THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT INTENSITIES AND
DURATIONS OF THE GENERAL WARM-UP ON LEG
PRESS 1RM
RENATO BARROSO, CARLA SILVA-BATISTA, VALMOR TRICOLI, HAMILTON ROSCHEL,
CARLOS UGRINOWITSCH
Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sa˜o
Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
ABSTRACT
Barroso, R, Silva-Batista, C, Tricoli, V, Roschel, H, and Ugri-
nowitsch, C. The effects of different intensities and durations
of the general warm-up on leg press 1RM. J Strength Cond Res
27(4): 1009–1013, 2013—The precision of maximum strength
assessments (1 repetition maximum; 1RM) is important to eval-
uate the functional capacity and to prescribe and monitor the
training load. Several factors can affect the precision of 1RM
tests, including the warm-up procedure. General and specific
warm-up routines are recommended to enhance performance.
The effects of a specific warm-up have already been acknowl-
edged in improving performance. However, the effects of a gen-
eral warm-up (GWU) are unclear but seem to depend on its
ability to increase muscle temperature while avoiding fatigue.
Furthermore, temperature elevation is dependent on both the
duration and the intensity of the activity, which may eventually
affect 1RM performance. The objective of this study was to in-
vestigate the effect of different intensities and durations of GWU
on 1RM performance. Sixteen strength-trained men were tested
for 1RM leg press after 4 GWU conditions after specific warm-
up: short duration and low intensity (SDLI; i.e., 5 minutes at 40%
V̇O2max), long duration and low intensity (LDLI; i.e., 15 minutes at
40% V̇O2max), short duration and moderate intensity (SDMI; i.e.,
5 minutes at 70% V̇O2max), long duration and moderate intensity
(LDMI; i.e., 15 minutes at 70% V̇O2max), and the control (CTRL)
no-GWU condition. Leg press 1RM values were higher (on av-
erage 3%) when subjects performed LDLI (367.8 6 70.1 kg; p
= 0.01), compared with the other 4 conditions. After the LDMI
condition, 1RM values were lower (on average 24%) than in the
other 4 conditions (345.6 6 70.5 kg; p = 0.01). There were no
differences between SDMI, SDLI, and CTRL (359.4 6 69.2 kg,
359.1 6 69.3 kg, and 359.4 6 70.4 kg, respectively; p = 0.99).
R. Barroso and C. Silva-Batista contributed equally to the study.
Address correspondence to Dr. Renato Barroso, barroso@usp.br.
27(4)/1009–1013
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND
According to our results, long-duration low-intensity general
warm-up seems be appropriately to improve 1RM performance
in strength-trained individuals.
KEY WORDS maximum oxygen uptake, ratings for perceived
exertion, lactate
INTRODUCTION
T
he accurate assessment of the maximum strength
is of great relevance in determining both the func-
tional capacity and the exercise training load for
individuals of different training status and ages. In
this regard, the one repetition maximum (1RM) test is the
most common measure of the maximum dynamic
strength (9). There are several factors, however, that can
affect the precision of a 1RM assessment. Among these fac-
tors, the warm-up procedure (e.g., aerobic exercise, specific
activity, and stretching) seems to influence the 1RM test
results (6,7,11,12,20–22,24).
It has been generally recommended that the warm-up
routine preceding a 1RM testing should comprise both
general (aerobic) and specific exercises (mimicking the target
activity) (2,4,9). The general warm-up (GWU) exercise is
designed to increase body temperature, whereas the specific
warm-up exercise attempts to increase neuromuscular
activation (7,15,21,25).
Regarding the GWU, low-intensity and short-duration
aerobic exercises have been traditionally recommended before
1RM testing (i.e., running for 5 minutes at 9 km$h21(9)).
However, there is little scientific evidence supporting such
suggestion. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that body
temperature should be increased around 38C to trigger per-
formance enhancing benefits (5,10–13,23), and that this ele-
vation seems to depend on both the intensity and the duration
of the GWU (18). Moderate-intensity (i.e., 60–70% V̇ O2max)
aerobic exercise may increase the rate of body temperature
elevation (16,19), suggesting GWU efficacy might be aug-
mented. However, moderate-intensity activity may also lead
to a higher level of fatigue impairing performance (7). Thus, it
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2013 | 1009
 General Warm-up Intensity and Duration Affects Strength
is conceivable that both variables should be controlled when
designing warm-up routines.
Abad et al. (1) have demonstrated that cycling for
20 minutes at 60% of the predicted maximum heart rate
(HR), followed by specific warm-up, improved leg press
1RM performance by ;8% when compared with a no-GWU
condition. The exercise intensity in the Abad et al. (1) work
is within the range suggested by Bishop (7) (40–60%
V̇ O2max) to improve performance in short-term activities.
