Experts Agreed Warm-Ups Should Be Individualised

Thomas Solomon, PhD

Warm-ups can help runners feel ready for training and competition, but they can also become longer and more complicated than necessary. This expert consensus offers a practical framework for deciding what belongs in a warm-up and what probably does not.

Reference: Boullosa et al. International Expert Consensus on Warm-Up Protocols for Athletes: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (2026) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2025-0647.

Medical informationThis article is for general educational purposes only and is not medical advice. Supplements and exercise/recovery interventions can cause side effectsAn additional effect of a treatment that is not the main intended effect. It may be harmful, harmless, or helpful, while an adverse effect is specifically harmful. and may interact with medicines, nutrients, or medical conditions. Speak with a doctor or suitably qualified healthcare professional before making changes if you have a medical condition, take medications, are pregnant or breastfeeding, or are unsure what is safe for you.

Study snapshot

A quick, practical summary for runners and coaches.

Quick answer

This 3-round expert consensus involved 23 warm-up researchers and practitioners. The experts agreed that warm-ups should be purposeful, sport-specific, and adapted to the athlete and conditions. The main caution is that expert agreement does not tell us how much a particular warm-up improves running performance.

Key takeaways

  • Warm-ups should prepare athletes for the specific session or competition.
  • The experts did not support immediate injury protection from a single warm-up.
  • Runners should favour familiar, purposeful preparation over a needlessly elaborate routine.

How confident should we be?

Evidence confidence: Moderate

The structured international consensus provides useful guidance for designing warm-ups. Confidence is limited because the study did not test runners, compare warm-up protocols, or measure performance and injury outcomes.

Bottom line

Use a warm-up that prepares you for what comes next without creating unnecessary fatigue. The best routine will depend on the session, race, weather, available space, and how you respond.

Read the deep dive below to get a practical interpretation, the wider evidence, some actionable decisions, my thoughts, my rating of perceived scientific enjoyment, and the full study details (research question, study design, participants, methods, results, and the strengths & limitations).

Running science research reviews for endurance runners

The deep dive

The details behind the headline result, including the practical meaning, full findings, limitations, and my interpretation.

Practical meaning

What does this research mean for runners and coaches?

The study provides a framework rather than a ready-made running warm-up. The practical suggestions below are interpretations of that framework, not protocols directly tested in the study.

For runners

The experts viewed warm-ups as structured preparation rather than compulsory pre-exercise theatre. A useful warm-up should raise readiness for the specific activity while accounting for the runner’s fitness, fatigue, training history, and surroundings.

The consensus supports a flexible 3-part model:

  1. General exercises to raise muscle temperature and metabolism.
  2. Specific exercises that resemble the upcoming activity.
  3. Harder conditioning activities intended to improve short-term performance.

Not every runner needs all 3 parts before every session. Before an easy run, starting gently may provide enough preparation. Before intervals or a shorter race, runners could include faster running and a small number of familiar strides.

Harder efforts may help prepare the cardiovascular and muscular systems, but they can also create fatigue. The balance matters. A warm-up should leave you prepared rather than quietly completing the first interval before the session has officially begun.

The consensus also supports adapting the warm-up to the weather. Cold conditions may make it harder to raise and maintain muscle temperature. Hot or humid conditions may increase thermal strain. The study did not prescribe an exact adjustment, so runners should alter the volume, intensity, clothing, or waiting time according to the situation.

Dynamic stretching was generally preferred to static stretching. Static stretching was not banned, though. It may suit athletes who need substantial flexibility, and shorter static stretching within a fuller warm-up appears less concerning than long isolated stretches.

The paper did not study specific running events. As a practical interpretation, road runners preparing for faster races may benefit from more race-specific running, while marathon and ultra runners may prefer a more conservative warm-up when the opening pace is modest. Trail runners may also find it useful to prepare for the terrain and movement demands they will face. The study did not directly compare these approaches.

