Re: Separating Plyometrics From Weight-training vs Complexes

[Guest guest]

My personal experience has shown me that combining plyometrics with weight

training session helpful in recovery. Otherwise, I never seemed to recover.

Then again, I overtrained and the periodization model I was using too much ?

One thing for sure, it is good to have a coach, versus self-coaching. Good

question.

Regards,

Debbie Kiefiuk, M.Ed., C.S.C.S.

Ann Arbor, MI

[Guest guest]

There is little research to support this notion of complex training.

First, complex training refers to the training of multiple physical

qualities within the same training session or training period (ie. week;

see Supertraining for more). The popular version of complex training

refers only to performing plyometrics immediately following weight

training. I'll only address the latter in this reply.

A paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research last year

found that there was no improvement on a medicine ball chest pass if

bench presses were performed immediately prior (compared to if no BPs

were performed). They measured EMG and forces (using a force

platform). I've seen at least two Master's theses that have looked at

complex training in a training program and found no benefit (as regards

performance increases) compared to separating the weight training and

plyometrics.

This notion of complex training seems to be based on potentiation of

muscle force, which is a real physiological phenomenon. I posted a

message in May last year discussing potentiation in detail, so I won't

repeat for brevity). Briefly, performing heavy weight training or

maximal isometric contractions prior to performing lower load movements

increases the force production and/or the rate of force development.

However, immediately following the " potentiation stimulus, " there is a

period of fatigue, that lasts from 30s to 5min, depending on the

individual, and the amount of " potentiation stimulus. " Based, on this

alone, complex training as is performed popularly, would be ineffective

and may possess greater danger.

As far as plyometrics go, the question is, are they needed? One could

argue that the athletes who need it the most are those that perform

plyometric type movements in sports (ie. Volleyball, basketball, etc.)

But these athletes do enough jumping anyway, could time in the weight

room be better spent training other physical qualities. Then there's

athletes who don't perform plyometric type movements in competition (ie.

swimmers), so is there a need for them to perform plyometrics at all?

IIRC, true plyometrics (eg. depth jumps) were originally designed for

elite athletes (see Verkhoshansky in the Soviet Sports Review), however,

many people apply them to the training of non-elite athletes. There is

research that shows plyometrics are equally or less effective as

explosive weight training at improving power in low- to

moderately-trained subjects, so for most athletes, the use of

plyometrics is not warranted. I'm not convinced that the use of

plyometrics in the weight room is necessary for most athletes, and that

explosive weight lifting (particularly weightlifting movements, which

have a plyometric component) is more effective for training RFD and

power.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Laboratory

Human Performance Laboratories

The University of Memphis

rajinder_johal@... wrote:

>

> It seems that there is little consensus on whether plyometrics should

> be prescribed, primarily on separate training days from weight-

> training, or as part of a complex as advocated by authors such as Don

> Chu. The mention of the issue in Supertraining leave me unclear as to

> precisely how to apply plyometrics. Is there any research regarding

> the proper placement of plyometrics in a program which combines

> weighttraining and sprints?

[Guest guest]

> >

> > It seems that there is little consensus on whether plyometrics

should

> > be prescribed, primarily on separate training days from weight-

> > training, or as part of a complex as advocated by authors such as

Don

> > Chu. The mention of the issue in Supertraining leave me unclear

as to

> > precisely how to apply plyometrics. Is there any research

regarding

> > the proper placement of plyometrics in a program which combines

> > weighttraining and sprints?

[Guest guest]

I wrote about Complex Training and Potentiation:

> > This notion of complex training seems to be based on potentiation of muscle

force, which is a real physiological phenomenon. I posted a message in May last

year discussing potentiation in detail, so I won't repeat for brevity).

Briefly, performing heavy weight training or

maximal isometric contractions prior to performing lower load movements

increases the force production and/or the rate of force development.

However, immediately following the " potentiation stimulus, " there is a

period of fatigue, that lasts from 30s to 5min, depending on the

individual, and the amount of " potentiation stimulus. " Based, on this

alone, complex training as is performed popularly, would be

ineffective and may possess greater danger.

> Rajinder:

> Based on that answer, could/should a complex be performed, followed by a long

rest interval, upto 5mins to ensure that the athlete is

fresh for the following complex? That sounds, at least in theory, the

best of both worlds, in that you take advantage of the potentiation

effect, whilst keeping performance high.

I'm not quite sure I completely understand what you're describing. But,

basically, potentiation-type training is based on a lot of theory

extrapolated from animal research. There is strong evidence to support

a potentiation effect, however, there is no evidence to support it's use

in day to day training. This doesn't mean it can't be used, but one

must be careful citing any sources that suggest there is " proof " that

potentiation is beneficial for day to day training. Just as there are

POTENTIAL benefits, there may be negative side-effects.

I think that (based on the research and some experience), potentiation

is effective in the following manner:

1. Performing multiple sets of low reps at high loads. The first set

will feel very heavy, however, subsequent sets will be easier to perform

(to a point).

2. Performing explosive lifts, following heavy (slower) lifts like

squats and pulls. In this manner, heavy sets of squats can be performed

prior to " power " movements (eg. snatch) even though most sources say

power exercises are always performed first.

3. Prior to (ie. during the warm-up) a competition of short duration and

high force or power output.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but be cautious until more research

is available.

I wrote about plyometric:

> > IIRC, true plyometrics (eg. depth jumps) were originally designed for elite

athletes (see Verkhoshansky in the Soviet Sports Review),

however, many people apply them to the training of non-elite athletes.

There is research that shows plyometrics are equally or less effective

as explosive weight training at improving power in low- to

moderately-trained subjects, so for most athletes, the use of

plyometrics is not warranted. I'm not convinced that the use of

plyometrics in the weight room is necessary for most athletes, and that

explosive weight lifting (particularly weightlifting movements, which

have a plyometric component) is more effective for training RFD and

power.

> Rajinder:

> What about using plyometrics for speed-strength sports such as football, where

there is little actual jumping? If I recall correctly, I remember Fred Hatfield

quoting a study by Verkhoshansky which showed a complex protocol to be superior

in the short-run for athletic performance, whilst a combination of

weight-training followed by plyometrics to be superior in the long run. This

latter protocol was also deemed better than just weight-training throughout the

macrocycle period which I think was 18 wks. Wouldn't combining weight-training

with plyometrics be superior therefore to just weight-training, especially for

sports which require starting strength and acceleration such as sprinting,

football, etc?

I have two papers where Verkhoshansky discusses complex training. Both

were in the Soviet Sport Review and were originally published in Russian

in the 1960's. He specifically says that (true) plyometrics are for

elite athletes only, which, although many would like to think they are,

most athletes are not. As far as what passes for plyometrics today,

they are basically jumping, hopping, and bounding drills. There's

nothing wrong with these, except, one, chances are most athletes get

enough of this training in their sport practices, and two, performing

explosive weight training trains many more physical qualities in a

shorter period of time that would help these athlets.

Weight training with " plyometrics " is better than weight training alone,

but no one has shown that weight training with " plyometrics " is better

than weightlifting (ie. Snatch, Clean and Jerk). These lifts alone can

train starting strength, acceleration strength, as well as reactive

strength, low load power, high load power, force and most other of the

" identified " physical qualities. BTW, although these so-called physical

qualities has been identified, I'm not aware of anyone who has actually

studied them sufficiently to say that it is important to isolate any one

or two of these for training. Many theories abound, but very little

evidence.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemistry Laboratory

Human Performance Laboratories

The University of Memphis

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

It was written:-

" But these athletes do enough jumping anyway, could time in the weight room

be better spent training other physical qualities " .

I'm not disagreeing and I accept that positional differences are present

throughout a team; that plyometrics include other activities apart from just

jumping!; that each sport will be different; also that the " game " (soccer)

has changed since the below findings were published (so everyone keeps

telling me).

However, an English First Division Club (soccer)made on average (mean)16

jumps per game(Reilly and , 1976). Also, Withers et al., (1982) found

that players mean number of jumps during the 90 minutes were found to be

9.4, this should be 9, as you can't do .4 of a jump!

As a failed soccer player, I was surprised at the limited number of jumps

made during a soccer match. I suppose it depends on the boundaries used to

define a'jump' for the specific research, but still may give you something

to think about?

Melbourne, Australia

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Loren Chiu wrote....

<<As far as plyometrics go, the question is, are they needed? One could

argue that the athletes who need it the most are those that perform

plyometric type movements in sports (ie. Volleyball, basketball, etc.)

But these athletes do enough jumping anyway, could time in the weight

room be better spent training other physical qualities. Then there's

athletes who don't perform plyometric type movements in competition (ie.

swimmers), so is there a need for them to perform plyometrics at all?

IIRC, true plyometrics (eg. depth jumps) were originally designed for

elite athletes (see Verkhoshansky in the Soviet Sports Review), however,

many people apply them to the training of non-elite athletes. There is

research that shows plyometrics are equally or less effective as

explosive weight training at improving power in low- to

moderately-trained subjects, so for most athletes, the use of

plyometrics is not warranted. I'm not convinced that the use of

plyometrics in the weight room is necessary for most athletes, and that

explosive weight lifting (particularly weightlifting movements, which

have a plyometric component) is more effective for training RFD and

power.>>

I also agree that basketball and volleyball players probably do not need any

additional plyometric training to maximize jumping ability, RFD and power

output. For example, with volleyball there are very few opportunities to

implement them as they are performing so many jumps (which obviously include

landings) practically year round. The last thing I am going to do is have a

bunch of athletes who are developing patellar tendonitis and lower leg pain

do more jumping. What I have found however, is that these athletes do very

well, and respond nicely to Olympic lifts. This is likely due to the fact

that O. lifts are actually less stressful to lower extremity joints. I have

measured vertical ground reaction forces (VGRFs) during drop jumps and O.

lifts and found that during comparable phases of the two movements, VGRFs

were actually lower for the lifts.