Yet, the duration was based on previous studies that
showed that muscle temperature raises ;38C in approxi-
mately 15–20 minutes of aerobic exercising (9). Thus,
it seems plausible to suggest that a long-duration and low-
intensity GWU can improve performance to a larger extent
than the recommended short-duration and low-intensity
GWU protocol. Nevertheless, data comparing distinct
GWU durations and intensities are still lacking.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare leg
press 1RM performance after different GWU protocols.
According to previous results from Abad et al. (1) and Bish-
op’s suggestions (7), we hypothesized that a low-intensity
long-duration GWU will be more effective in improving
maximal dynamic strength.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was a crossover design study for testing the effect of
different GWU protocols on lower-limb 1RM performance.
Subjects were tested in 5 different conditions. In 4 of these
conditions, the subjects performed the combination
of different durations (i.e., 5 and 15 minutes) and intensities
(i.e., 40 and 70% V̇ O2max) of aerobic exercise. After the
completion of the GWU, the subjects rested for 3 minutes
and then performed the specific warm-up protocol, stan-
dardized for all conditions. In the remaining condition,
which served as a control (CTRL), participants performed
only the specific warm-up.
Subjects
Sixteen strength-trained male students majoring in physical
education (age: 24.9 6 3.2 years; body mass: 76.7 6 8.2 kg;
and height: 176.3 6 8.0 cm) volunteered to participate in this
study. The subjects had at least 12 months of strength train-
ing experience (15.5 6 3.1 months) and performed the
inclined (458) leg press exercise during their regular training
routine at least twice a week. They were free from any lower
extremity injuries and neuromuscular disorders. The investi-
gation was approved by an institutional review board for use
of human subjects, and all of the participants signed an
informed consent form before participation.
Pretesting Sessions
Before undertaking any of the GWU conditions, participants
performed a maximal incremental test on a cycle ergometer
to determine their maximum aerobic capacity. Then, they
performed 2 familiarization sessions with the lower-limb
the TM
1010 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
1RM test using a leg press machine (Resistance NKR;
Nakagym, São Paulo, Brazil). During the familiarization ses-
sions, individual leg press machine settings were recorded for
reproduction throughout the study. Each repetition started
with the knees fully extended, and then, the participants
flexed their knees to reach 908 of flexion (end of eccentric
phase) before extension (concentric phase). After adjust-
ments in the machine, the participants warmed-up on the
stationary bicycle for 5 minutes at a self-selected pace and
performed a simulated 1RM test to obtain an estimation of
the load to be used during the experimental sessions.
Procedures
Maximal Incremental Exercise Test. Participants laid down for
10 minutes before the test to assess resting HR and blood
lactate concentration [La2]. The maximal incremental exer-
cise test was carried out on a cycle ergometer (Ergo-Fit 167;
Ergo-Fit, São Paulo, Brazil). Seat height was adjusted indi-
vidually allowing near full knee extension during each pedal
revolution. Oxygen uptake (V̇ O2) was measured breath-by-
breath throughout the test using a gas analyzer (Quark b2;
Cosmed, Rome, Italy) and averaged over 30-second
intervals. The gas analyzer was calibrated according to man-
ufacturer instructions using ambient air, a gas of known com-
position containing 16.0% O2 and 5% CO2, and a 3-L syringe.
The HR was assessed during the test with a HR monitor
(S810i; Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) synchronized
with the gas analyzer. The ratings of perceived exertion
(RPE) was also assessed during and immediately after the
test (8). Blood samples (25 ml) were collected from the left
ear lobe immediately, 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the exercise
test for [La2] determination, using an automatic blood lac-
tate analyzer (1500 Sport; Yellow Springs Instruments,
Yellow Springs, OH, USA).
After a 3-minute warm-up at 50 W, participants cycled at
a pedal frequency of 60 rpm with increasing workload
increments of 30 W$min21 until voluntary exhaustion (the
inability to sustain a minimum pedal cadence of 50 rpm).
Participants received strong verbal encouragement to con-
tinue as long as possible. V̇ O2max was determined when 2 or
more of the following criteria were met: an increase in V̇ O2
of less than 2.1 ml$kg21$min21 on 2 consecutive stages,
a respiratory exchange ratio $1.1, and 610 b$min21 of
the maximal age-predicted HR. The maximal HR (HRmax)
was defined as the highest value obtained during the last
stage of the test.
