Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2000, 14(4), 451–456
q 2000 National Strength & Conditioning Association
Electromyographic and Kinetic Analysis of
Complex Training Variables
WILLIAM P. EBBEN,1 RANDALL L. JENSEN,2
DOUGLAS O. BLACKARD3
1
Department of Intercollegiate Athletics and Recreational Sports, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53201; 2Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Northern Michigan University, Marquette,
Michigan 49855; 3Georgetown Healthcare System, Georgetown, Texas 78628.
ABSTRACT
The use of complex training as a method of combining
weight and plyometric exercises during the same training
session is growing in popularity, despite limited scientific
support for its efficacy. The purpose of this study was to
examine the effect of a set of high-load bench press exercises
(BP) on a subsequent set of medicine ball power drop exer-
cises (MBPD) via mean ground reaction force, maximum
ground reaction force, and mean electromyography (EMGint).
Ten male (19 6 1.4 years) NCAA Division 1 basketball play-
ers with experience in weight and plyometric training per-
formed plyometric exercises under 2 randomly determined
conditions. One condition included a BP followed immedi-
ately by a MBPD. The other condition included only the
MBPD. Mean ground reaction force, maximum ground re-
action force, and EMGint were recorded during the MBPD for
both conditions. Results indicated that no significant differ-
ences exist for mean ground reaction force, maximum
ground reaction force, and EMGint for the pectoralis major
and triceps muscles between the MBPD and the BP plus
MBPD conditions. These results indicate there is no height-
ened excitability of the central nervous system. However,
there also appears to be no disadvantage of performing
high-load weight training and plyometric exercises in com-
plex pairs. Therefore, complex training may be a useful train-
ing strategy because of the organizational advantages of per-
forming weight and plyometric exercises in the same train-
ing session.
Key Words: complex training, integrated electromy-
ography, ground reaction force, high-load weight
training, plyometric exercise
Reference Data: Ebben, W. P., R. L. Jensen, and D. O.
Blackard. Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of
complex training variables. J. Strength Cond. Res. 14(4):
451–456. 2000.
Introduction
C omplex training is one method of combining
weight and plyometric exercises, and anecdotal
AND
recommendations for complex training have appeared
in the literature (4, 17, 18). Verkhoshansky (17) intro-
duced the term complex training, which describes a
‘‘complex of exercises united according to the principle
that basic exercises for the development of reactive
ability is fulfilled in a background of heightened ex-
citability of the central nervous system, brought about
by preliminary fulfillment of exercise requiring great
power.’’ Verkhoshansky (17, 18) recommended pairing
exercises such as the squat followed by depth jumps.
Chu (4) defines complex training as a workout sys-
tem that combines strength work and speed work for
an optimal training effect, for example, coupling
weight and plyometric training exercises on a set-for-
set basis. The set of high-load weight-training exercise
is purported to create possible neurogenic, myogenic,
or psychomotor changes. A set of plyometric exercises
that have similar movement patterns (biomechanically
comparable) and immediately follow the weight-train-
ing exercise is believed to optimize the training effect
through increased excitation of the motor neurons and
enhanced involvement of the nervous system (4).
Research on complex training is limited to the
work of Verkhoshansky and Tetyan (19), who assessed
the effectiveness of 16 weeks of training with complex
pairs of exercises such as squats followed by jump
squats. The complex group was compared with 2 other
groups. One group performed plyometrics before
weight-training exercises; the second group performed
weight training before plyometric exercises. No nu-
merical data or methods of performance analysis are
described, but the authors concluded the complex
training group was outperformed by the other 2
groups in absolute muscle strength, explosive muscle
strength, and starting muscle strength. Unfortunately,
there is a paucity of research examining complex train-
ing. Complex training could be further understood
through additional training studies or biomechanical
investigations.
451
452 Ebben, Jensen, and Blackard

