Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
EXPLOSIVE POWER
Brad McGregor
Abstract
The ever-increasing emphasis that is placed on athleticism and sporting success
has led scientists to investigate numerous training methods that can have a
positive effect on performance. One such method that has received significant
attention is complex training (CT).
This method of alternating heavy and light resistances has the end goal of
improving power output. In their recent review of complex training Docherty et al.
(6) credit Verhoshansky with early work in this field as far back as 1973. Although
this was one of the first publications on the topic, one suspects that the Soviets
(and possibly other eastern bloc countries) may have been using complex
loading as a training tool for some time.
Although some studies have not found any benefit from performing this type of
training, the majority of research has supported it’s application as a tool to
enhance expression of muscular power and explosiveness. However as with
most relatively new training techniques, there is a need for more long-term
studies. More work also needs to be done to determine the optimal combination
of training variables for different sports and those with varying training ages.
1
Definitions of CT
There is still some debate on exactly what constitutes CT. Fleck and Konter (11)
quoted Verhoshansky’s simplistic definition as a series of exercises formed in
succession with a goal of improving one physical characteristic. He went on to
say that these exercises where designed to improve “explosiveness.” Examples
of Verhoshansky’s complexes include:
Back squats with depth jumps
Kettle bell jumps with standing long jumps
Push off and knee lift with 30m sprints.
Docherty et al. (6) define CT similarly to Ebben and Watts (10) as “the execution
of a resistance-training exercise using a heavy load (1-5RM) followed relatively
quickly by the execution of a biomechanically similar plyometric exercise” (p 52).
According to Duthie et al. (7) this definition is referring to contrast training!
2
In recent times it appears as though the invent of contrast training is the source
of some confusion amoung scientists investigating the CT phenomenon. As
further research is conducted this issue will no doubt be clarified.
Physiology
Verhoshansky is acknowledged throughout the literature as being one of the first
authors to publish on CT. In 1986 a paper written by Fleck and Konter (11) outline
Verhoshansky’s explanation of the CT phenomenon:
“Professor Verhoshansky used the example of the perception of lifting a half-full
can of water when you think it’s full. The excitability of the central nervous system
responds in such a way that the water literally flies in the air because of the force
applied. It is because if the body thinks it has to do more heavy work, so it
remembers what is necessary to lift the full can and reacts accordingly” (p 66).
This “fooling” of the nervous system has been expanded upon in recent times to
offer 2 proposed mechanisms for post activation potentiation (PAP). Docherty et
al. (6) explain the first of these theories as enhanced “motor-neuron pool
excitability” (p 53). Specifically, a greater neural effect is the result of any/all of
the following:
Better motor-unit recruitment
Enhanced motor-unit synchronisation
Greater central input to the motor neuron
Decrease in presynaptic inhibition.
The same authors also propose that PAP may be produced by local muscle
changes such as phosphorylation of the myosin light chain. This process is
explained by heavy exercise increasing the amount of Ca 2+ in the sarcoplasmic
reticulum, and the sensitivity of the myofilaments to Ca 2+. Essentially more Ca2+
at a cellular level enables more ATP to be produced, which in turn enhances
power production. The authors of this study do not comment on whether they
believe these local mechanisms are trainable or simply transient alterations.
3
Ebben and Watts (10) completed a review of complex training in 1998 and
offered several explanations for PAP, listing the following possible factors
Neuromuscular
Hormonal
Metabolic
Myogenic
Psychomotor.
Ebben and Watts (10) also cite a study by Fees in 1997 that attributes PAP to the
reciprocal inhibition around a joint caused by agonist stimulation. That is, a heavy
bench press minimises any restrictive contraction of the rhomboids (antagonist)
for the subsequent plyometric exercise. However it is known that this inhibition
occurs within the first month of training for inexperienced lifters anyway. Whether
this effect can be maximised in experienced trainers through CT has not yet been
determined.
McBride et al. (18) and Gourgoulis et al. (12) also support the neural activation
theories proposed by Docherty et al. (6). The former expand by proposing that
CT training may increase neurotransmitter release in afferent nerves. They also
reviewed several articles indicating that fast-twitch (FT) dominant muscles
produce greater potentiation.