Testing Sessions
Participants were tested for their 1RM in 5 different
occasions, 4 different GWU conditions, and 1 CTRL
condition (no-GWU). Before and immediately after each
GWU, we assessed HR, [La2], and RPE. Testing sessions
were performed in a randomized order at least 72 hours
apart, at the same time of the day (i.e., between 2 and 4 PM).
Participants were asked to refrain from any physical activity
for 48 hours before testing.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

General Warm-up Conditions.

General warm-up was per-
TABLE 1. Mean 6 SD values for RPE, HR, and [La2] after each condition.*
formed on the same cycle
ergometer used for the maxi- Condition RPE HR (b$min21) [La2] (mmol$L21)
mal incremental test. Partici-
CTRL 6.0 6 0.0 74.8 6 11.1 0.6 6 0.1
pants were tested for their
LDMI 14.3 6 1.7†z 147.8 6 18.0†z 3.0 6 0.8†z
1RM after 4 different GWU SDMI 12.5 6 2.7†§ 123.9 6 18.1†§ 2.1 6 0.8†§
and a CTRL condition. During LDLI 10.7 6 2.2†k 112.1 6 12.9† 1.1 6 0.3†k
CTRL, participants did not SDLI 8.4 6 1.8† 104.2 6 9.3† 0.8 6 0.2†
perform aerobic exercises
*[La2] = blood lactate concentration; CTRL = control; HR = heart rate; LDLI = long
before the specific warm-up. duration and low intensity; LDMI = long duration and moderate intensity; RPE = ratings of
The 4 GWU conditions were perceived exertion; SDLI = short duration and low intensity; SDMI = short duration and
determined based on different moderate intensity.
†Significantly different (p # 0.05) from rest and CTRL.
combinations of 2 intensities zSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from SDMI, LDLI, and SDLI.
(low, 40% V̇ O2max; moderate, §Significantly different (p # 0.05) from LDLI and SDLI.
kSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from SDLI.
70% V̇ O2max) and 2 durations
of aerobic exercise (short,
5 minutes; long, 15 minutes).
Therefore, the combinations were as follows: (a) short RESULTS
duration and low intensity (SDLI: 5 minutes at 40%
Participants presented a V̇ O2max of 39.5 6 1.5
V̇ O2max); (b) short duration and moderate intensity
(ml$ O2$kg21$min21). The RPE, HR, and [La2] were not
(SDMI: 5 minutes at 70% V̇ O2max); (c) long duration and
significantly different at rest (p = 0.99) between conditions
low intensity (LDLI: 15 minutes at 40% V̇ O2max); (d) long
(data not shown) and were elevated after GWU in SDLI
duration and moderate intensity (LDMI: 15 minutes at 70%
(p , 0.001), SDMI (p , 0.001), LDLI (p , 0.001), and
V̇ O2max). Also, we instructed the participants to perform
LDMI (p , 0.001) (Table 1). Participants rated their RPE
only light stretching exercises (i.e., short-duration submax-
after LDMI the highest among GWU conditions. Further-
imal stretching) during the warm-up because extensive
more, RPE during the SDMI was higher than during the
stretching exercises can negatively affect strength perfor-
LDLI (p = 0.01) and SDLI (p = 0.01) conditions. Heart rate
mance (3,14).
and [La2] presented the same response pattern as RPE.
Leg press 1RM values were higher (p , 0.01) after LDLI
1RM Test. All the participants performed the leg press when compared with the other 3 GWU protocols and the
1RM test after the CTRL (no-GWU) and each of the CTRL condition (Figure 1). The 1RM values after the LDMI
4 experimental conditions previously described. Three were significantly lower than those from the GWU proto-
minutes after the GWU protocol, participants performed cols and CTRL (p , 0.01) (Figure 1). There were no differ-
a specific warm-up, comprising 1 set of 8 repetitions and ences in 1RM between the SDMI, the SDLI, and the CTRL
1 set of 3 repetitions at 50 and 70% of the familiariza- conditions (p = 0.99).
tion session leg press 1RM values, respectively, separated
by a 2-minute interval. After the completion of the
specific warm-up, participants rested for 3 minutes. Then,
they had up to 5 attempts to obtain the 1RM value. A
3-minute rest interval was granted between attempts (9).
Tests were conducted by 2 experienced researchers, and
strong verbal encouragement was provided during the
lifts.

Statistical Analyses
Results of the 1RM test after each GWU protocol
are presented as means (6SD). After normality assurance
(Shapiro-Wilk test), HR, RPE, and [La2] from each
GWU protocol was compared using a mixed-model anal-
ysis. GWU conditions were set as fixed factor and sub-
jects as a random factor. Whenever a significant F-value
Figure 1. Mean (SD) leg press 1RM values for each GWU condition
was obtained, a Tukey post hoc test was performed for *p # 0.05 compared with CTRL, SDMI, SDLI, and LDLI, †p # 0.05
multiple comparison purposes. Significance level was set compared with CTRL, SDMI, SDLI, and LDMI.
at p # 0.05.

