Table 1 In-water warm-up compared to no activity (n = 9)

Adams & Psycharakis [5]

8 males

(20.1 ± 1.8 y)

Competitive swimmers

i) 20 min in-water warm-up including a freestyle base set, speciality stroke (containing kick, pull and drills), start and turns, before finishing with a 200 m swim down

20 min

ii) No warm-up: sit in a sauna for 20 min

20 min

The WU condition was most effective on 100-m individual’s preferred stroke;

T100m: i: 61.1 ± 6.4 s; ii: 62.2 ± 5.7 s. The HR and RPE were lower after the active warm-up

Balilionis et al. [21]

8 males

(19.9 ± 0.6 y)

8 females (19.8 ± 0.7 y)

National collegiate; > 5 years of competitive experience

i) No WU

3 min

ii) Short WU: 50-yards freestyle swim at 40% of their maximal effort and another 50 yards swim at 90% of their maximal effort;

iii) Regular WU; their own precompetitive swim WU

(males: 1,257 ± 160 m)

(females: 1,314 ± 109 m)

3 min

There was large individual variability, and just 44% of the swimmers achieved their fastest time after regular WU. HR was higher before the 50-yard trial after the regular WU;

T50 yard: i: 25.19 ± 1.54 s; ii: 25.26 ± 1.61 s iii: 24.95 ± 1.53 s. There was no difference between i and ii. HR: i: 150 ± 19 bpm; ii: 142 ± 16 bpm; iii: 156 ± 23 bpm). RPE: i: 6.3 ± 0.5; ii: 10.1 ± 1.7; iii: 12.1 ± 1.0. There were no differences for the swimming start variables

Bobo et al. [66]

10 males

Highly trained

i) No WU

5 min

ii) In-water exercises (800-yards)

5 min

No differences between conditions in a set of 5 × 100-m freestyle

Houmard et al. [69]

8 males

Highly trained collegiate

i) No WU

5 min

ii) 1500-yards at 65%\(\dot{\text{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{max}}\);

iii) 1300-yards at 65%\(\dot{\text{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{max}}\)+ 4 × 50-yards (110%\(\dot{\text{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{max}}\))

5 min

Although swimming time performance in 200-yards was not tested, they obtained higher distance per stroke (3.76%) in the longest warm-ups

Mitchell & Huston [64]

10 males (19.3 ± 0.7 y)

Collegiate

i) No WU

5 min

ii) 366-m swim at 70%\(\dot{\text{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{max}}\)(LWU)

iii) 4 × 46-m swims at 1 min intervals at a speed corresponding to 110%\(\dot{\text{V}}{\mathrm{O}}_{2\mathrm{max}}\)(HWU)

5 min

Performance times in the tethered swim were slightly better in the WU conditions;

Tethered swim: i: 116.8 ± 46.8 s; ii: 137 ± 53.3 s; iii: 122.94 ± 37.2 s. Lactate: i: 1.73 ± 0.61 mM/L; ii 2.27 ± 0.81 mM/L; iii: 6.97 + 1.97 mM/L

Neiva et al. [68]

10 males (16.0 ± 0.6 y) 10 females (16.2 ± 1.1 y)

Competitive (64.71 s in 100 m, 456 ± 85 FINA points); 7.1 ± 1.2 years of experience and a training frequency of 16.0 ± 1.5 h/week

i) 1,000-m in-water WU (300 m easy swim; 2 × 100 m/15 s rest second faster, hdp; 8 × 50 rest 1 min [25 m kick/25 m complete; 25 m drills/25 m complete; 25 m race pace/25 m easy; 25 m race pace/25 m easy]; 100 m easy swim)

10 min

ii) No WU

10 min

Swimmers were faster in the first 50-m lap of the WU trial, which led to an improvement in overall 100-m performance; different biomechanical patterns were observed after WU or NWU

T100m: i: 67.15 ± 5.60 s; ii: 68.10 ± 5.14 s (d = 0.69); T1st50m: i: 32.10 ± 2.59 s; ii: 32.78 ± 2.33 s (d = 0.89); T2nd50m: i: 35.00 ± 3.27 s; ii: 35.37 ± 2.98 s (d = 0.44); RPE did not change; SR: i: 0.77 ± 0.60 Hz; ii: 0.72 ± 0.06 Hz (d = 1.09); SL: i: 1.90 ± 0.18 m; ii: 1.99 ± 0.18 m (d = 0.66)

Neiva et al. [67]

10 males (15.3 ± 0.9 years)

National; 7.2 ± 1.1 years, training for 6 to 9 times per week

i) No WU

10 min

ii) 1,000-m in-water (typical WU frequently performed before a competitive swimming)

10 min

WU improved the maximum and mean propelling forces of the swimmer in front crawl swimming technique. Lactate and RPE remained unvaried;

Maximum force: i: 299.62 ± 77.56 N; ii: 351.33 ± 81.85 N; mean force: i: 91.65 ± 14.70 N; ii: 103.97 ± 19.11 N); lactate: (i: 6.27 ± 2.36 mM/L; ii: 6.18 ± 2.32 mM/L; RPE: i: 15.90 ± 2.42; ii: 15.60 ± 2.27

Romney & Nethery, [65]

10 males

Collegiate

i) No WU

20 min

ii) 1,000-m in-water (15 min)

20 min

The swimming warm-up was more effective to improve 100-m freestyle performance than doing nothing

T100-yard: ii: -0.75 s; RPE and stroke count did not change