4
Dan Baker has published prolifically on the topic of CT and he mentions some
alternate mechanisms to explain PAP. His 2003 paper (1) mentioned the series
elastic component of the musculo-tendinous unit as a possible contributor. He
commented that a resistance of 65% of 1repetition maximum (1RM) would
favourably increase stiffness but heavier resistances (85-90% 1RM) would not be
optimal. However one would wonder if 65% of 1RM would be sufficient to
achieve enough neural stimulation that is the main producer of PAP as outlined in
articles reviewed thus far (6,10,18,12). Training age and experience with CT
would no doubt be factors that would influence the optimal intensity to achieve
optimal PAP.
Baker (1) also suggests that the golgi-tendon organ (GTO) and Renshaw cell
activation may be reduced as a result of a heavy stimulus applied to a muscle.
Inhibition of these structures would prove advantageous considering their role in
monitoring and limiting maximal motor-unit activation as a protective mechanism.
However as has been mentioned, the reduction of feedback from these inhibitory
structures can be seen in the first month of training in novices. Whether this
inhibition is enhanced to a greater degree through CT has yet to be confirmed.
To summarise, the primary mechanisms for PAP appear to occur at a neural level
and relate to a reduction of inhibition and enhanced motor unit excitability. Most
authors acknowledge that local muscle factors may contribute to PAP but the
literature is not extensive in comparison to neural factors.
5
Several studies reviewed concluded that CT enhanced subsequent expression of
lower-body power (7,12,17,21,22). Duthie at al. (7) used 11 women to compare
complex and contrast training methods through squats and jump squats. They
found that contrast training did increase power output (although this was non-
significant) but only for those with high strength levels. Gourgoulis et al. (12)
published similar findings through their investigation of vertical jump ability.
Subjects with greater maximal strength improved vertical jump by 4.01% after
performing 5 x 2 half squats from 20-80% of 1RM. Those with lower strength
levels only improved by 0.42%. However the authors in this study didn’t specify
the training age of participants, merely stating that they were “physically active.”
Similarly Tricoli et al. (21) investigated the effect of olympic style weightlifting
exercises compared to plyometric training. They found that the olympic lifts were
more effective at improving squat jump, 10m sprint and vertical jump. The
subjects in this study were all physical education students who underwent 3
months of lower body specific training prior to the study and all were experienced
weight trainers.
6
Although neither of these studies (17 and 21) used CT, their results indicate that
a stimulus greater than plyometrics but less than 80% of 1RM is required to
achieve a positive transfer to field-based activities such as sprinting.
However not all studies have found a positive effect with upper-body CT.
Hrysomallis et al. (13) found that 5 reps of 5RM bench press did not improve
power produced from an explosive push up on a force platform. Subjects had an
average training age of 3.1 years. Ebben et al. (9) used EMG and kinetic analysis
to conclude that a set of 3-5RM bench press did not increase ground reaction
force or EMG when performing subsequent medicine ball throws. This study
used basketball players experienced in weights and plyometric training.
7
Brandenburg (5) found that a set of bench press at varying intensities (100%,
75% or 50% of 5RM) did not have a positive effect on bench press throws. This
study only used 8 subjects, some of which had limited exposure to power training
(no subjects had performed bench press throws previously). The author also only
used average power as a measure over 3 throws (not peak power), and indicates
that this may have influenced the results.
It should be noted that all of these studies used high intensity interventions
(5RM) with subjects not experienced with strength/power training (with the
exception of Ebben et al.). Therefore one must consider that fatigue may have
still been evident when the post-testing was conducted. The variable of recovery
will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.
Analysis of both upper and lower body CT studies reveal that lower-body CT
appears to be more effective at improving power expression, although more
research has been done in this area. It also appears that subjects need to
posses a sound strength base and training age to demonstrate an increase in
power production.
8
Exercise mode is not a very controversial discussion point, as most authors
have advocated the use of biomechanically similar activities for CT. The most
common examples being bench press-bench throw and squat-squat jump. The
theory being that PAP is more pronounced if the heavy exercise stimulates the
same (or similar) neural pathways to the power exercise. However Baker (4)
experimented with the use of a heavy antagonistic exercise (bench pulls) and
found a significant increase in bench throw power (4.7%).
Intensity of the “heavy” exercise is more varied in the literature ranging from
30% of 1RM (22) to 90% of 1RM (18). The use of 5RM is common
(5,14,13,15,19), however a landmark study by Gullich and Schmidtbleicher [cited
in Docherty et al. (6)] found that 3-5 maximum voluntary isometric contractions
(MVIC) was “sufficient to increase explosive force in the upper and lower
extremities and could be used to enhance performance and training” (p 53).
