Weightlifting is a sport that requires both dynamic strength and power. Until today, weightlifting coaches are still exploring different training modes in an attempt to enhance both muscular strength and power of the competitive weightlifters. Research has shown that the use of the "right" training method could further provide knowledge on such effect for competitive weightlifters (Storey & Smith, 2012). Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of using the complex training method (applicable to weightlifting) compared to traditional resistance training on muscular strength among male competitive (state level) weightlifters. Seventeen male competitive weightlifters were randomly assigned into 2 groups: experimental group (Complex Training; n = 9), and control group (Traditional Resistance Training; n = 8). All participants trained for 6 weeks (2 sessions per week) with the total training volume equated between both groups. Participants underwent pre-test and posttest including the anthropometric measurements (height, body weight, and body fat) and lower body strength (isokinetic strength test) parameters. The results showed that there was a significant increase from pre-to post-test in knee extension peak torque t(8) = -4.22; p = .003 and t(7) = -5.37; p = .001, and knee flexion peak torque t(8) = -5.98; p = .001 and t(7) = -4.20; p = .004 in experimental and control groups respectively. No significant difference (p > .05) was observed in knee extension peak torque (22.9 ± 16.3 versus 13.9 ± 7.3) and knee flexion peak torque (11.4 ± 5.7 versus 10.1 ± 6.8) improvements between the complex training group and control group respectively at post-test. In conclusion, the use of complex training method showed similar effects in enhancing muscular strength with traditional resistance training after 6 weeks of intervention.
Since various sports differ in number of competitions athletes participate in, difference would come in the periodisation patterns as well. For instance, endurance sports such as marathon and long distance running, limit participation of the athletes to few competitions within a year/season. This results in planning long macrocycles of training often equalling a year in duration. This happens when major competitions of the year are grouped together (ie, October–November) and athlete can successfully participate in them within one peaking attempt. In case major competitions are scattered over the year or the gap between them is too long (ie, April–May and October–November), we need to follow double periodisation. Power sports, like sprints, jumps, weightlifting, etc, can have their representatives participating in larger number of competitions a year and their planning pattern could be pretty different. It can well fit into double periodisation pattern, but when three to five major competitions are there to participate within the year (ie, March, July and November), triple or multiple periodisation patterns might be of use. Team games like football, basketball, hockey and others, with traditionally long competitive periods when they play league matches for 4–5 months or even longer, plan their macrocycle in completely different manner. They still follow single periodisation pattern but they change the ratio of periods within the macrocycle. Individual/group games like tennis and badminton follow more or less the multi-peaking patterns with very brief and precisely planned training periods (rather blocks). The reason being, besides participation in the four Grand Slam tournaments and year finale in the form of ATP/WTA world championships (top eight only), players need to play at least four warming up tournaments at various surfaces. Atop of it they need to play good number of ranking tournaments to ensure high ranking and good chances for better seeding in the major tournaments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.