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2013 | 1011

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 General Warm-up Intensity and Duration Affects Strength
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of
different GWU intensities (40 and 70% V̇ O2max) and dura-
tions (5 and 15 minutes) on 1RM leg press performance. The
LDMI condition significantly decreased the leg press 1RM
values compared with the other conditions. This was possi-
bly because of greater fatigue development as observed by
higher RPE, HR, and [La2] values (Table 1). The LDLI
condition produced significantly higher leg press 1RM
values than the other GWU conditions while producing just
small increments in the variables associated with the
physiological stress (Table 1). It is interesting to notice that
both the RPE and the HR values observed after LDMI
were .30% higher than those after LDLI (Table 1). Further-
more, [La2] values were almost 3 times higher after LDMI
when compared with LDLI (Table 1). These differences
indicate the greater physiological stress associated with
LDMI, ultimately leading to muscle fatigue that may, at least
partially, explain the decrease in 1RM values (7).
Accordingly, Bishop (7) stated that before a short-term
activity such as the 1RM test, the warm-up procedure
should appropriately increase body temperature
while minimizing deleterious effects of fatigue. Although it
is known that the duration and the intensity of exercise affect
temperature elevation and fatigue development, which can
negatively impact strength performance, this is the first study
to investigate the effects of different GWU durations and
intensities on 1RM performance.
Traditionally, testing guidelines (2,4,9) recommend
a GWU of 5- to 10-minute duration before strength testing.
However, previous studies have demonstrated a significant
increase in muscle temperature only after 15–20 minutes of
moderate-intensity aerobic activity (11,12,18,23). In addition,
there are suggestions that performance is only positively
affected if temperature is raised around 38C. Although we
did not measure muscle temperature, it is tempting to spec-
ulate that SDLI and SDMI did not raise muscle temperature
properly to trigger temperature-related performance
enhancing benefits. Thus, it is possible to suggest that
GWU duration should last for at least 15 minutes.
Nonetheless, caution should be exercised when consider-
ing the intensity of the GWU. The results reported herein
suggest that if a GWU is of short duration (i.e., 5 minutes),
intensity does not affect strength performance. However,
according to our results, the combination of long duration
and moderate intensity (LDMI) actually impaired perfor-
mance. Thus, it is conceivable that long durations should be
recommended only when combined with lower exercise
intensities to avoid fatigue development.
Our data support these suggestions as the LDLI condition
produced the highest leg press 1RM values while maintain-
ing the second lowest physiological stress among the 4
GWU conditions. We assessed RPE, HR, and [La2] to
obtain an estimation of the physiological stress produced
the TM
1012 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
by the warm-up activities. These data allow us to suggest
that the physiological stress induced by the warm-up activity
should be low. Heart rate of approximately 55% of HRmax,
RPE around 10-point in Borg scale (very light exercise) and
low [La2] were associated with the condition that elicited
the greater 1RM value, LDLI. Although SDLI induced lower
physiological stress compared with LDLI, it is possible that
duration was insufficient to induce the appropriate temper-
ature elevation to trigger performance enhancing benefits.
However, these assumptions are limited to the duration
and intensities tested.
Strength testing guidelines (2,4,9) recommendations for
the GWU have little scientific support. In fact, recommen-
ded durations (5–10 minutes) seem to be shorter than nec-
essary (15–20 minutes) to produce performance enhancing
benefits. Furthermore, intensity recommendations are
unclear, but the results presented here in association with
those of Abad et al. support the notion that HR should be
around 55–60% of HRmax if the exercise is performed for
15–20 minutes. Collectively, our data suggest the adoption of
low-intensity (40% V̇ O2max) but longer duration (15 minutes)
warm-up than previously proposed. In fact, the increase in
1RM observed in the LDLI warm-up protocol (3–4%), albeit
may be considered small, is similar to those observed in
response to long-term strength training in previously
strength-trained individuals (17), thus constituting a meaning-
ful difference in any testing environment. Despite the afore-
mentioned, these data cannot be extrapolated to other
populations as only strength-trained men were studied.
Importantly, one cannot rule out the possibility that the
time lag between completing the warm-up and the last 1RM
attempts test was excessive, thus hindering the increased
temperature-induced benefits on performance. Unfortu-
nately we were unable to assess body temperature, which
is an important limitation of the present study. Nevertheless,
such limitation is partially mitigated by the fact that
maximum dynamic strength testing requires trials up to
failure interposed with long intervals (2,4,9).
