The Effect of Complex Training in the Strength Phase: College Football Players Jamie Nelson and Donn

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 St
rength 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
(80 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 effe
cts of training group in power clean, parallel
squat, bench press, or vertical jump. Significant
increases were seen in the average parallel squat
(pboth training groups. CONCLUSIONSThe data show t
hat 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 sig
nificant 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 tr
aining 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 Averag
es Non-Complex Complex P-Value Pre
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 0.7861
Parallel squat (lb) 356.25 388.06 368.60 392.20 0.
0420 0.4951 0.7579 Bench press (lb) 247.75 257.63
263.00 277.00 0.1958 0.0678 0.8276
Vertical jump (in) 25.37 25.90 24.90 25.70
0.4441 0.6350 0.9185 Time - Difference from p
re-test to post-test Group - Difference between c
omplex group and non-complex group
Inter (Interaction) - difference in response over
time between treatment groups
Subjects 45 total subjects 20 control and 25 co
mplex 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 inf
ormed 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 pres
cribed 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 util
ized 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 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 Introduction Collegiate football is a very deman
ding 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 f
ootball 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 streng
th 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 (80 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 da
ta 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.