gum. New York: Prentice-Hall. 1110.. 1953. Goulden. Cyril. was; $211 W finalists. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.. 1956. Karpovich. Peter V. W 9; Musculgg £031.! itx. Philadelphia and London: w. B. Saunders Compam'. 1956. HoNemar. Quinn. W Statistigg. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Inc. PERIODICALS Asmussen. E. and O. Boje. ”Body Temperature and Capacity for Work". Asia W W. 10:1. 1916. Blank. Lane B. "Effects Of Harm-up on Speed." Athletic M, 35:10. Februa ry 1955 . Carlile, Forbes. "Effect of Preliminary Passive Warming on Swimming". we was. May 1955- DeVries, Herbert A. "Effects of Various Warm-up Procedures on 100 Yard Times of Competitive Swimers.” Research Quarterly. March 1959. Hipple, Joseph. 'Runnirg Harm-up and Fatigue in Junior High School SprintS"- lamb W. May 1955. Karpovich. Peter V. and C. J. Hale. ”The Effect of Warming-up Upon Physical Perform nee." iguana; at Amman Medias}. mama. 162:1117. November 1956. Karpovich. Peter V. and K. Pestresoy. "Effect of Gelatin Upon Muscular "ark in Ham" seem 9.29am at WI. 134:2. 1941. Lotter. William. "Effects of Fatigue an] Warm-up on Speed of Arm Move- ments." mm mm- May 1958- Merlino. Lawrence. 'Influence of Massage on Jumping Performance." 11:12am 99am. Hay 1958. Michael. Ernest. Vera Skubic and Rene Rochelle. "Effect of warm-up on Softball Throw for Distance.‘I mm W. 1957. Muido. Leond. "The Influence of Body Temperature on Performnce in Swimine-" Asia Wise immig- 12:102. 19%- Pachero, Betty. 'Improvement in Juming Performance Due to Preliminary Exercise-'7 Mush W. 195?. Reach. Melvin. "The Effect of Cold Abdominal Spray upon the Repeat Performame in the M0 Yard Run." M 9%. May 1952. Sills. Frank and Vernon O'Reilley. "Cold Spray Compared to Rest and Exerc ise in Effect on Performance.‘ 13m M. May 1956. Skubic. Vera an! Jean Hodgkins. "Effect of Warm-up on Speed. Accuracy and Strength.“ Web 933216112. May 1957. Swegon. Donald, Gene Yankosky and Jams A. Williams. ”Effect of Repeti- tion upon Speed of Preferred Arm Extension." w W, March 1958. UN'PU'BIJSHED MATERIALS Hale. C. J. "Effect of Preliminary Massage on the Mo Yard Run.“ Unpublished Master's Thesis, Springfield College. Massachusetts, 19% . mum My fl" --;7,.~—~,~——-._ f AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THREE INTENSITIES OI" WARM-UP ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE An Abstract Presented to the College of Education of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Department of Health. Physical Education. and Recreation by Robert Lawrence Hasseler (I ,. a \ Ié'. ‘(ri BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH \‘r.’ \COLLEGE of EDUCATION MlCmuAN SIAM: UMVERSHY EAST LANSWG, MOCHIGAN 4 Robert Lawrence Hasseler ABSTRACT line An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Three Inten- sities of Warm-up 0n Running Performance W The problem of determining arr! applying an optimum warm-up before perfomance has long existed in physical education and athletics. The controversial results of smdies completed on the subject have served to further confuse ard delay decisions of practical application. A review of the literature and the results of this study suggest to the author that the benefits of warm-up are deperrient upon the type. related- ness and intensity of the warm-up activity. Many of the related studies cite conclusions in terms of the group tested. Perhaps a partial answer to the warm-up question is the variation of effect per individual. 3W Some researchers have concurred preliminary warm-up to be beneficial before performance (1,2.3.u.1o.11.12.15).Others found warm-up to have no affect or a detrimental affect on performance (5.6. 7.8.9.13 .14.16). Related warm-up was beneficial in the following studies (l.2.h.lo.ll.15) . A running warm-up positively affected perfor- mance in some studies (1.2.11). in others performance was not improved (5.6.7.16). W Five sale college freshmen ran ”all-out" on a treadmill after Robert Lawrence Hasseler each of three varying intensities of warm-up. These comisted of: no warm-up; calisthenics and 1% minutes of running on the mill at 8.01 miles per hour with the bed of the mill pitched at 8% degrees and 10 minutes of rest before the “all-out" run; calisthenics and 2 minutes of running on the mill at 9.11» miles per hour with 15 minutes of rest before the "all-out” run. The calisthenics consisted of five and eight repeti- tions respectively. of jumping jacks, alternate toe touches and the the hurdle exercise. Four subjects ran a total of 21 times. utilizirg each warm-up seven times. The fifth subject ran a total of 15 times. having run each warm-up five tines. Temperature and humidity were recorded with each run to deter- mine if either significantly affected performance in this stuchr. A schedule was established so the same warm-up was not run on the same day of each week. The data was collected over a seven week period. Mia The man performance times for each subject. after each of the three warm-ups. are shown in table 1. The modified warm-up {reduced a better mean "all-out" run time than either no warm-up or vigorous warm-up. The wide variations of time among individuals when commrirg the warm-ups suggests varying affects on the individual. It is interesting to observe that for four of the subjects the mean times for the vigorous warm-up were less than the no warm-up means, while one runner had a difference in means which almost equalled the sum of the other four mean differences. It should be Robert Lawrence Hasseler recalled that fifteen minutes of resting was allowed between the vigorous warm-up ani performance. TABIE l MEAN TREADNILL RUN TIME .