However there has not been much subsequent support in the literature for the
use of MVIC’s.
As was mentioned previously, those athletes with higher initial strength levels
appear to gain more benefit from CT. Perhaps initial strength levels relate to the
ideal intensity that can be applied to gain maximal PAP? Baker has conducted
his work with elite level Rugby League players and has advocated the use of
intensities around 50-65% of 1RM. Smilios (22) found that for lower-level
(regional) athletes, at least 60% of 1RM should be applied for PAP.
9
Those studies involving athletes that did not find a positive response from CT
used higher intensities of 3-5RM (7,9,14). This then suggests that lighter
intensities may produce a more positive response in athletic populations.
Recovery is another variable that has a significant impact on the success of CT.
PAP does operate in a certain “window” so if a further stimulus is applied too
soon, fatigue will be evident. However too much recovery will result in the
individual missing the window of opportunity, as the potentiation effect will have
subsided. Certainly more long-term studies are necessary to determine if trained
individuals can sustain this PAP effect for longer.
When comparing the literature, a wide range of rest intervals have been trialled
from 10 seconds up to 5 minutes. With his elite power-trained athletes, Baker
(1,4) found that 3 minutes rest between strength and power exercises revealed
that potentiation was still present. Smilios (22) also found a positive effect with 3
minutes recovery between strength sets (only 1 minute rest between contrast
sets). Several other authors applied 3 minute rest intervals (13, 15) but found no
positive effect using a CT protocol. However both of these studies were
conducted on non-elite subjects with small sample sizes (12 and 8 respectively).
In fact Jones and Lees (15) admit that greater power output was demonstrated
by their experimental group, even though the difference was not significant.
A number of studies have used 5-minute rest intervals (7,9,12,19) with varying
results. Duthie et al. (7) and Gourgoulis et al. (12) found that those with higher
strength levels showed greater PAP. However Scott and Docherty (19) and
Ebben at al. (9) did not show any evidence of PAP with 5 minutes recovery. It
should be noted that the former study (19) did not use athletes as subjects.
Brandenburg (5) used 4-minute recovery intervals and found no evidence of PAP,
however his subjects were only recreationally trained and did not allow use of the
stretch shortening cycle during testing.
10
Jensen and Ebben (14) investigated a number of recovery intervals from 10
seconds to 4 minutes. They found no positive response to CT but do speculate
as to whether results would have been different with a recovery period greater
than 4 minutes. It was noted that a 10 second recovery period had a negative
effect on subsequent power output.
Volume of the intervention is another important variable that may influence the
degree of PAP. Those studies that examined higher-volume (more than 1 set)
strength exercises all demonstrated improved power output (7,12,22). However 2
of these studies (7,12) commented that a more pronounced effect occurred with
stronger athletes. Fleck and Konter (11) also commented that Verhoshansky
utilised 2 sets of a strength exercise to get a positive response, and it may be
assumed that he was working with elite athletes who possessed greater strength
levels.
11
Therefore the jury still appears to be out as to whether a single-set or multiple
sets are necessary to achieve PAP. Due to the inverse relationship that exists
between volume and intensity, one may assume that CT protocols using a single-
set of strength exercises would do so at a greater percentage of 1RM.
Periodisation of CT
If the coach has decided to implement CT for the physical preparation of his/her
athletes, the next decision is when to use this form of training. Most of the studies
that did not find a positive result with CT (5,9,14,15), commented that this form of
training had no adverse effect on subsequent power output and could be used as
a means of maximising available training time. Therefore it appears that, at
worst, CT could effectively be used during phases of the season where training
efficiency is important, such as the competitive phase.
Ebben et al. (8) and Simenz et al. (20) conducted surveys of major league
baseball and national basketball association strength and conditioning coaches.
Understandably coaches were not willing to discuss the specifics of their training
programs, but many did indicate that they used CT (7/21 coaches for baseball
and 12/20 for basketball). Similarly, 8/21 baseball and 9/20 basketball coaches,
reported that they used plyometric training year-round. From these statistics we
cannot say that all of these coaches used CT throughout the year, but they do
indicate that CT is implemented at different stages of the training year.
12
Conclusion
The evolution of training methods in recent times has resulted in increasing
scientific investigation into methods such as CT. Proponents of this training
method have stated that the main physiological response is an increase in PAP
which enables increased power production for the plyometric activity. Although
studies conducted thus far have not reached a consensus, it does appear that
CT can play an important role in athletic training for increasing power production
and/or maximising training efficiency.
