The Effect of Complex Training in the Strength

1
The Effect of Complex Training in the Strength
Phase College Football PlayersJamie Nelson and
Donna J. Terbizan, FACSMNorth Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND
Abstract The Effect of Complex Training in the
Strength Phase College Football Players Jamie
Nelson, Donna Terbizan, FACSM. North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND. Complex training has been
developed to encompass two different training
mechanisms for the body, utilizing muscular
contractions against large resistances at
relatively slow velocities of movement, followed
by contractions with relatively small resistances
at fast velocities of movement. PURPOSEThe
purpose of the present study compared the effects
of complex training to non complex training on
college football players. METHODSA total of 45
subjects ranging in age of 18-26 years completed
the study. Subjects were divided into two groups
a complex training group and a non-complex
training group. Each group completed a two week
base phase to establish some base strength as
well as hone techniques for power clean, parallel
squat, and bench press. During the strength phase
the complex (treatment) group supplemented the
workout with plyometric exercises while the
non-complex (control) group had an extra set
added to maintain an equal training volume. The
complex group performed the plyometric exercises
after each high intensity (gt80 1RM) lifting set
with minimal recovery, while the non-complex
group completed the extra set after all the high
intensity sets were completed. RESULTSThere were
no significant effects of training group in power
clean, parallel squat, bench press, or vertical
jump. Significant increases were seen in the
average parallel squat (plt0.05) and power clean
(plt0.01) over time for both training
groups. CONCLUSIONSThe data show that both
training methods are capable of increasing
strength. Further research is needed to determine
if complex training can provide greater strength
and power gains over non-complex training
methods.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare
a complex training group (treatment) with a
non-complex training group (control) in the areas
of body weight, body composition, bench press,
parallel squat, power clean, and vertical jump,
attempting to answer the following research
question 1. Does complex training provide a
significant increase in strength for bench press
and parallel squat while improving power outputs
for power clean, and vertical jump when compared
to non-complex training in football players?
Results The groups responses to the different
training programs did not differ significantly.
The only significant change was seen in time for
the parallel squat and power clean. Table 1
helped to depict the significant difference with
the use of averages. The complex group and
non-complex group each made significant gains
from their pre-test and post-test averages for
power clean and parallel squat. Other
non-significant changes were a decreased body
composition for both groups, and the non-complex
group gained weight while the complex group lost
weight. Table 1. Pre-Test and Post-Test
Averages Non-Complex Complex P-Value Pr
e Post Pre Post
Time Group Inter Body weight
(lb) 216.60 219.60 222.00 217.24
0.8590 0.9082 0.8516 Body comp (
fat) 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18
0.4356 0.9262 0.9545 Power clean
(lb) 242.50 256.94 233.60 251.00 0.0036 0.1977 0.7
861 Parallel squat (lb) 356.25 388.06 368.60 392.2
0 0.0420 0.4951 0.7579 Bench press
(lb) 247.75 257.63 263.00 277.00 0.1958 0.0678 0.8
276 Vertical jump (in) 25.37 25.90 24.90 25.70
0.4441 0.6350 0.9185 Time - Difference from
pre-test to post-test Group - Difference between
complex group and non-complex group Inter
(Interaction) - difference in response over time
between treatment groups
Subjects 45 total subjects 20 control and 25
complex training Age range 18-26 y
Methods Training groups were formed by a lifting
group of three people for predetermined lifting
times. The lifting times were at 600 a.m., 305
p.m., and 435 p.m. The 600 a.m. group
consisted of 12 subjects the 305 group had 23
subjects, while the 435 group had 24 subjects.
Each group was then randomly assigned as a
non-complex group or complex group by drawing the
predetermined lifting times from a hat. The 305
group was drawn as the non-complex group while
the 600 a.m. and 435 p.m. were drawn as the
complex group. Participants signed approved
informed consent form before beginning training.
Each group was pre-tested and post-tested for
body weight, body composition, vertical jump and
strength levels for bench press, parallel squat
and power cleans. Complex group performed
prescribed sets/repetitions for weight lifting
exercises, followed by plyometric exercises.
