Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Manisa Celal Bayar University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This study examined whether a brief, low-load core activation warm-up would acutely improve football-specific technical performance compared with a conventional dynamic warm-up in male youth football players. Twenty-four players (aged 15-16 years) completed both warm-up conditions in a single-session, counterbalanced crossover design separated by a 10-minute passive recovery period. Following each warm-up, players performed standardised tests of dribbling speed, passing accuracy, shooting accuracy, and ball control. The study was designed as an exploratory pilot to estimate effect sizes and inform the design of a future definitive trial.
Warm-up routines in football increasingly incorporate neuromuscular activation components; however, evidence regarding the acute effects of core activation on football-specific technical performance in youth players remains limited. This single-session, counterbalanced crossover study randomly assigned 24 male youth football players (age: 15.6 ± 0.5 years) to one of two condition sequences (core activation first or conventional warm-up first) using a computer-generated random number list with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Both warm-up protocols were duration-matched (~8-10 minutes). The core activation protocol consisted of body-weight exercises targeting anterior, lateral, and posterior trunk musculature (front plank, side plank, glute bridge, dead bug, bird-dog). The conventional warm-up consisted of dynamic mobility and low-intensity running drills. Following each warm-up condition, players completed standardised assessments of dribbling time (slalom test), passing accuracy (target-based test), shooting accuracy (target-based test), and ball control (first-touch control test). A 10-minute passive recovery period separated the two conditions. Linear mixed models with condition, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random intercept were used for analysis. The study was not powered for equivalence or non-inferiority testing and was conceived as feasibility evidence for a subsequent definitive multi-session trial.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Activation First (Sequence AB) | Experimental | Participants first completed the core activation warm-up, followed by a 10-minute passive recovery, then completed the conventional dynamic warm-up. |
|
| Conventional First (Sequence BA) | Active Comparator | Participants first completed the conventional dynamic warm-up, followed by a 10-minute passive recovery, then completed the core activation warm-up. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core Activation Warm-Up | Other | A brief (~8-10 min) body-weight core activation protocol consisting of front plank (2x25s), side plank (2x20s each side), glute bridge (2x10 reps), dead bug (2x8 reps each side), and bird-dog (2x8 reps each side), with 10-15 s rest between sets. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Dribbling Time | Time to complete a standardised slalom dribbling test (8 cones, 2 m apart). Best of 2 trials recorded in seconds using a handheld stopwatch. Lower time indicates better performance. | Within 3-5 minutes after each warm-up condition |
| Passing Accuracy | Accuracy percentage from a target-based passing test (6 passes from 10 m toward a 1.5 m-wide target). Higher percentage indicates better performance. | Within 3-5 minutes after each warm-up condition |
| Shooting Accuracy | Accuracy percentage from a target-based shooting test (5 shots from 11 m toward 1x1 m corner targets). Higher percentage indicates better performance. | Within 3-5 minutes after each warm-up condition |
| Ball Control | Total successful first-touch contacts within a 2x2 m area in a standardised ball control test. Higher count indicates better performance. | Within 3-5 minutes after each warm-up condition |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Sport Sciences | Manisa | Turkey (Türkiye) |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
All participants completed both conditions (core activation warm-up and conventional warm-up) in a single session separated by a 10-minute passive recovery period. Condition order was counterbalanced using a computer-generated random number list with a 1:1 allocation ratio (Sequence AB: core activation first; Sequence BA: conventional first).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Conventional Dynamic Warm-Up | Other | A duration-matched (~8-10 min) conventional warm-up consisting of dynamic leg swings, walking lunges, high knees, butt kicks, and low-intensity running drills. |
|