HYROX R.A.M.P. Warm-Up Science Mechanisms and Practical Application

By Ayda Page

April 2026 20 minutes read

R.A.M.P. (Raise, Activate–Mobilise, Potentiate) is a warm-up framework most closely associated with Ian Jeffreys[1], who argued that warm-ups should be structured as performance preparation rather than “general movement + stretching.” [2] This review synthesizes peer-reviewed warm-up science and applies it to HYROX[3] race demands. [4]

HYROX Singles is standardized: 8 × 1 km runs alternated with 8 fixed workout stations, with loads/distances varying by division but consistent station order. [4] The first HYROX-specific physiology study (simulated competition; n=11 recreational athletes) reported a median completion time of 86.5 min, with runs taking longer than stations (median accumulated run time 51.2 min vs station time 32.8 min) and stations eliciting higher physiological strain (higher lactate, higher HRavg, higher RPE) than runs. [5]

From a warm-up design perspective, this “running dominates time, stations dominate peaks” pattern implies a dual objective: (1) improve aerobic transition readiness and running economy early, and (2) prime high-force, high-local-fatigue demands without creating pre-race fatigue that compromises later stations—especially wall balls, which produced the highest HR, lactate, and RPE values in the HYROX simulation. [5]

General warm-up evidence is robust: warm-ups improve performance in the majority of studied outcomes (meta-analysis evidence), but benefits are dose- and timing-dependent and can be blunted by long transition gaps between warm-up and performance. [6] This is highly relevant to HYROX logistics because the official rulebook requires athletes to assemble in the start tunnel 10 minutes prior to start, creating a predictable “transition gap” where re-warm or passive heat-maintenance strategies may be valuable. [7]

Evidence grading across major applied conclusions is summarized later, but in brief: the strongest evidence supports (a) structured warm-ups for acute performance (High), (b) dynamic over prolonged static stretching immediately pre-performance for explosive output (High), and (c) the need to maintain warmth/readiness during transition gaps (Moderate). HYROX-specific station-by-station warm-up targets are partly inferential because sport-specific mechanistic trials are still sparse (mixed Moderate/Low depending on the station and outcome). [8]

Introduction

HYROX is an indoor mass-participation fitness race with a fixed sequence: a 1 km run followed by one station, repeated eight times (8 km total running plus 8 stations). [4] Official Singles rulebook tables specify standardized distances and division-specific loads (Women Open, Men/Mixed, Women Pro, Men Pro), including SkiErg 1000 m, sled push/pull 4×12.5 m, burpee broad jumps 80 m, row 1000 m, farmer’s carry 200 m, sandbag lunges 100 m, and wall balls 100 reps. [9]

The best available HYROX-specific physiology evidence comes from Brandt et al. (2025), who performed a simulated HYROX under Individual Open standards and measured heart rate, blood lactate, and perceived exertion after every run and station. [5] Their results characterize HYROX as endurance-dominant in time allocation (runs longer than stations) but with station-driven intensity peaks (stations higher HRavg/BL/RPE; wall balls highest segment values). [5]

This matters for warm-up science because HYROX warm-ups must support both endurance progression and repeated “load spikes,” while also respecting event-day constraints (warm-up area availability; start-tunnel timing). [10]

Assumptions and data limits are explicitly stated where needed. In particular, station-by-station VO₂ values and station-by-station HR trajectories are not reported as a full numeric table in the visible extracts used here, so station-level cardiopulmonary peaks beyond the documented wall-ball peak are discussed qualitatively or marked as “unavailable.” [5]

R.A.M.P. origin and warm-up mechanisms

Origin and intent of R.A.M.P.

Jeffreys’ “Warm-up revisited” article (Professional Strength & Conditioning, 2007) framed warm-ups as an integrated performance-preparation system and introduced the RAMP model—Raise, Activate and Mobilise, Potentiate—to structure warm-ups around sport needs rather than tradition. [2] While the publication venue is not a high-volume medical journal, its impact lies in translating physiological principles and emerging evidence into a usable decision framework for coaches. [11]

As commonly applied, R.A.M.P. proceeds as follows:

Raise (temperature and cardiorespiratory readiness) → Activate/Mobilise (key muscles and ranges for the task) → Potentiate (task-specific intensity/velocity bridging). [2]

Mechanisms of warm-up relevant to HYROX

Peer-reviewed reviews and syntheses converge on four warm-up mechanism clusters that map cleanly to HYROX needs: temperature-related, neural, metabolic, and psychological mechanisms. [12]

Temperature-related mechanisms (thermal + mechanical readiness).