No researcher has investigated motor unit activity

or ground reaction forces during plyometric exercise
when performed after high-load weight training. Pre-
vious researchers have demonstrated that weight and/
or plyometric training increases integrated electro-
myography (EMG) values (9, 10). Hakkinen et al. (9)
report increases of maximum force accompanied by
significant increases in maximal EMG of the trained
muscle. EMG is altered by strength and plyometric
training and is the most direct assessment of neural
adaptation to training (15).
Researchers have evaluated pectoralis major and
triceps EMG activity during isometric and dynamic
exercise (11, 13, 21). Newton et al. (13) examined EMG
activity of weight training and ballistic movements.
Tracey et al. (15) examined EMG activity of weight
training and stretch-shortening cycle activities. Results
of both studies indicated exercises performed explo-
sively have higher EMG activity throughout the range
of motion.
Weight training facilitates concentric performance
to a greater extent, whereas plyometric training em-
phasizes the eccentric component and rate of force de-
velopment (21). The relatively slow movement of the
eccentric phase of high-load weight training does not
result in rapid, eccentric force development (21). Since
eccentric strength is greater than concentric strength,
the constant load environment of weight training em-
phasizes the weaker concentric phase of the movement
(21). Thus, weight and plyometric training enhance
different capacities of the neuromuscular system (21).
Evidence does not exist regarding the best combina-
tion of the 2 forms of training or how one form of
training exercise may affect the other if performed in
sequence. The purpose of this study was to examine
the effect of a set of high-load bench press exercises
(BP) on a subsequent set of medicine ball power drop
exercises (MBPD) as assessed by mean ground reaction
force, maximum ground reaction force, mean integrat-
ed EMG (EMGint).
Methods
Subjects
Ten men (19.9 6 1.4 years) volunteered to serve as
subjects for the study. All subjects were NCAA Divi-
sion 1 basketball players and had weight-training and
upper- and lower-body plyometric training experience.
This experience included training with the BP and
MBPD. Subjects completed a Physical Activity Readi-
ness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and signed an informed
consent form before participation in the study. Ap-
proval for the use of human subjects was obtained
from Marquette University before initiation of the
study. Subjects had performed no strength or plyome-
tric training in the 48 hours before data collection.
Figure 1. The bench was mounted to a 2-cm-thick alumi-
num platform (75 3 100 cm) bolted directly to a force
plate.
Research Design
This study examined EMGint values, mean ground re-
action force, and maximum ground reaction force dur-
ing 2 conditions: (a) MBPD (a set of 5) and (b) BP
followed immediately by MBPD (a set of 5) (BP plus
MBPD). Data were collected during the plyometric
MBPD of each condition. Exercise order was randomly
determined. Five minutes of rest was allowed between
exercises for recovery of phosphagen systems. This
rest duration was based on a pilot test that found no
difference in EMG values between subjects who were
allowed 5 minutes of rest after MBPD and subjects
who performed no MBPD. This pilot study demon-
strated that the MBPD did not influence EMGint during
the plyometric condition. As a result, any changes pre-
sent in the complex condition would be attributable to
the effect of the high-load training (BP) as purported
by previous researchers and sport scientists (4, 17–19).
Warm-up activity and exercise-specific warm-up activ-
ity were performed before the exercises. A BP 1 repe-
tition maximum (1RM) was determined using results
of test performance repetitions, load, and a conversion
chart.
The MBPD was performed with the subject lying
supine on a nonpadded bench with approximately 908
hip and knee flexion, resulting in the feet not contact-
ing any surface. The bench was mounted to a 2-cm-
thick aluminum platform (75 3 100 cm) bolted directly
to a force plate (OR6-7-2000, AMTI, Watertown, MA)
(Figure 1). All ground reaction forces were limited to
the surface area of the bench. The MBPD (D-Ball, Mil-
lipitis, CA) was performed according to the methods
described by Chu (4).
According to Ebben et al. (6), medicine ball train-
ing loads with a vertical drop component need to con-
sider both ball mass and drop height to determine the
impact force; thus, desired impact forces were
achieved by using medicine balls of various mass and

Figure 2. The subject caught the medicine ball with both
hands and absorbed the force of the descending medicine
ball by horizontally flexing the shoulders, flexing the el-
bows, and hyperextending the wrists.
height. Approximately 30% of BP 1RM was used for
the impact force of the MBPD. This value maximizes
muscular power output for ballistic movements (6, 21).
The medicine ball impact force was estimated by a re-
gression equation in which vertical impact force 5 [(ht
[cm] * 5.58) 1 (mass [kg] * 59.65)] 2 468.30 (6). For
example, for subject 1, a 7.3-kg medicine ball was
dropped from 23 cm to provide an impact force of 392
N. The subject caught the medicine ball with both
hands and absorbed the force of the descending med-
icine ball by horizontally flexing the shoulders, flexing
the elbows, and hyperextending the wrists (Figure 2).
The subject then propelled the medicine ball back in
the direction from which it had been dropped. The
force plate was zeroed for the mass of the bench and
the subject to ensure that only forces from catching
and propelling the medicine ball were measured.
Certified strength and conditioning specialists
(CSCSs) assisted with supervising technique and
helped the subject by dropping the medicine ball so
that it would fall above the subject’s chest. The CSCS
caught the medicine ball on each repetition to prevent
Analysis of Complex Training Variables 453
Figure 3. The certified strength and conditioning special-
ist caught the medicine ball on each repetition to prevent it
from falling on the subject and to ensure the subject re-
ceived the medicine ball above the chest and from the
proper height for each repetition.
it from falling on the subject and to ensure the subject
received the medicine ball above the chest and from
the proper drop height for each repetition (Figure 3).
This allowed the subject to perform the exercise with
maximum effort and without concern about throwing
accuracy.
The BP was performed with the subject lying su-
pine on a bench (Figure 4). A barbell in the uprights
of the bench was loaded to a mass that would cause
fatigue in fewer than 6 repetitions as determined from
previous testing. This training intensity and number
of repetitions fall within the range recommended for
complex training (7). All subject performances ranged
from 3–5RM. A CSCS assisted the subject with re-
moving the barbell from the uprights as the subject
held the bar above his chest. The subject lowered the
bar to his nipple line by horizontally flexing the shoul-
ders and flexing the elbows. Once the barbell contact-
ed the subject’s chest, the subject horizontally extended
the shoulders and extended the elbows to return the
barbell to its starting position.
454 Ebben, Jensen, and Blackard
Figure 4. The set of high-load bench press exercises was
performed with the subject lying supine on a bench.
EMG data were recorded at 200 Hz by surface elec-
trodes placed on the pectoralis major muscle and the
long head of the triceps muscle. The surface electrodes
were connected to an amplifier and streamed contin-
uously through an analog to digital converter (Bio Pac
Systems, Inc., Goleta, CA) to an IBM-compatible note-
book computer and diskette. Vertical ground reaction
forces were determined via the force plate, which was
connected to an amplifier (SCA-3, AMTI, Watertown,
MA) and streamed continuously through an analog to
digital converter (Bio Pac Systems, Inc., Goleta, CA) to
an IBM-compatible notebook computer and diskette.
All data were filtered with a 10-Hz high-pass filter
(Winter, 1990) and saved with the use of computer
software (AcqKnowledge 3.2, Bio Pac Systems, Inc.,
Goleta, CA). Saved EMG data were full-wave rectified
and integrated. Comparisons were then made of the
EMGint for the 2 conditions.
Research Procedures
Warm-up and stretching exercises for the subject con-
sisted of at least 3 minutes of aerobic activity, 10 clock-
wise and counterclockwise small arm circles, 10 clock-
wise and counterclockwise large arm circles, and
shoulder stretching. Activity-specific warm-up includ-
ed 1 set of 5 repetitions at 50% RM and 1 set of 3
repetitions at 80% RM of the BP and 10 repetitions of
the MBPD at submaximal loads. Following the warm-
up and stretching exercises, the subjects were allowed
at least 5 minutes of rest, during which time their skin
was prepared for surface electrode placement.
Skin preparation for surface electrodes included
shaving any hair, removing dead skin from the surface
with a roughing pad, and cleansing the surface with
alcohol. Three surface electrodes were used for each
muscle. For the pectoralis major, one electrode was
placed one-third of the distance from the body of the
sternum (middle of chest) to the greater tubercle of the
humerus (upper arm); the second electrode was placed
1 cm distal to and in the same longitudinal axis as the
first electrode; the ground electrode was placed on the
medial epicondyle of the humerus. For the triceps, the
first electrode was placed one-third of the distance
from the olecranon of the ulna (elbow) to the infragle-
noid tubercle of the scapula (armpit); the second elec-
trode was placed 1 cm distal to, and in the same lon-
gitudinal axis, as the first electrode; the ground elec-
trode was placed on the styloid process of the radius.
Following placement of the surface electrodes and con-
nection of the electrodes to the computer, the subject
participated in the 2 exercises.
Each subject randomly determined the order of ex-
ercise by mentally picking a number and telling it to
the researchers. If the number was odd, the subject
participated in the MBPD followed by the BP plus
MBPD. If the number was even, the subject participat-
ed in the BP plus MBPD followed by the MBPD. The
EMGint and ground reaction forces were recorded dur-
ing the MBPD portion of each activity. On completion
of the exercise tests and removal of the surface elec-
trodes, subjects participated in cool-down and stretch-
ing exercises. Cool-down and stretching exercises con-
sisted of 3 minutes of low-intensity aerobic activity.
Mean vertical ground reaction force, maximum vertical
ground reaction force, and EMGint for the pectoralis
major and triceps data were analyzed using a 1-factor
analysis of variance with repeated measures. A 0.05
level of significance was used for all statistical com-
parisons.
Results
Data for the subject’s age, height, mass, estimated 1RM
BP and actual BP, repetitions, and impact force are pre-
sented in Table 1. No significant differences (p . 0.05)
were found between the MBPD condition and the BP
plus MBPD condition for any of the variables (Table
2). This study demonstrates that no significant differ-
ences exist for EMGint of pectoralis major and triceps
or for maximum and mean vertical ground reaction
force between MBPD and BP plus MBPD. Figure 5 il-
 Analysis of Complex Training Variables 455

