MrRippedZilla
Retired
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,706
- Reaction score
- 3,522
- Points
- 153
Effects of agonist-antagonist complex training on upper body strength and power development
Full paper: Effects of agonist-antagonist complex training on upper body strength and power development
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the chronic effects on strength and power of performing complex versus traditional set training over 8 weeks.
15 trained males were assessed for throw height, peak velocity, and peak power in the bench press throw and one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and bench pull exercises, before and after the 8-week programme.
The traditional set group performed the pulling before the pushing exercise sets, whereas the complex set group alternated pulling and pushing sets. The complex set training sessions were completed in approximately half the time.
Electromyographic (EMG) activity was monitored during both test sessions in an attempt to determine if it was affected as a result of the training programme.
Although there were no differences in the dependent variables between the two conditions, bench pull and bench press 1-RM increased significantly under the complex set condition and peak power increased significantly under the traditional set condition. Effect size statistics suggested that the complex set was more time-efficient than the traditional set condition with respect to development of 1-RM bench pull and bench press, peak velocity and peak power. The EMG activity was not affected.
Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and strength development.
Methodology
I've always been a fan of agonist-antagonist style training for bodybuilding purposes so it's interesting to see how effective it may be when the goal is strength and/or power.
The researchers definition of a "complex set" was:
"...agonist-antagonist pairs of either two heavy resistance exercises or a heavy resistance and ballistic exercise performed over repeated trials, in an alternating manner, with rest intervals between sets."
So basically, 4 straight sets of A and then 4 sets of B with 4 min rest periods between each set vs alternating between the two movements (A - B - A - B) with 4 min rest periods between each "complex" (A&B, with a 2 min target as the halfway point as you move from 1 movement to the other).
The training cycle consisted of the following:
Phase 1 (weeks 1–4) with the emphasis on back and chest strength -
Week 1
Bench pull 4x6 with 6RM
Bench press 3x6 6RM
Bench press throw 1x6 with 40% 1RM
Week 2
Bench pull 5x5 with 5RM
Bench press 4x5 5RM
Bench press throw 1x5 with 40% 1RM
Week 3
Bench pull 6x4 with 4RM
Bench press 4X4 4RM
Bench press throw 2X4 with 40% 1RM
Week 4
Bench pull 6x3 with 3RM
Bench press 4x3 3RM
Bench press throw 2x3 with 40% 1RM
Phase 2 (weeks 5–8) with the emphasis on back strength and chest power -
Week 5
Bench pull 4x6 6RM
Bench press 1x6 6RM
Bench press throw 3x6 with 40% 1RM
Week 6
Bench pull 5x5 5RM
Bench press 1x5 5RM
Bench press thow 4x5 with 40% 1RM
Week 7
Bench pull 6x4 4RM
Bench press 2x4 4RM
Bench press throw 4x4 with 40% 1RM
Week 8
Bench pull 6x3 3RM
Bench press 2x3 3RM
Bench press throw 4x3 with 40% 1RM
All subjects were in their early-mid 20s and averaged 3-4yrs of strength training experience. More specifically, they all had experience with complex-style training.
They measured 1RM, throw height, peak velocity, peak power and, in order to explain potential differences in these measurements, the EMG response of the pecs, front delts, lats and traps.
The major flaw with the vast majority of exercise research, including this paper, is the complete lack of dietary control.
No mention of whether the training was fed or fasted, which is pretty important since most athletes do not train fasted.
The small sample size limits the statistical power of any differences that may be detected (more on this in the results section).
Finally, the inter-set rest periods were kept to 4 mins which, considering one of the main aims of this paper was to look at time efficiency, could have been reduced to 2-3mins but that's a minor point from my side.
Results & discussion
- The only "significantly" differing results between the 2 groups were the greater increases in bench pull 1RM (92.1> 96.7kg) & press 1RM (100.9>106kg) in the complex group with a small effect size (aka the results were not "strong" statistically) and the greater increase in peak power (3047>3321W) in the traditional group with a medium effect size (better indicator of traditional sets being superior for power).
- The complex group was seen to be much more time efficient (training gains/time) for all measures but in particular the 1RM stuff, which had a large effect size.
- The take home appears to be that complex training > traditional if strength is the goal and the opposite for power.
The researchers mentioned that a more time-efficient, but equally effective, training method was beneficial to both general gym-goers and athletes since the athletes can use the spare time to work on other technical aspects of their sport and improve the overall competition prep. Good point.
Having said that, we do have an issue in terms of practicality.
In a standard gym its going to be pretty difficult to occupy more than 1 piece of equipment without losing the abandoned station, or pissing everyone else off, when completing the other half of your complex set. To work around this you'd need to have a training partner so that you could do the rotating between yourselves or work out at home so yes, practically speaking complex training isn't ideal.
Summary
If your focused on strength then it may very well be worth experimenting with complex training while if your main goal is power then its best to stick with the traditional approach.