Bishop (2003) summarizes temperature-related benefits such as reduced muscle stiffness, higher nerve conduction velocity, altered force–velocity characteristics, and increased anaerobic energy provision capacity. [13] These effects are relevant to HYROX because running stiffness regulation (ankle–Achilles–calf complex), heavy sled interactions (high friction; high calf and quadriceps demand), and high-rep squat-to-throw activities (wall balls) all depend on efficient contractile mechanics and joint-tissue compliance at race intensity. [14]

Neural mechanisms (activation, coordination, skill rehearsal).

Warm-ups can improve voluntary activation, intermuscular coordination, and movement efficiency—especially when they include task-specific rehearsal at progressively higher intensity. [15] For HYROX, coordination under fatigue is a key performance limiter late in the race (e.g., wall ball rhythm, lunge mechanics, burpee-to-jump transitions), making potentiation content (race-specific rehearsal at minimal dose) highly relevant. [16]

Metabolic mechanisms (oxygen uptake kinetics and transition “ramping”).

Warm-ups can “prime” oxygen uptake kinetics and reduce reliance on anaerobic metabolism early in a bout, improving tolerance of repeated transitions and high-intensity intervals. [15] HYROX structurally forces repeated transitions (run → station → run), and the first HYROX physiology paper explicitly notes that performance requires engaging both aerobic and anaerobic pathways, with higher lactate and exertion at stations. [5]

Psychological mechanisms (arousal regulation, perceived readiness, routine).

Warm-ups can function as pre-performance routines that influence arousal, confidence, attentional focus, and perceived readiness, which are increasingly emphasized in modern warm-up framing. [17] For HYROX, psychological readiness is amplified by start-wave logistics, crowded warm-up areas, and the uniquely repetitive nature of the event (no “surprise” stations but high cumulative fatigue), making routine consistency a practical advantage. [18]

Stretching and PAPE

Dynamic versus static stretching in warm-ups

A consistent theme across systematic reviews is that stretching effects depend on type, duration, and what follows. Behm et al. (2016) report small-to-moderate acute performance changes after stretching, with dose-response evidence suggesting larger performance deficits when static stretching exceeds ~60 s per muscle group immediately prior to performance, and note that when post-stretching dynamic activity is included, performance effects often become less clear. [19]

A more recent network meta-analysis focused on lower-limb explosive performance concluded that static stretching reduced explosive performance, while dynamic stretching and static+dynamic combinations improved jump and sprint outcomes (with dynamic stretching effects moderated by duration and population). [20]

For HYROX, the most conservative evidence-first prescription is:

Use dynamic mobility and task-specific movement as the default warm-up mobility strategy. [21]
Use static stretching primarily as a targeted intervention for individuals with specific restrictions, keeping pre-event doses modest and following it with dynamic movement. [19]

Static stretching for injury prevention

Static stretching as an injury prevention strategy has limited support at the population level. A systematic review of static stretching as part of warm-up concluded there is moderate-to-strong evidence that routine static stretching does not reduce overall injury rates, though there may be preliminary evidence for reducing musculotendinous injuries specifically. [22]

Because HYROX injury epidemiology is not yet well characterized in peer-reviewed surveillance studies, direct injury-prevention claims for any specific warm-up protocol in HYROX should be graded conservatively (see Evidence Strength section). [23]

PAPE/PAP: post-activation effects and how to use them in HYROX

Post-activation potentiation/performance enhancement (PAP/PAPE) effects are real but variable, influenced by the balance of potentiation and fatigue, the athlete’s training status, the conditioning activity, and rest intervals. [24]

A recent randomized crossover investigation reported that PAPE protocols did not further increase jump performance beyond a traditional warm-up, reinforcing that “warm-up fundamentals done well” often account for most benefit. [25]

For HYROX, PAPE should be framed as optional micro-dosing rather than mandatory structure:

If used, choose very low-volume, high-specificity primers (e.g., short accelerations; a few wall ball reps; a brief sled “feel”), followed by enough time to avoid residual fatigue at the start. [26]
Avoid heavy “activation workouts” that elevate lactate or perceived exertion substantially before a race that already produces high lactate and high RPE late (wall balls peak). [27]

HYROX event demands and station-by-station analysis

Official demands and division loads

The Singles rulebook defines consistent station distances and division-specific loads. Key examples include: sled push 102/152/152/202 kg (Women Open / Men-Mixed / Women Pro / Men Pro), sled pull 78/103/103/153 kg, farmer’s carry 2×16 / 2×24 / 2×24 / 2×32 kg, lunges 10 / 20 / 20 / 30 kg, wall balls 4 / 6 / 6 / 9 kg (100 reps). [28]

HYROX physiology and performance determinants

Brandt et al. (2025) report (median [IQR]): total time 86.5 (14.5) min, run time 51.2 (14.1) min, station time 32.8 (6.1) min, HRavg higher during stations (173.7 bpm) than runs (168.9 bpm), and BLmax higher during stations (8.5 mmol/L) than runs (7.7 mmol/L). [5] They also report that the highest HRmax, lactate, and RPE occurred during the final station (wall balls). [5]

Performance correlates included a strong negative association between total HYROX completion time and VO₂max (Spearman ρ ≈ −0.71), along with associations with higher endurance training volume and lower body fat percentage. [5] From an evidence standpoint, this supports treating HYROX warm-up design as primarily endurance readiness + transition efficiency, layered with station-specific priming where the athlete is most vulnerable. [29]

Visual grounding of key stations

Station comparison table for warm-up targeting

The table below synthesizes (a) rulebook-defined tasks, (b) HYROX physiology findings (stations higher intensity; wall balls peak), and (c) station biomechanics and injury-risk insights from analogous peer-reviewed movement literature (sled pushing EMG; loaded carry trunk activation; rowing trunk loading and low back pain risk; lunge patellofemoral loading; wall ball high lactate in “Karen” benchmark). [30]

Station	Primary muscles (dominant contributors)	Movement pattern	Typical metabolic demand	Injury risk focus (most plausible)	Warm-up targets	Suggested drills (low-dose examples)
SkiErg (1000 m)	Trunk flexors + shoulder extensors + elbow extensors; timing-dependent	Cyclic “double-poling-like” pull with trunk contribution	High aerobic contribution early; local upper-body fatigue potential	Shoulder/elbow overuse in high-volume pulling; trunk timing errors	Scapular control + trunk rhythm + breathing coordination	Band rows; scap push-ups; thoracic rotations; 30–60 s progressive SkiErg
Sled push (4×12.5 m)	Quads/hams + gastrocnemius (notably high); trunk bracing	High-force horizontal push under forward lean	High force + high glycolytic strain per unit time	Calf/Achilles overload; knee irritation; trunk collapse under lean	Ankle/calf readiness; hip extension; brace under lean	Ankle rocks; calf raises; marching drills; 1–2 very short “drive” efforts if available
Sled pull (4×12.5 m)	Posterior chain + trunk; grip/arms for rope; backward stepping	Rope pull + backward locomotion	High lactate potential; high local fatigue	Low back strain risk with poor bracing; grip fatigue	Backward stepping pattern; trunk stiffness; grip readiness	Backward marching; hinge patterning; brief rope pulls; forearm activation
Burpee broad jumps (80 m)	Whole-body: lower limb power-endurance + trunk + pressing	Repeated floor-to-stand + horizontal jump/landing	Very high cardiopulmonary strain + coordination cost	Landing forces (knee/ankle); shoulder/wrist loading; lumbar extension faults	Landing mechanics; shoulder/wrist prep; breathing under transitions	Wrist rocks; scap control; pogo hops; 2–3 technical burpees + 1–2 small broad jumps
Row (1000 m)	Hip + trunk extensors/flexors; legs drive; trunk stabilization	Cyclic leg drive + hip hinge + arm pull	High aerobic load; trunk fatigue accumulation	Low back pain risk in rowing populations; technique breakdown under fatigue	Hip hinge competence; trunk stiffness; posterior chain readiness	Hip hinges; dead bug/bracing breaths; 30–60 s progressive row
Farmer’s carry (200 m)	Grip/forearms + trunk anti-lateral flexion + lats/upper back	Loaded carry under gait	High local muscular endurance + steady HR load	Grip failure; trunk collapse; shoulder girdle fatigue	Grip readiness; trunk anti-tilt; walking posture	Light carry; suitcase carry patterning; “tall posture” marching; short hangs/squeezes
Sandbag lunges (100 m)	Quads + glutes + hip stabilizers + trunk	Repeated lunge steps under load	High local muscular endurance; knee/hip loading	Patellofemoral loading (esp forward lunge patterns); hip control faults	Hip stability; knee tracking; ankle dorsiflexion; trunk control	Walking lunges with reach; ankle mobs; glute med activation; 4–6 light lunge steps
Wall balls (100 reps)	Squat (quads/glutes) + overhead throw/catch (shoulders/upper back) + trunk	High-rep squat-to-throw cycle	Often highest late-race lactate/RPE	Knee irritation; shoulder fatigue; lumbar extension; breathing collapse	Squat depth + trunk stiffness; shoulder endurance; rhythm	Goblet squat pulses; thoracic extension; 5–10 easy wall balls focusing on breathing cadence