For coaches

The findings support using a repeatable warm-up framework while allowing individual changes.

A coach might begin with a standard routine and adjust:

  • Exercise volume.
  • Exercise intensity.
  • Recovery periods.
  • Exercise order.
  • The amount of specific running.
  • The timing before the main session.

The experts also agreed that warm-ups can help monitor readiness and fatigue. Coaches may observe familiar measures such as movement quality, pace, heart rate, jump performance, or perceived effortRating of perceived exertion (RPE) is a simple way to score how hard exercise feels to you, not to a machine. You pick a number on a scale (often 1–10), where low numbers mean “this feels easy” and high numbers mean “I’m really pushing it.” It blends how heavy your breathing is, how tired your muscles feel, and how much effort you think you’re putting in..

The study did not validate any specific readiness test or decision threshold. A measure is only useful when it is consistent, understood, and capable of changing a sensible coaching decision. Otherwise, it is just another number wearing a tracksuit.

Evidence in context

What does the wider evidence say?

Earlier reviews suggest that well-designed warm-ups can improve subsequent performance, but effects vary with the activity, athlete and protocol (McGowan et al. 2015). Dynamic and sport-specific activities are generally preferred, while prolonged static stretching may temporarily impair strength or power (Behm et al. 2016). Conditioning activities may enhance explosive performance, although benefits are individual and may be exaggerated by weak control conditions (Xu et al. 2025).

How this study fits: This Delphi study largely consolidates, rather than overturns, that evidence. It adds an expert-agreed framework separating general, specific and conditioning activities, while stressing context and individualisation. It also clarifies that preventive exercise programmes may reduce injury risk over time, but evidence does not support assuming that one warm-up provides immediate injury protection.

Practical decision

Should runners change anything?

Maybe. Runners do not need to replace a familiar routine that already works. They should, however, check whether the warm-up matches the session rather than following habit alone.

Consider this if

  • You regularly start hard sessions feeling sluggish.
  • Your warm-up bears little resemblance to the work that follows.
  • You use the same routine before every session and race distance.
  • You finish the warm-up feeling tired.
  • A long delay occurs between warming up and starting.

Do not overreact if

  • Your current routine is simple, familiar, and effective.
  • You are preparing for an easy session.
  • Someone tells you that every warm-up needs bands, drills, jumps, and 14 minutes of purposeful glaring.
  • One experimental routine does not noticeably improve your session.

A sensible next step

Test small changes during training. Compare how prepared you feel after different amounts of easy running, strides, or recovery. Avoid introducing an entirely new routine before an important race. Science is useful; race-morning improvisation is sometimes less so.

TIP: Never make any major changes to your training or lifestyle habits based on the findings of one study, especially if the study is small or provides low-quality evidenceA low quality of evidence means that, in general, studies in this field have several limitations. This could be due to inconsistency in effects between studies, a large range of effect sizes between studies, and/or a high risk of bias (caused by inappropriate controls, a small number of studies, small numbers of participants, poor/absent randomisation processes, missing data, inappropriate methods/statistics). When the quality of evidence is low, there is more doubt and less confidence in the overall effect of an intervention, and future studies could easily change overall conclusions. The best way to improve the quality of evidence is for scientists to conduct large, well-controlled, high-quality randomised controlled trials.. Check whether other trials confirm the findings. If there is a meta-analysisA meta-analysis quantifies the overall effect size of a treatment by compiling effect sizes from all known studies of that treatment. on the topic, look at the effect sizeA standardised measure of the magnitude of an effect of an intervention. Unlike p-values, effect sizes show the size of the effect and how meaningful it might be. Common effect size measures include standardised mean difference (SMD), Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, eta-squared, and correlation coefficients., the variability between studies, and the quality of evidenceCertainty of evidence tells us how confident we are that the published results accurately reflect the true effect. It’s based on factors like study design, risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias. High certainty means that the current evidence is so strong and consistent that future studies are unlikely to change conclusions. Whereas, low certainty means more doubt and less confidence, and that future studies could easily change current conclusions..

Expert interpretation

My thoughts

Running science from Thomas Solomon at Veohtu

This is a useful consensus because it gives warm-up discussions some structure without pretending that one routine suits everyone.

The experts agreed on several practical principles. Warm-ups should be purposeful. They should account for the activity, athlete, and environment. They should prepare athletes without producing excessive fatigue.

That sounds obvious, but warm-up practice can become oddly ceremonial. A routine may survive for years because everyone performs it, rather than because anyone knows what each part is doing.

The injury section is particularly helpful. The experts did not support the idea that one warm-up immediately shields athletes from injury. Regular strength, balance, and other preventive exercises may reduce longer-term risk, but that benefit probably comes from repeated training rather than a temporary warm-up effect.

The study also shows how much uncertainty remains. Only 72 of the 121 final statements reached the required level of agreement. The experts accepted only 3 of the 8 statements covering health and injury prevention. So, this is not the final warm-up rulebook delivered from Sports Science Jedi headquarters.

The consensus is useful for runners and coaches, but it remains indirect. The study included experts rather than athletes. It measured agreement rather than race performance. It did not identify the best duration, exercise sequence, or conditioning activity for marathon, trail, or ultra runners.

The force is reasonably strong with the general framework. It is considerably less strong with exact prescriptions.

My Rating of Perceived scientific Enjoyment

owlRPsE: 8/10

I experienced pretty high scientific enjoyment because the transparent 3-round consensus process involved experienced international experts and produced useful principles for athletes and coaches. The lack of direct performance testing and possible panel-selection biasWho gets into the study differs from who doesn’t, skewing results. The sample isn’t truly representative. kept the scientific joy below full-throttle nerdiness.

down arrow

Read on for further details about the methods, results, strengths, limitations, and conflicts of interest.

Research question

What did the researchers ask?

The authors aimed to create the first international expert consensus on warm-up protocols in sport.

They wanted to establish shared definitions and practical principles covering:

  • Warm-up terminology.
  • Objectives and structure.
  • Exercise selection.
  • Performance enhancement.
  • Physiological mechanisms.
  • Readiness monitoring.
  • Health and injury prevention.

The authors also wanted the consensus to improve future warm-up research and help translate existing evidence into practice.

Study design

What type of study was this?

This study was a modified Delphi consensus studyA Delphi study asks a selected panel of experts to judge a series of statements over several rounds. The researchers revise, accept, combine, divide, or reject statements according to predefined rules. This design can show where experienced experts broadly agree. It can be useful when the evidence is complex or inconsistent..

A Delphi study asks a selected panel of experts to judge a series of statements over several rounds. The researchers revise, accept, combine, divide, or reject statements according to predefined rules.

This design can show where experienced experts broadly agree. It can be useful when the evidence is complex or inconsistent.

It cannot prove that a warm-up improves performance or prevents injury. The study did not randomly assignRandomization means assigning people to different parts of a study (e.g., groups in a randomised controlled trial) by chance, not by choice. This helps make the groups similar at the start and reduces bias, so any differences you see are more likely due to the treatment, not background differences. In a crossover study, randomization usually decides the order in which each person gets the treatments (for example, Treatment A first then B, or B first then A). This way, order effects—like learning, fatigue, or simple time passing—are less likely to skew the results. athletes to different routines, measure race times, or compare injury rates.

Participants

Who took part?

The panel included 23 experts, including 4 members of the core research team.

The experts were affiliated with institutions across several countries. The abstract reports 12 countries, although the country list in the methods appears to include 13. The source does not explain this inconsistency.

The experts had published a medianThe middle value in a set of ordered numbers; if there is an even number of values, it is the average of the two middle numbers. of 5 peer-reviewed papers on warm-up-related topics, with a range of 2 to 29. Their median Scopus H-index was 36, with a range of 5 to 92. H-index is a measure of how many times a researcher's work has been cited by other researchers.

