Combining higher-load and lower-load resistance training exercises: A systematic review and meta-analysis of findings from complex training studies |
| |
| Institution: | 1. University of Vienna, Centre for Sports Science and University Sports, Austria;2. Medical University of Vienna, Department of Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Occupational Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Austria;3. Medical University of Vienna, Section of Medical Statistics, CeMSIIS, Austria;4. Edith Cowan University, Centre for Exercise and Sport Science Research, Australia;1. UC Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Australia;2. Discipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Australia;3. Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Australia;4. School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Australia;5. Neuroscience Research Australia, Australia;1. Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Australia;2. Institute for Clinical Exercise and Health Science, University of the West of Scotland, UK;3. Division of Biomedical Science, Institute of Health Research and Innovation, University of the Highlands and Islands, UK;4. Clinical & Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK;1. Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia;2. Hunter New England Local Health District Sports Concussion Program, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia;3. Sports Medicine Center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA;4. Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA;5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;6. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA;7. MassGeneral Hospital for Children? Sport Concussion Program, & Home Base, A Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Program, Boston, MA, USA;1. MUARC, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;2. Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia;3. Monash Institute of Cognitive & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;4. Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Australia;5. National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia;6. Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;7. Department of Neurosurgery, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia;8. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;1. Welsh Rugby Union, United Kingdom;2. School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Australia;3. Gabbett Performance Solutions, Australia;4. University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Resilient Regions, Australia;5. Curtin University, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesThe 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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)ConclusionsCT 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | Plyometric exercise Athletic performance Contrast training Post-activation potentiation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