Key evidence anchors: sled pushing shows greater gastrocnemius activation than squatting in EMG comparisons; loaded carries increase trunk muscle activation during locomotion; rowers show high low-back pain prevalence and identifiable risk factors; forward lunge variants increase patellofemoral loading more than backward variants; and high-volume wall balls (CrossFit “Karen”) can drive very high lactate and exertion—consistent with the HYROX finding that wall balls are the segment peak. [31]

Practical HYROX R.A.M.P. protocols and timing

Timing constraints and re-warm strategies

HYROX rulebooks specify that athletes must assemble in the start tunnel 10 minutes prior to their start time and that a designated warm-up area exists for racers. [32] This creates a predictable transition period where body temperature and readiness can decline if warm-up ends too early.

Evidence from a systematic review/meta-analysis on passive heat maintenance strategies indicates that long transition periods are associated with declines in core/muscle temperature and performance capability, and passive heating between warm-up and performance can improve peak power output (with more limited evidence for improving overall performance outcomes depending on task). [33] For HYROX, this supports practical strategies such as wearing extra layers, keeping moving subtly, and using a very low-cost “re-warm micro-dose” close to the start. [34]

Recommended warm-up protocols table (10-, 15-, 20-minute variants)

These protocols are written as evidence-informed templates aligned with R.A.M.P. logic and the known HYROX intensity profile (stations > runs; wall balls peak). [35]

Total time	Raise	Activate–Mobilise	Potentiate	Rationale (evidence + HYROX application)
10 min	3 min easy cyclical (jog/row/SkiErg)	5 min: bracing breaths → glute bridge/hinge → ankle rocks/calf raises → thoracic rotations/scap push-ups	2 min: 2× short accelerations (8–12 s) + 5 easy wall balls	Minimal effective dose for temperature + neural readiness and a small station-specific primer. Avoids fatigue while reflecting that wall balls are the segment peak in HYROX and stations are more intense than runs. [36]
15 min	4–5 min progressive cyclical (easy → moderate)	6–7 min: mini-band lateral walks → walking lunge + reach → hinge-to-row patterning → band rows/external rotation → grip prep	3 min: 2× short accelerations + 1–2 brief station touches (light carry 15–25 m; 5–8 wall balls)	Best “default” race-day warm-up: more joint prep and trunk/shoulder integration while keeping potentiation low-volume, consistent with caution that overly intense warm-ups can cost performance. [37]
20 min	6 min cyclical + 2×20 s cadence bursts	9–10 min: individualized mobility (ankle/hip/T-spine/shoulder) + technique rehearsal (6–10 wall balls; 4–6 lunge steps)	4–5 min: 2–3 accelerations + optional micro-primer (very brief sled feel only if it does not elevate RPE)	For cold venues, high-stiffness athletes, or long waits; must be paired with passive heat maintenance or re-warm to preserve benefits through a long transition and avoid pre-race fatigue accumulation. [38]

R.A.M.P. mapped to HYROX start procedures

HYROX start-tunnel assembly timing (10 minutes prior) is explicitly specified in the rulebook; re-warm strategies are supported by evidence that transition periods can reduce temperature and performance. [39]

Charts from HYROX physiology study

These charts use the median values reported for total HYROX vs accumulated runs vs accumulated exercise stations. [5]

Station-level HR/VO₂ values were not available as a numeric table in the accessible extracts; however, the study explicitly reports that the highest HRmax (183 bpm), lactate (8.5 mmol/L), and RPE (18) occurred at wall balls, which supports emphasizing wall-ball rhythm rehearsal and breathing control in the warm-up without adding meaningful fatigue. [40]

Evidence strength, limitations, research gaps

Evidence-strength grading for major applied claims

Grades reflect methodological strength and directness of evidence for HYROX, not merely plausibility.