__. A A‘__ Subject No Warm-up Modified Warm-up Vigorous Warm-up 1 h;13.6 u:u2.5 1min? 2 2:l+8.2 3:05.3 2:53-9 3 2:56.? 2:58.15 2:48.9 1+ 336.5 3=39.0 3:283 5 3:10.} 3:19.9 3:06.8 d—-———__ The results of Table II show that warm-up significantly affected group performance. (P = .001) as did training (P = .001). A significant, I“ value for subject ard warm-up interaction gives statistical evidence that there is individual difference in the affect of warm-up on the subjects. An analysis of variance per subject shows that warm-up signifi- cantly improved performance for two subjects. and was insignificant for three. An analysis of co—variance shots that the variations of temper- ature and humidity were small enough to be insignificant. in every case. in their affect on performance. Robert Lawrence Hasseler TABLE II ANAIISIS OF VARIANCE. 3-WAY CLASSD’ICATION .FOR it SUBJECTS. 3 INTENSITIES 0F WARM-UP 7 REPETITIONS FOR TRAINING ~— — ‘22:— 4.. Sum of Degrees of Variance 1" Source Squares Freedom Estimate Value Sig. Subjects (Blocks) 36.793 3 12.264 219.000 .001 Warm-up (Columns) .900 2 .160 8.046 .001 Training (Rows) 6.363 6 1.061 18. .001 Interaction (saw) .956 6 .159 2.839 .01-.05 Interaction (ear) 1.85h 18 .103 1.839 .05-.06 Interaction (TM .625 12 .052 Interaction (semi) 2.968 36 .057 w» plus sacred 2.693 #8 .055 9212111115211: The following conclusions appear justified on the basis of the statistical data presented. 1. The effect of warm-up on performance for the subjects as a group was significant. but varied with the irdividual. 2. The mean score for each subject was higher after a modified than after either no warm-up or a vigorous warm-up. 3. Within the limits of this experiment neither temperature nor hmidity significantly affected performance. 1‘. Caution should be a concern in utilizing a Vigorous warm-up before performance. as the data suggests such a warm-up M be detrimental to an individual's performance. Robert Lawrence Hasseler Mutations The following recommendations are proposed for related study involving warm-up. 1. A parallel stuch' should be made to observe the effects of these warm—ups on speed running. 2. Trained runners might be employed as subjects while using initially the same methods as in this stuchr. 3. More comprehensive research should be attempted in learning the effect of vigorous warm-up on performance. 12. 1.30 11+. BIBLIOGRAPHY Asmussen. E. and 0. Boje. ”Body Temperature and Capacity for Work." Acta Physiologica Scarfiinavica. 1945. Blank. Lane 3.. "Effects of Warm-up on Speed.‘ Athletig m, February 1955. Carlile. Forbes. "Effect of Preliminary Passive Warming on Swimming.” Research. 92am May 1956 DeVries. Herbert, “Effects of Various Warm-up Procedures on the 100 Yard Times of Competitive Swimmers." W Quagtegm. March 1959 - Hale. C. J. . "Effect of Preliminary Massage on the 14140 Yard Run.“ Unpublished Master's Thesis. Springfield College. Massachusetts. 1992 . Hipple. Joseph. |'Running Warm-up and Fatigue in Junior High School Sprints." W. ma" rt,._£lz..e May 1955. Karpovich. Peter and C. J. Hale. "The Effect of Warming-up Upon Physical Perfomnce." Jgurngl 9!; American Hedi-ail. Association. Letter. William. "Effects of Fatigue and Warm-up on Speed of Am Movements." Resegrgh 'Qggrterlz. May 1958. Matthews. Donald and H. Alan Smrder. "The Effect of Warm-up on the “APO-Yard Dash. " Unpublished Master' 5 Thesis. Ohio State Univers ity. Ohio . 1958 Michael. Ernest. Vera Skubic arxi Rene Rochelle. “Effect of Harm-up on the Softball Throw for Distance." Research Quarterly. 1957. Muido. Ieond. "The Influence of Body Temperature on Performance in warning." Ania Wine. Wine. 19‘6- Pachero. Betty. "Improvement in J unping Performance Due to Preliminary Exercise.” Research mm- 1957- Sills. Frank and Vernon O'Reilley. "Cold Spray Compared to Rest and Exercise in Effect on Performance." Research Quarterly. Hay 1956. Skubic. Vera and Jean Hodgkins. "Effect of Warm-up on Speed. Accuracy and Strergth.‘ Essarch Quarterly. May 1957. .-. err-I". .u. 71. .— . See?“ "I 99"?" f‘ Ar ‘4 4 “chf‘ ol' 15. $630“ Do' 1 Repetition upon I; flafly” March 1958' n mrsic 16. Thomps°“' “ugh. Selected ActiV1tms MICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 293010931