Combining higher-load and lower-load resistance training exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis of findings from complex training studies. Issue 7 (July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bauer, Pascal; Uebellacker, Florian; Mitter, Benedikt; Aigner, Alexander J.; Hasenoehrl, Timothy; Ristl, Robin; Tschan, Harald; Seitz, Laurent B.
• Is Part Of: Journal of science and medicine in sport. Volume 22:Issue 7(2019)
• Page Start: 838
• Page End: 851
• Publication Date: 2019-07
• Subjects: Plyometric exercise -- Athletic performance -- Contrast training -- Post-activation potentiation; Sports sciences -- Periodicals; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Exercise -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sports -- physiology -- Periodicals; Sports Medicine -- Periodicals; Sportgeneeskunde; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.01.006
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1440-2440

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of the present meta-analytical review was to determine the effectiveness of training programmes combining higher-load and lower-load exercises in one workout (i.e. complex training [CT]) on lower-body performance. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus, CINAHL and Scopus) was conducted to identify all publications up to 7 March 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the dependent variables countermovement jump (CMJ) height, squat jump (SJ) height, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) squat performance and sprint time for 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m and 40 m, respectively. Results: The analysis comprised 33 studies and a total of 1064 healthy participants. The meta-analysis revealed that CT is effective in improving CMJ (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6%–12.3%), SJ (95% CI 8.0%–17.4%), 1-RM squat (95% CI 16.4%–30.7%) and sprint performance (5 m = 95% CI −14.8% to −0.9%, 10 m = 95% CI −6.0% to −2.1%, 20 m = 95% CI −7.4% to −1.4%, 30 m = 95% CI −8.0% to −0.6%). However, when directly compared to traditional training methods, only 1-RM squat strength performance and 20 m sprint time were superior following CT interventions (95% CI 0.2%–13.7% and 95% CI −1.6% to −0.1%, respectively) Conclusions: CT is an acceptable method for improving jump, strength and sprint performance in athletes. Compared to traditional training methods, CT seems to produce superior training effects only for 1-RM squat and 20 m sprint performance; however, these findings were influenced by single studies and should be therefore interpreted with circumspection.