If O. lifts develop all the same qualities as plyometrics, and develop many

other valuable qualities that plyometrics don't, AND they are less stressful

to inflamed lower extremity joints, the choice becomes pretty obvious.

Unfortunately, the reason plyometrics are the more popular choice is that

they don't require much skill to implement. Pretty much anybody can tell an

athlete to step off of a box and then jump as high as possible as fast as

possible after hitting the ground. Not everybody can teach a technically

sound clean or power snatch.

Burkhardt

Strength and Conditioning Coach

UC Irvine

[Guest guest]

Loren Chiu wrote...

<<This notion of complex training seems to be based on potentiation of

muscle force, which is a real physiological phenomenon. I posted a

message in May last year discussing potentiation in detail, so I won't

repeat for brevity). Briefly, performing heavy weight training or

maximal isometric contractions prior to performing lower load movements

increases the force production and/or the rate of force development.

However, immediately following the " potentiation stimulus, " there is a

period of fatigue, that lasts from 30s to 5min, depending on the

individual, and the amount of " potentiation stimulus. " >>

Loren,

Have you tried this method in your own training (For those of you who don't

know, Loren is quite an accomplished Olympic lifter)? If so, can you

describe some of your workouts and what the results were?

Burkhardt

Strength and Conditioning Coach

UC Irvine

[Guest guest]

> > Rajinder:

> > Based on that answer, could/should a complex be performed,

followed by a long rest interval, upto 5mins to ensure that the

athlete is

> fresh for the following complex? That sounds, at least in theory,

the

> best of both worlds, in that you take advantage of the potentiation

> effect, whilst keeping performance high.

>

> I'm not quite sure I completely understand what you're describing.

Rajinder:

Loren, in your original reply you did state that RFD was improved in

the performance of lower load activities after a previous bout of

heavy weight or isometric training. But that it typically incurs

fatigue lasting anywhere from 30secs to 5min. If you performed heavy

weightlifting, and then took advantage of the potentiation stimulus,

performance would presumably go up in the lower load activity. If you

then waited for 5mins so fatigue from the potentiation stimulus

dissipated before performing another complex, would you not improve

performance whilst avoiding the negative effects of complex training?

What does mel think of this whole issue of plyometrics/complexes? Are

they a tool for just the elite athlete or will Olympic lifting

suffice to improve performance in speed-strength events by improving

performance in the fitness sub-qualities Loren mentions below?

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

[Guest guest]

Rajinder:

> Loren, in your original reply you did state that RFD was improved in

> the performance of lower load activities after a previous bout of

> heavy weight or isometric training. But that it typically incurs

> fatigue lasting anywhere from 30secs to 5min. If you performed heavy

> weightlifting, and then took advantage of the potentiation stimulus,

> performance would presumably go up in the lower load activity. If you

> then waited for 5mins so fatigue from the potentiation stimulus

> dissipated before performing another complex, would you not improve

> performance whilst avoiding the negative effects of complex training?

> What does mel think of this whole issue of plyometrics/complexes? Are

> they a tool for just the elite athlete or will Olympic lifting

> suffice to improve performance in speed-strength events by improving

> performance in the fitness sub-qualities Loren mentions below?

To take advantage of the potentiation, the second exercise in the

complex would have to be performed 30s-5min. after the heavy lift (not

immediately after as most lay articles suggest). However, the idea of

only a single set/contraction for potentiation stimulus is based on

sensitive isometric testing. The less sensitive testing measures (eg.

VJ) have used multiple sets. So while statistically, one

contraction/set may result in significant increases in force or RFD,

this doesn't mean it has a practical significance.

Additionally, say that it does increase the force, velocity, or power

expression. This may contribute to the long term fatigue stimulus,

where many athletes are already on the brink of overreaching. Thus one

has to consider when and where this type of training fits into the

overall training plan, and what short and long term negative effects may

occur despite the acute benefits.

Although the notion of training hard when one feels good and training easy when

one doesn't bears some merit,

one's perception of their body may not be an accurate representation of

the actual physiological state the person is in (eg. DOMS is not a good

indicator of muscle damage/breakdown). Unfortunately, I think people

may come away believing in the acute benefits of potentiation, try it,

feel the benefit, but not consider the side effects, and repeat based

only on their perception of those benefits.

Loren Chiu

Graduate Assistant

Exercise Biochemsitry Laboratory

Human Performance Laboratories

The University of Memphis