Table 1. Descriptive data of subjects.*

Subject Estimated Fatiguing Fatiguing Impact

No. Age (y) Height (m) Mass (kg) 1RM BP (kg) BP (kg) repetitions force (N)

1 18 2.01 98.0 133.2 122.7 4 392.0

2 19 2.11 121.5 136.4 125.0 3 405.4
3 21 1.96 96.1 115.5 104.5 5 338.5
4 22 2.03 104.3 128.2 118.2 5 378.6
5 18 1.75 70.7 78.6 72.7 4 231.6
6 19 2.11 106.1 123.2 115.9 3 360.8
7 21 1.85 112.5 123.2 115.9 4 360.8
8 21 1.83 77.6 86.4 79.5 3 253.9
9 20 2.01 98.9 125.5 113.6 5 369.7
10 20 1.88 97.5 130.9 120.5 5 383.1
Mean 6 SD 19.9 6 1.4 1.95 6 0.12 98.3 6 5.0 118.1 6 19.7 108.9 6 18.2 4.1 6 0.9 347.9 6 58.8

* 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; BP 5 set of high-load bench press exercises.

Table 2. Comparisons between the BP plus MBPD and

the MBPD groups.*

Group
Interactions BP plus MBPD MBPD

Mean ground reaction

force (N) 139.0 (614.8) 146.1 (625.1)
Maximum ground reac-
tion force (N) 900.5 (6380.1) 755.6 (6232.9)
EMG pectoralis major 2.28 (61.39) 2.25 (61.26)
EMG triceps 2.92 (60.82) 2.69 (60.82)

* Not significant at p 5 0.05. BP 5 set of high-load bench

press exercises; MBPD 5 set of medicine ball power drop
exercises; EMG 5 electromyography.

lustrates typical data of EMG and ground reaction

forces.