If your focusing on a bit of everything then complex training is certainly more efficient for strength & power and, IMO, probably endurance too since it allows us to do more work in less time
Full paper: Effects of agonist-antagonist complex training on upper body strength and power development
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the chronic effects on strength and power of performing complex versus traditional set training over 8 weeks.
15 trained males were assessed for throw height, peak velocity, and peak power in the bench press throw and one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and bench pull exercises, before and after the 8-week programme.
The traditional set group performed the pulling before the pushing exercise sets, whereas the complex set group alternated pulling and pushing sets. The complex set training sessions were completed in approximately half the time.
Electromyographic (EMG) activity was monitored during both test sessions in an attempt to determine if it was affected as a result of the training programme.
Although there were no differences in the dependent variables between the two conditions, bench pull and bench press 1-RM increased significantly under the complex set condition and peak power increased significantly under the traditional set condition. Effect size statistics suggested that the complex set was more time-efficient than the traditional set condition with respect to development of 1-RM bench pull and bench press, peak velocity and peak power. The EMG activity was not affected.
Complex set training would appear to be an effective method of exercise with respect to efficiency and strength development.
Methodology
I've always been a fan of agonist-antagonist style training for bodybuilding purposes so it's interesting to see how effective it may be when the goal is strength and/or power.
The researchers definition of a "complex set" was:
"...agonist-antagonist pairs of either two heavy resistance exercises or a heavy resistance and ballistic exercise performed over repeated trials, in an alternating manner, with rest intervals between sets."
So basically, 4 straight sets of A and then 4 sets of B with 4 min rest periods between each set vs alternating between the two movements (A - B - A - B) with 4 min rest periods between each "complex" (A&B, with a 2 min target as the halfway point as you move from 1 movement to the other).
The training cycle consisted of the following:
Phase 1 (weeks 1–4) with the emphasis on back and chest strength -
Week 1
Bench pull 4x6 with 6RM
Bench press 3x6 6RM
Bench press throw 1x6 with 40% 1RM
Week 2
Bench pull 5x5 with 5RM
Bench press 4x5 5RM
Bench press throw 1x5 with 40% 1RM
Week 3
Bench pull 6x4 with 4RM
Bench press 4X4 4RM
Bench press throw 2X4 with 40% 1RM
Week 4
Bench pull 6x3 with 3RM
Bench press 4x3 3RM
Bench press throw 2x3 with 40% 1RM
Phase 2 (weeks 5–8) with the emphasis on back strength and chest power -
Week 5
Bench pull 4x6 6RM
Bench press 1x6 6RM
Bench press throw 3x6 with 40% 1RM
Week 6
Bench pull 5x5 5RM
Bench press 1x5 5RM
Bench press thow 4x5 with 40% 1RM
Week 7
Bench pull 6x4 4RM
Bench press 2x4 4RM
Bench press throw 4x4 with 40% 1RM
Week 8
Bench pull 6x3 3RM
Bench press 2x3 3RM
Bench press throw 4x3 with 40% 1RM
All subjects were in their early-mid 20s and averaged 3-4yrs of strength training experience. More specifically, they all had experience with complex-style training.
They measured 1RM, throw height, peak velocity, peak power and, in order to explain potential differences in these measurements, the EMG response of the pecs, front delts, lats and traps.
The major flaw with the vast majority of exercise research, including this paper, is the complete lack of dietary control.
No mention of whether the training was fed or fasted, which is pretty important since most athletes do not train fasted.
The small sample size limits the statistical power of any differences that may be detected (more on this in the results section).
Finally, the inter-set rest periods were kept to 4 mins which, considering one of the main aims of this paper was to look at time efficiency, could have been reduced to 2-3mins but that's a minor point from my side.
Results & discussion
- The only "significantly" differing results between the 2 groups were the greater increases in bench pull 1RM (92.1> 96.7kg) & press 1RM (100.9>106kg) in the complex group with a small effect size (aka the results were not "strong" statistically) and the greater increase in peak power (3047>3321W) in the traditional group with a medium effect size (better indicator of traditional sets being superior for power).
- The complex group was seen to be much more time efficient (training gains/time) for all measures but in particular the 1RM stuff, which had a large effect size.
- The take home appears to be that complex training > traditional if strength is the goal and the opposite for power.
The researchers mentioned that a more time-efficient, but equally effective, training method was beneficial to both general gym-goers and athletes since the athletes can use the spare time to work on other technical aspects of their sport and improve the overall competition prep. Good point.
Having said that, we do have an issue in terms of practicality.
In a standard gym its going to be pretty difficult to occupy more than 1 piece of equipment without losing the abandoned station, or pissing everyone else off, when completing the other half of your complex set. To work around this you'd need to have a training partner so that you could do the rotating between yourselves or work out at home so yes, practically speaking complex training isn't ideal.
Summary
If your focused on strength then it may very well be worth experimenting with complex training while if your main goal is power then its best to stick with the traditional approach.
If your focusing on a bit of everything then complex training is certainly more efficient for strength & power and, IMO, probably endurance too since it allows us to do more work in less time
Last edited:
