Reviewed by John Baur, PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS, FAAOMPT
This systematic review asks a practical game‑day question: which short, exercise‑based “priming” activities meaningfully sharpen performance for track‑and‑field athletes? The authors searched PubMed and Scopus (to May 26, 2023) using PRISMA methods, screened 182 papers, and ultimately included 15 randomized, pre–post studies in athletes with ≥1 year of track‑and‑field training where an exercise intervention was implemented within ~3 hours of the measured performance. Interventions clustered into four buckets: (1) resistance training, (2) plyometric/ballistic exercise, (3) resisted sprints, and (4) modified warm‑ups. Methodological quality, scored with the TESTEX tool, averaged “good” (mean 10.9/15), with most studies reporting clear between‑group statistics but lacking blinding and allocation concealment. The PRISMA flow diagram on page 4 and the TESTEX table on page 9 (Table 2) visualize these processes and quality judgements.
Key takeaways by modality
Resistance training (RT). Heavy, low‑volume isotonic squats (e.g., 3–5 reps at 85–90% 1RM) acutely improved sprint performance when athletes rested 4–10 minutes before their run. Across studies, improvements ranged ~1–3% over 20–40 m, with the >85% 1RM back squat consistently producing the largest sprint gains versus lighter loading. Isometric “push” variants are logistically simpler (e.g., 3×3 s knee extension or squat against an immovable bar) and can elicit post‑activation performance enhancement (PAPE) with less fatigue than dynamic lifts; notably, a 6‑s isometric push‑up improved shot‑put distance by ~4.5% with only a 2‑minute recovery. The authors emphasize that, while older guidance suggested only “strong” athletes benefit, one included study showed no clear difference in PAPE response between stronger and weaker sprinters under the tested conditions.
Plyometric and ballistic exercise. Plyometrics were the most common and competition‑friendly priming choice because they require little equipment and can be performed track‑side. Drop jumps (e.g., 2×5 from ~70 cm) and loaded/unloaded jump squats often enhanced subsequent sprinting—e.g., ~2.4–2.7% faster 50‑m after 10–15 minutes of rest, and faster 20‑ and 40‑m splits after 5 minutes. Effects are not uniform; some cohorts showed non‑significant changes at 10–30 m, highlighting typical “responder/non‑responder” variability. A nuanced finding is that “faster male” sprinters (<~4.09 s 30‑m) benefitted most from loaded jump squats during warm‑ups, suggesting an interaction between training status and exercise selection. On the field‑event side, three maximal countermovement jumps (CMJs) performed before the second, fourth, and sixth throws improved mean distances across shot, hammer, discus, and javelin—with larger gains in lighter implements (discus, javelin)—and plyometric push‑ups boosted shot‑put performance by ~3.6% after a 10‑minute rest. The study summary table on pages 6–7 (Table 1) lays out these protocols and intervals at a glance.
Jumping events. In a simulated competition, a brief CMJ protocol improved long‑jump results from the third attempt onward (~3–5%): analysis attributed the enhancement to progressively higher vertical take‑off velocity from jumps 3–6, with run‑up speed unchanged—meaning the priming likely improved rate‑of‑force development at the board rather than approach mechanics.
Resisted sprints. One trial contrasted 20‑yard sled pulls at 10–30% bodyweight as a priming stimulus before a 40‑yard sprint. Sprint times improved regardless of sled load, but technique can degrade more as sled load increases (e.g., greater forward lean and altered hip/shoulder mechanics), a practical caution for coaches trying to balance stimulus with technical fidelity.
Modified warm‑ups. Two “race‑like” tweaks stood out. First, a single 200‑m run at 800‑m race pace before an 800‑m time trial yielded a modest but significant performance gain versus a lower‑intensity striding warm‑up after 20 minutes of rest. Second, a high‑intensity sequence (e.g., 3×250 m at 100% of modelled pace) improved 5,000‑m time‑trial outcomes after 10 minutes rest and increased early‑race speed. For throws, using heavier‑than‑competition implements during warm‑ups yielded meaningful acute distance gains—but coaches should match overweight implements to athlete competence to avoid timing/rhythm disruption.
Timing, recovery, and durability of the effect
Across studies, effective recovery windows between the priming stimulus and the event ranged from immediate (field events) to ~4–15 minutes for sprints and ~10–20 minutes for middle‑ and long‑distance efforts. Stronger athletes may realize their PAPE “sweet spot” earlier (≈5–7 minutes), whereas weaker athletes may need ≥8 minutes, reflecting differences in fatigue resistance. Importantly, although this review targeted same‑day strategies, the broader literature indicates that some acute exercise effects persist for 24–48 hours, opening the door to pre‑competition‑day priming when call‑room logistics or long staging delays make same‑day application impractical.
Mechanisms and magnitude
Across modalities, benefits are attributed to PAPE—greater myofibrillar calcium sensitivity and motor‑unit recruitment leading to transient increases in peak force and rate of force development. In pooled reports, resistance‑based priming produced ~0.9–3.3% performance improvements (estimated PAPE effect size ≈0.41), while plyometric/ballistic approaches showed similar or slightly larger effects (effect size ≈0.47) with typically lower fatigue—one reason they are attractive in call‑room settings.
Limitations and practice points
The evidence base is small (15 studies), heterogenous in protocols, and only three trials were conducted in actual competition, limiting ecological certainty. Individual responses vary by exercise, loading, rest interval, athlete strength/training age, sex, and the performance metric tested. Still, the “practical applications” section argues convincingly for high‑intensity, low‑volume priming paired with adequate recovery (e.g., 3×3–5 heavy squats or 2–3 short sets of drop jumps, then 5–15 minutes of rest) as a workable default. Coaches should anticipate longer in‑stadia delays and consider less fatiguing options (e.g., isometrics or plyometrics), or deploy priming 24–48 hours earlier when race‑day logistics are prohibitive.
- A. 48 hr. Benefits can manifest within 24–48 hours post‑intervention.
- C. >85% 1RM. High‑intensity back squats (>85% 1RM) produced greater sprint enhancement.
- B. 6‑second isometric push‑ups improved shot‑put distance significantly.
- C. Countermovement jump priming significantly improved mean hammer‑throw performance (and other throws).
- A. Gradual increase in take‑off velocity from the third to the sixth long jumps explained the improvement pattern.
- C. Improved sprint times regardless of sled load in 40‑yd sprints; technique is more disrupted with heavier loads.
- B. Elicit PAPE with less fatigue than dynamic protocols, and they’re easier to set up.
- C. Equivocal. No clear difference in PAPE effects between stronger and weaker athletes in the included work.
- A. Loaded jump squats are recommended for faster male sprinters as an effective PAPE stimulus.
10. B. Heavier loads disrupt sprint technique more than lighter loads in resisted‑sprint priming
References:
Tan K, Kakehata G, Lim J. The Use of Acute Exercise Interventions as Priming Strategies to Improve Physical Performance During Track‑and‑Field Competitions: A Systematic Review. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2024;46(5):587‑597.