Major claim	Evidence strength	Key evidence basis	Main limitations
Warm-ups generally improve physical performance across outcomes	High	Systematic review + meta-analysis showing performance improvement in ~79% of criteria	Heterogeneous tasks; not HYROX-specific [41]
Dynamic stretching improves explosive outcomes more reliably than static stretching immediately pre-task	High	Network meta-analysis: dynamic improves jump/sprint; static can impair	Primary outcomes focus on sprint/jump; not endurance-dominant events [20]
Routine static stretching is ineffective for reducing overall injury rates	Moderate	Systematic review: RCTs show no overall injury reduction	Injury outcomes vary; context-specific; not HYROX-specific [22]
HYROX performance is strongly associated with VO₂max and endurance training volume	Moderate	First HYROX study: Spearman ρ ≈ −0.71 (VO₂max vs time)	Small sample (n=11), simulated setting [5]
Stations are more physiologically intense than runs; wall balls produce peak strain	Moderate	HRavg/BLmax/RPE higher at stations; peak at wall balls	Same as above; need replication across divisions/elite competitors [5]
Heat maintenance / re-warm strategies help preserve readiness during transition gaps	Moderate	Systematic review/meta-analysis on passive heat maintenance improving peak power	Not HYROX-specific; performance outcomes mixed by task [33]
Station-by-station warm-up “targets” improve HYROX outcomes	Low–Moderate	Mechanistic plausibility + analogous biomechanics and fatigue research	Few direct HYROX interventional trials; many targets inferred [42]

Limitations of the current HYROX evidence base

The HYROX physiology literature is currently limited. The 2025 study is explicitly described as the first scientific HYROX study and uses a simulated format (treadmill running, gym stations, one athlete at a time), with a small recreational sample. [5] While measurements are direct (HR, lactate, RPE), generalization to elite racing, different venues, and different tactics (drafting not applicable, but crowding and equipment availability can influence pacing) remains unresolved. [5]

Station biomechanics and injury risk in this review draw partly from analogous movement research (sled EMG vs squat, load-carry EMG, rowing low-back pain risk factors, lunge patellofemoral loading, wall-ball metabolic stress), which strengthens plausibility yet still falls short of causal HYROX-specific validation. [43]

Priority research gaps

HYROX warm-up science would benefit most from:

1) randomized controlled trials comparing structured R.A.M.P.-based warm-ups versus athlete-usual warm-ups on HYROX outcomes (finish time; station splits; HR kinetics; lactate kinetics; pacing stability). [27]

2) studies testing timing solutions for the start-tunnel transition gap (passive heating garments, micro re-warm doses, optimal warm-up end timing). [39]

3) injury surveillance and mechanism research in HYROX, enabling evidence-first injury-prevention claims rather than inference from other sports. [44]

4) elite vs recreational comparisons and division-specific physiology (e.g., Pro loads vs Open loads; sex- and age-group differences). [4]

References

Afonso, J., Brito, J., Abade, E., Rendeiro-Pinho, G., et al. (2024). Revisiting the “Whys” and “Hows” of the warm-up: Are we asking the right questions? Sports Medicine, 54, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01908-y [55]

Behm, D. G., Blazevich, A. J., Kay, A. D., & McHugh, M. (2016). Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: A systematic review. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0235 [19]

Bishop, D. (2003). Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects of passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Medicine, 33(6), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333060-00005 [13]

Bishop, D. (2003). Warm up II: Performance changes following active warm up and how to structure the warm up. Sports Medicine, 33(7), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333070-00002 [56]

Brandt, T., Ebel, C., Lebahn, C., & Schmidt, A. (2025). Acute physiological responses and performance determinants in Hyrox©–a new running-focused high intensity functional fitness trend. Frontiers in Physiology, 16, 1519240. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1519240 [5]