Non-complex group performed same weight lifting
program, with an additional set of specific
exercises to compensate for difference in the
work volume between groups. Complex group
utilized three different plyometric movements
consisting of the squat jump, vertical jump, and
Jammer punch. The squat jump was paired with
parallel squats because it used a similar
movement pattern. The vertical jump was paired
with power cleans because it also uses similar
body movements. The Jammer punch was paired with
bench press to compensate for the subjects
inability to propel their entire body off the
ground with upper body strength. During the
first two-and-a-half weeks (ten workouts) each
group performed identical workouts to help
reinforce technique and establish a better
strength base for the next lifting phase. During
that time, data for calculating workloads was
collected to allow for a more thorough and equal
design of the strength phase. Two-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate effects
of treatment group, time, and a grouptime
interaction on body weight, body composition,
bench press, parallel squat, power clean, and
vertical jump. A p lt 0.05 was considered
significant. It should be noted that four
outcome variables were measured, and therefore,
the issue of multiple comparisons arises. Using
the very conservative Bonferroni adjustment for
multiple comparisons, the alpha for the entire
experiment was divided by the number of
comparisons. Thus, in order to achieve an alpha
of 0.2 for the entire experiment, the level of
significance for each comparison had to be p lt
0.05.
Introduction Collegiate football is a very
demanding sport both mentally and physically.
The athletes are faced with the demands of
budgeting their time to ensure their academic and
athletic success. The NCAA has helped ensure
student athletes have enough time to pursue their
studies by setting a 20 hour/week limitation for
each athlete during the in-season. This means
that each athlete can only be in practice,
meetings and weight training for 20 hours during
the week. In the off-season this is reduced to 8
hours/week. Daily time demands are felt by the
football coaching staff, as well as the strength
and conditioning staff. Since a football season
usually lasts for about three months, the other
nine months are spent conditioning and lifting
weights. Much like the in-season, the strength
and conditioning coach must make sure all time is
utilized properly so that the athletes are
prepared for the upcoming season. During this
time the athletes must become stronger, bigger,
faster, more explosive and agile. To allow for
each athlete to maximize their individual
potential, the strength coach must design a
program that encompasses all required areas but
do it in a one-and-half to two-hour time frame.
This has led strength professionals to develop
and research different ways of training.
Complex Training was initially started by a
Soviet coach named Dr. Yuri Verhoshansky in the
1960s, utilizing muscular contractions against
large resistances at relatively slow velocities
of movement, followed by contractions with
relatively small resistances at fast velocities
of movement. This essentially combined strength
training with plyometric training. Plyometrics
is actual exercise that consists of any jumping,
skipping, throwing or explosive movement. The
union of the two exercises is also hypothesized
to enhance performance. The slow controlled
movement of the heavy strength exercise should
recruit more motor units, but will diminish power
production over time. Furthermore, when
coordinated with explosive plyometric exercise
that also recruits more high-threshold motor
units, there is no loss of power. When the
athlete is able to recruit a larger number of
motor units faster and efficiently there should
be an improvement in performance. For sports
that require high strength and power outputs,
like football, this training mode is believed to
offers dual benefits. The high force strength
training will not only elicit the hypertrophy of
muscle fibers and in turn increase the
cross-sectional area, but it will also stimulate
the central nervous system to activate the
postactivation potentiation (PAP). Once that is
established, high power output plyometrics will
take advantage of the hypersensitive muscle by
establishing proper motor recruitment, rate
coding and synchronization that will enhance both
strength and power outputs. The increased
effectiveness and efficiency will then allow for
better performance on the field of competition.
Discussion A common recommendation found in the
literature is the use of high intensity strength
programs (gt80 1RM) to stimulate PAP. The
proposed response is an elevated recruitment or a
more synchronized recruitment of motor neurons.
The hypersensitive state promotes an environment
in which the body could be trained to be even
more explosive and powerful. Since plyometrics
have been documented for producing positive
results for power they seemed to be the ideal
mechanism to follow the high intensity strength
exercise. Both the complex and non-complex
training groups had significant positive changes
over time, however, this study found no
significant differences between the complex group
and the non-complex group. In this study, the
data does not demonstrate complex training as a
more effective training method. The training
methods are very comparable as far as strength
evaluations are concerned. The vertical jump was
the one true indicator of power output in this
study and the lack of a significant difference
does not help support the PAP theory and the
potential training results from PAP. The
research did not produce a significant difference
between groups but it did demonstrate another
form of training that will produce significant
results from pre-test to post-test. The only
significant difference was seen in time(pre vs.
post-testing) for parallel squat and power clean
for each group. The mean calculations in Table 1
helped to confirm the ANOVA findings and
indicated a positive gain from pre-test to
post-test. Different forms of training are
essential to add variety and keep the body from
acclimating and creating plateaus that slow the
athletes physical progress. The research may
also provide additional support for the need of
adequate recovery time between the strength set
and the plyometric set. In future studies the
researcher may want a larger population to
evaluate and hopefully achieve a higher rate of
compliance. Other variables would be to monitor
the exact time periods between the strength set
and the plyometric set. The use of vertical
jumps should also have a specified target so the
subjects can continue to monitor and increase
jump height as they get stronger and more
explosive. Finally, the Jammer punch could have
weight increases that would continue to stress
the muscular and nervous system as the strength
levels increase.