More studies are required to determine the optimal variables for CT but in the
meantime, coaches are encouraged to experiment with the key training variables
of volume, intensity and recovery to develop a model that is suited to their sport
and athletes. Strong consideration must also be given to the initial strength levels
of the athlete/s and experience with power training methods. These two factors
appear to be prerequisites for significant increases in power production.
13
References
1. Baker, D., (2003) Acute effect of alternating heavy and light resistances on
power output during upper-body complex power training. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 17 (3) p493-497.
2. Baker, D., (2003) Acute negative effect of a hypertrophy-oriented training
bout on subsequent upper-body power output. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 17 (3) p527-530.
3. Baker, D. and Newton, R.U., (2005) Methods to increase the effectiveness
of maximal power training for the upper body. Strength and Conditioning
Journal 27 (6) p24-32.
4. Baker, D. and Newton, R.U. (2005) Acute effect on power output of
alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex
training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 (1) p202-205.
5. Brandenburg, J. (2005) The acute effects of prior dynamic resistance
exercise using different loads on subsequent upper-body explosive
performance in resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 19 (2) p427-432.
6. Docherty, D., Robbins, D. and Hodgson, M. (2004) Complex training
revisited: a review of its current status as a viable training approach.
Strength and Conditioning Journal 26 (6) p52-57.
7. Duthie, G.M., Young, W.B. and Aitken, D.A. (2002) The acute effects of
heavy loads on jump squat performance: an evaluation of the complex
and contrast methods of power development. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 16 (4) p530-538.
8. Ebben, W.B., Hintz, M.J. and Simenz, C.J. (2005) Strength and
conditioning practices of major league baseball strength and conditioning
coaches. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 (3) p538-546.
9. Ebben, W.P., Jensen, R.L. and Blackard, D.O. (2000) Electromyographic
and kinetic analysis of complex training variables. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 14 (4) p451-456.
14
10. Ebben, W.P. and Watts, P.B. (1998) A review of combined weight training
and plyometric training modes: complex training. Strength and
Conditioning Journal 20 (5) p18-27.
11. Fleck, S. and Konter, K. (1986) Complex training. Strength and
Conditioning Journal 8 (5) p66-68.
12. Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Kasimatis, P., Mavromatis, G. and Garas,
A. (2003) Effect of a submaximal half squats warm-up program on vertical
jumping ability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17 (2)
p342-344.
13. Hrysomallis, C. and Kidgell, D. (2001) Effect of heavy dynamic resistance
exercise on acute upper-body power. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 15 (4) p426-430.
14. Jensen, R.L. and Ebben, W.P. (2003) Kinetic analysis of complex training
rest interval on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 17 (2) p345-349.
15. Jones, P. and Lees, A. (2003) A biomechanical analysis of the acute
effects of complex training using lower limb exercises. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 17 (4) p694-700.
16. Kotzamanidis, C., Chatzopoulos, D., Michailidis, C., Papaiakovou, G. and
Patikas, D. (2005) The effect of a combined high-intensity strength and
speed training program on the running and jumping ability of soccer
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 (2) p369-375.
17. McBride, J.M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A. and Newton, R.U. (2002) The
effect of heavy v’s light-load jump squats on the development of strength,
power and speed. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 16 (1)
p75-82.
18. McBride, J.M., Nimphius, S. and Erickson, T.M. (2005) The acute effects
of heavy-load squats and loaded countermovement jumps on sprint
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 (4) p893-
897.
15
19. Scott, S.L. and Docherty, D. (2004) Acute effects of heavy preloading on
vertical and horizontal jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 18 (2) p201-205.
20. Simenz, C.J., Dugan, C.A. and Ebben, W.P. (2005) Strength and
conditioning practices of national basketball association strength and
conditioning coaches. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19
(3) p495-504.
21. Tricoli, V., Lamas, L., Carnevale, R. and Ugrinowitsch, C. (2005) Short-
term effects on lower-body functional power development: weightlifting v’s
vertical jump training programs. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research 19 (2) p433-437.
22. Smilios, I., Pilianidis, T., Sotiropoulos, K., Antonakis, M. and Tokmakidis,
S.P. (2005) Short-term effects of selected exercise and load in contrast
training on vertical jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 19 (1) p135-139.
16