Cowper, G., Goodall, S., Hicks, K., Burnie, L., & Briggs, M. (2022). The impact of passive heat maintenance strategies between an active warm-up and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 14, 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00546-7 [33]

Ellestad, S. H., Holcomb, T. P., Swiergol, A. M., Holmstrup, M. E., & Dicus, J. R. (2024). The quantification of muscle activation during the loaded carry movement pattern. International Journal of Exercise Science, 17(1), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.70252/NWUE9985 [57]

Fradkin, A. J., Zazryn, T. R., & Smoliga, J. M. (2010). Effects of warming-up on physical performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c643a0 [41]

Goulette, D., Griffith, P., Schiller, M., Rutherford, D., & Kernozek, T. W. (2021). Patellofemoral joint loading during the forward and backward lunge. Physical Therapy in Sport, 47, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.12.001 [58]

Horyna, R., Bačáková, R., Chrástková, M., Sedlák, J., Čmejla, R., & Kračmar, B. (2016). Activity of upper body muscles in double poling and SkiErg workout. Baltic Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 2(101), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.33607/bjshs.v2i101.53 [59]

HYROX. (2025/2026). HYROX Singles rulebook (Season 25/26): Distances, weights, warm-up area, start zone area. https://hyrox.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/25_26_HYROX_RulebookSingles_EN.pdf [60]

Jeffreys, I. (2007). Warm-up revisited: The RAMP method of optimizing performance preparation. Professional Strength and Conditioning, 6, 12–18. [2]

Li, F. Y., Guo, C. G., Li, H. S., Xu, H. R., & Sun, P. (2023). A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 15, 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00703-6 [61]

Maddigan, M. E., Button, D. C., & Behm, D. G. (2014). Lower-limb and trunk muscle activation with back squats and weighted sled apparatus. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(12), 3346–3353. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000697 [62]

Newlands, C., Reid, D., & Parmar, P. (2015). The prevalence, incidence and severity of low back pain among international-level rowers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(14), 951–956. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093889 [63]

Nowicky, A. V., Horne, S., & Burdett, R. (2005). The impact of ergometer design on hip and trunk muscle activity patterns in elite rowers: An electromyographic assessment. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 4(1), 18–28. [64]

Pedley, J. S., Lloyd, R. S., Read, P. J., Moore, I. S., De Ste Croix, M., Myer, G. D., & Oliver, J. L. (2020). Utility of kinetic and kinematic jumping and landing variables as predictors of injury risk: A systematic review. Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise, 2, 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-020-00090-1 [65]

Seitz, L. B., & Haff, G. G. (2016). Factors modulating post-activation potentiation of jump, sprint, throw, and upper-body ballistic performances: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0415-7 [66]

Small, K., Mc Naughton, L., & Matthews, M. (2008). A systematic review into the efficacy of static stretching as part of a warm-up for the prevention of exercise-related injury. Research in Sports Medicine, 16(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438620802310784 [22]

Sousa Neto, I. V., Sousa, N. M. F., Ribeiro Neto, F., Falk Neto, J. H., & Tibana, R. A. (2022). Time course of recovery following CrossFit® Karen benchmark workout in trained men. Frontiers in Physiology, 13, 899652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.899652 [67]

West, D. J., Cunningham, D. J., Finn, C. V., Scott, P. M., Crewther, B. T., Cook, C. J., & Kilduff, L. P. (2014). The metabolic, hormonal, biochemical, and neuromuscular function responses to a backward sled drag training session. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(1), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182948110 [68]

Wilson, J. M., Duncan, N. M., Marin, P. J., et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: Effects of conditioning activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(3), 854–859. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bdb [69]

[1] [24] [69] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22580978/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22580978/

[2] [11] [35] https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/warm-up-revisited-the-ramp-method-of-optimizing-performance-prepa

https://pure.southwales.ac.uk/en/publications/warm-up-revisited-the-ramp-method-of-optimizing-performance-prepa

[3] [5] [27] [29] [40] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11994925/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11994925/

[4] [7] [9] [10] [18] [28] [30] [32] [39] [60] https://hyrox.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/25_26_HYROX_RulebookSingles_EN.pdf

https://hyrox.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/25_26_HYROX_RulebookSingles_EN.pdf

[6] [8] [41] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19996770/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19996770/

[12] [15] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26400696/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26400696/