In summary, our data indicate that longer (i.e.,
15 minutes) than recommended (5–10 minutes) GWU at
a low intensity (i.e., 40% V̇ O2max) improves maximum
strength testing performance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Maximal strength testing is commonly used for both training
prescription and monitoring. According to our data, per-
forming a 15-minute low-intensity (40%V̇ O2max) aerobic
exercise before a maximum strength assessment is recom-
mended to improve performance. The results of the present
study are important for strength testing in both practical and
research environments. Although the difference in 1RM
performance between different GWU conditions may be
misinterpreted as small (3–4%), it is meaningful in any testing
environment. Moreover, in well-trained subjects, this

difference might mean the result of weeks of heavy
strength training.
However, this recommendation is still limited to maxi-
mum strength tests (i.e., 1RM), and should not be applied to
other strength tests (i.e., power or muscle endurance tests).
REFERENCES
1. Abad, CC, Prado, ML, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, and Barroso, R.
Combination of general and specific warm-up improves leg-press
1RM compared with specific warm-up in trained individuals.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 2242–2245, 2011.
2. ACSM. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
3. Bacurau, RF, Monteiro, GA, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, Cabral, LF,
and Aoki, MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res
23: 304–308, 2009.
4. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
5. Bergh, U and Ekblom, B. Influence of muscle temperature on
maximal muscle strength and power output in human skeletal
muscles. Acta Physiol Scand 107: 33–37, 1979.
6. Bishop, D. Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects of
passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Med 33:
439–454, 2003.
7. Bishop, D. Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm
up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Med 33: 483–498, 2003.
8. Borg, GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 14: 377–381, 1982.
9. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I:
Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. JEPonline 4:
1–21, 2001.
10. Coupland, ME, Puchert, E, and Ranatunga, KW. Temperature
dependence of active tension in mammalian (rabbit psoas) muscle
fibres: Effect of inorganic phosphate. J Physiol 536: 879–891, 2001.
11. Davies, CT, Mecrow, IK, and White, MJ. Contractile properties of
the human triceps surae with some observations on the effects of
temperature and exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 49:
255–269, 1982.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
12. Davies, CT and Young, K. Effect of temperature on the contractile
properties and muscle power of triceps surae in humans. J Appl
Physiol 55: 191–195, 1983.
13. Dewhurst, S, Macaluso, A, Gizzi, L, Felici, F, Farina, D, and
De Vito, G. Effects of altered muscle temperature on neuromuscular
properties in young and older women. Eur J Appl Physiol 108:
451–458, 2010.
14. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength
after passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89:
1179–1188, 2000.
15. Gourgoulis, V, Aggeloussis, N, Kasimatis, P, Mavromatis, G, and
Garas, A. Effect of a submaximal half-squats warm-up program on
vertical jumping ability. J Strength Cond Res 17: 342–344, 2003.
16. Karlsson, J, Diamant, B, and Saltin, B. Muscle metabolites during
submaximal and maximal exercise in man. Scand J Clin Lab Invest
26: 385–394, 1970.
17. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies—The physiological basis for
strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy.
J Strength Cond Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
18. Price, MJ and Campbell, IG. Thermoregulatory responses of
paraplegic and able-bodied athletes at rest and during prolonged
upper body exercise and passive recovery. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 76: 552–560, 1997.
19. Saltin, B, Gagge, AP, and Stolwijk, JA. Muscle temperature during
submaximal exercise in man. J Appl Physiol 25: 679–688, 1968.
20. Sargeant, AJ. Effect of muscle temperature on leg extension force
and short-term power output in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol 56: 693–698, 1987.
21. Shellock, FG and Prentice, WE. Warming-up and stretching for
improved physical performance and prevention of sports-related
injuries. Sports Med 2: 267–278, 1985.
22. Shrier, I. Warm-up and stretching in the prevention of muscular
injury. Sports Med 38: 879; author reply 879–880, 2008.
23. Stewart, D, Macaluso, A, and De Vito, G. The effect of an active
warm-up on surface EMG and muscle performance in healthy
humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 509–513, 2003.
24. Woods, K, Bishop, P, and Jones, E. Warm-up and stretching in the
prevention of muscular injury. Sports Med 37: 1089–1099, 2007.
25. Young, WB, Jenner, A, and Griffiths, K. Acute enhancement of
power performance from heavy load squats. J Strength Cond Res 12:
82–84, 1998.
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2013 | 1013