The panel included 17 people with experience as athletes, 13 with coaching experience, and 17 with sport-science experience. Their backgrounds covered recreational, international, Olympic, and Paralympic sport.

The researchers stated that they considered geographical and gender diversity when selecting the panel. The numerical sex or gender distribution was not reported in the source.

Methods

What did the researchers do?

Who? 23 warm-up experts
What? 122 initial statements
How long? 3 voting rounds

The core research team prepared 122 initial statements across 4 areas:

  1. Definitions and terminology.
  2. Objectives and structure.
  3. Exercises, performance enhancement, and mechanisms.
  4. Health and injury prevention.

The experts completed 3 online voting rounds between September 2024 and July 2025. They judged each statement by selecting agree or disagree and could provide written comments.

The experts assessed the statements independently during each round. An asynchronous online discussion also allowed the panel to debate uncertain statements and share supporting research.

The researchers set the consensus threshold in advance. A statement was accepted when at least 80% of the experts agreed with it.

After round 1, statements with less than 50% agreement were rejected. Statements with intermediate agreement progressed to later rounds.

The rules changed slightly after round 2. Statements with agreement between 65% and less than 80% could enter the expert discussion and final round.

Some statements were revised, divided, or combined. The final process therefore assessed 121 statements rather than the original 122.

Main findings

What did the study find?

Statements accepted 72 of 121
Overall consensus 60%
Injury statements accepted 3 of 8

The experts accepted 72 of the 121 final statements. This was 60% of the statements considered.

The remaining 49 statements did not reach consensus. That is useful context. The panel agreed on plenty, but the warm-up world has not achieved complete diplomatic harmony.

The accepted statements were distributed across the 4 areas:

  • Definitions and terminology: 12 statements.
  • Objectives and structure: 26 statements.
  • Exercises, performance enhancement, and mechanisms: 31 statements.
  • Health and injury prevention: 3 statements.

Warm-up purpose

The experts agreed that a warm-up is a purposeful and structured intervention used before training or competition.

A warm-up may aim to increase muscle temperature, stimulate metabolism, and improve physical and psychological readiness.

The experts distinguished between training and competition warm-ups. Competition warm-ups mainly prepare the athlete to perform. Training warm-ups may also include technical practice, movement education, readiness checks, and work that supports longer-term training goals.

Warm-up structure

The experts supported a flexible model containing:

  • General exercises.
  • Specific exercises.
  • Conditioning activities.

General exercises should be sufficiently demanding to raise the temperature and metabolism of the muscles being used. These activities will often be aerobic and may be continuous or intermittent.

Specific exercises should prepare athletes for the physical, technical, and psychological demands of the upcoming activity.

The panel defined conditioning activities as voluntary efforts performed with enough intensity and volume to produce short-term improvements in force, power, or endurance performance.

The experts did not say that every warm-up must include all 3 components.

Warm-up duration

The panel did not identify an optimal warm-up duration.

The experts agreed that a short warm-up may last 5 minutes or less, while a long warm-up may exceed around 20 minutes. These were descriptive categories rather than recommendations.

The duration should depend on:

  • The demands of the sport.
  • The athlete’s characteristics.
  • Exercise volume and intensity.
  • Recovery between exercises.
  • Available facilities.
  • Time constraints.
  • Environmental conditions.

The discussion notes that many warm-ups last around 15 to 20 minutes. This was not presented as the best duration for every athlete.

The authors argued that exercise selection, sequencing, and loading may matter more than duration alone.

Individual responses

The experts agreed that athletes vary substantially in their response to standardised warm-ups.

They supported adapting warm-ups according to factors such as:

  • Age.
  • Training background.
  • Performance level.
  • Fatigue.
  • Fitness.
  • Sport demands.
  • Weather.
  • Equipment and space.

A standard warm-up may still provide a useful starting point. The experts favoured allowing individual adjustments rather than treating the routine as fixed.

Harder conditioning activities

The experts agreed that harder conditioning activities may produce postactivation performance enhancement.

This term describes a temporary improvement in performance after a sufficiently demanding preparatory activity.

The timing and size of the effect may depend on:

  • Training background.
  • Performance level.
  • Exercise intensity.
  • Exercise volume.
  • Recovery.
  • Exercise order.

The experts also agreed that harder cardiovascular exercise may speed oxygen uptake at the start of subsequent activity.

The paper did not establish a reliable running-specific conditioning protocol. It also acknowledged that some previous studies may have exaggerated benefits by comparing active preparation with passive rest rather than with another realistic warm-up.

Warm-up effects over time

The experts agreed that warm-up effects gradually disappear during inactivity.

The exercises used, their intensity, and the recovery period affect how quickly the desired responses appear and fade.

Passive heating may help maintain muscle temperature without adding more exercise. A shorter re-warm-up may also be useful after a prolonged delay.

The paper did not provide a universal waiting-time threshold for performing another warm-up.

Weather

The experts agreed that excessive heat or humidity may cause an athlete’s core temperature to rise too far.

They also agreed that cold conditions may limit the increase in muscle temperature.

The warm-up may therefore need adjustment according to the environment. The study did not prescribe exact changes in duration or intensity.

Stretching

The experts generally preferred dynamic stretching to static stretching during a warm-up.

Static stretching may still be appropriate for athletes who require high levels of flexibility.

The discussion notes that longer static stretches, particularly those lasting more than 60 seconds for each muscle group, may impair maximal strength. Activation exercises performed afterwards may reduce this effect.

Shorter static stretching within a complete dynamic warm-up appears less concerning. This conclusion came from the earlier evidence discussed by the authors rather than from athlete testing within the Delphi study.

Injury prevention

The experts did not support an immediate injury-protection effect from a single warm-up.

They agreed that regularly completing preventive exercises, such as strength and balance exercises, may reduce longer-term injury risk. These exercises may be included in the warm-up or another part of training.

The source does not establish whether the benefit comes from performing the exercises during the warm-up or simply from repeating them regularly.

The authors also summarized previous reviews indicating that stretching does not appear to reduce overall injury risk. Some studies suggest a possible reduction in muscle injuries, but the findings are inconsistent across other injury types.

The authors concluded that warm-ups are structured, adaptable interventions that combine active and passive components to improve readiness for training and competition. They also concluded that preventive exercises may reduce longer-term injury risk, but immediate injury protection from a warm-up is not supported.

What helps my confidence in the findings?

The strengths

  • The researchers used a predefined consensus threshold.
  • The study included 3 voting rounds and an expert discussion phase.
  • The experts assessed the statements independently.
  • The panel included experienced researchers, athletes, coaches, and sport scientists.
  • The paper reported rejected statements as well as accepted statements.

What limits my confidence in the findings?

The limitations

  • The study measured expert agreement rather than athlete performance or injury outcomes.
  • The core research team generated the initial statements and selected the panel, which may have influenced the issues discussed and the views represented.
  • Another expert panel might have reached different conclusions.
  • The agree-or-disagree format did not capture the strength of agreement or uncertainty.
  • The study covered many sports and did not establish specific protocols for marathon, trail, or ultra runners.

Funding and conflicts

Who funded the study?

No funding information is reported in the source.

The authors do not provide information about their potential conflicts of interestA conflict of interest happens when a person or group has a personal, financial, or professional interest that could influence their judgment. It does not always mean they did something wrong. But it can create bias or make others question whether the decision or result is fully fair and trustworthy. in the source.

The absence of these statements does not show that funding or conflicts affected the study. It does make it harder for readers to assess whether any outside interests may have influenced the work.

Learn to train smart, run fast, and be strong.
© 2026 Thomas Solomon. All rights reserved.
Icons from Icons8.
Follow @veohtu
Join the club on