Discussion
Numerous anecdotal observations exist in the strength
and conditioning literature, suggesting the advantage
of complex training and the mechanisms responsible
for its efficacy. The present study questions the pur-
ported ergogenic role of heightened excitability of the
central nervous system due to high-load training be-
fore plyometric exercises performed in complex pairs,
as evidenced by no differences in mean and peak
ground reaction forces and EMGint of pectoralis major
and triceps. Results of the present study also counter
suggestions that an advantage is accrued via complex Figure 5. Typical data of electromyography (EMG) and
ground reaction forces.
training that results in neurogenic changes as deter-
mined by EMG (4). Furthermore, complex training
does not enhance the ground reaction forces produced there appears to be no disadvantage of performing
during MBPD. high-load weight training and plyometric exercises in
Because this study found no significant differences complex pairs. Research indicates that dynamic ath-
in mean and peak ground reaction forces or EMGint, letic performance requires training strategies that train
456 Ebben, Jensen, and Blackard
both the force and velocity components of the force
velocity curve (13). As a result, both weight training
and plyometric training are important. Therefore,
complex training may be a useful training strategy be-
cause of the organizational advantages of performing
both types of exercise simultaneously during the same
training session (7).
Findings of the present study are limited to the
muscle groups studied, type of high-load weight train-
ing and plyometrics used, and method of analysis. For
example, lower-body complex training exploring squat
and box jumps while assessing the quadriceps and
gluteal muscles may reveal different findings. Addi-
tional limitations include the inability to isolate the
concentric and eccentric portions of the MBPD for the
pectoralis major and triceps. Future EMG and kinetic
analysis of complex training exercise variables may
benefit via inclusion of triggered and integrated cine-
matography to delineate between eccentric and con-
centric EMG activity.
Practical Applications
Within the limitations of this study, complex training
may not offer ergogenic advantages as evidenced by
changes in ground reaction forces and EMG activity
of the pectoralis major and triceps muscles. The re-
sults, however, reveal no deleterious effects associated
with a single bout of complex training. Persons inter-
ested in the organizational benefits associated with
complex training may continue to organize training in
this fashion. Furthermore, well-controlled training
studies may ultimately yield the best picture about the
potential effectiveness of complex training.
References
1. ADAMS, K., J.P. O’SHEA, K.L. O’SHEA, AND M. CLIMSTEIN. The
effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric
training on power production. J. Appl. Sports Sci. Res. 6:36–41.
1992.
2. BILODEAU, M., M. CINCERA, S. GERVAIS, A. BERTRAND, A.B. AR-
SENAULT, D. GRAVEL, Y. LEPAGE, AND P. MCKINLEY. Changes
in the electromyographic spectrum power distribution caused
by a progressive increase in the force level. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
71:113–123. 1995.
3. BROWN, J.M.M., AND W. GILLEARD. Transition from slow to bal-
listic movement: Development of triphasic electromyographic
patterns. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 63:381–386. 1991.
4. CHU, D.A. Explosive Power and Strength: Complex Training for
Maximum Results. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.
5. CLUTCH, D., M. WILTON, C. MCGOWAN, AND G.R. BRYCE. The
effect of depth jumps and weight training on leg strength and
vertical jump. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 54:5–10. 1983.
6. EBBEN, W.P., R.L. JENSEN, AND D.O. BLACKARD. Quantification
of medicine ball power drop loads. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:
271–274. 1999.
7. EBBEN, W.P., AND P.B. WATTS. A review of combined weight
training and plyometric training modes: Complex training.
Strength Cond. 20:18–27. 1998.
8. FORD, H.T., J.R. PUCKETT, J.P. DRUMMOND, K. SAWYER, K.
BANTT, AND C. FUSSELL. Effect of three combinations of ply-
ometric and weight training programs on selected physical fit-
ness test items. Percept. Mot. Skills 56:919–922. 1983.
9. HAKKINEN, K., M.A. PAKARINEN, H. KAUHANEN, AND P.V.
KOMI. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to
strength training in two years. J. Appl. Physiol. 65:2406–2412.
1988.
10. KOMI, P.V. Training of muscle strength and power: Interaction
of neuromotoric, hypertrophic, and mechanical factors. Int. J.
Sports Med. 7:10–15. 1986.
11. MURPHY, A.J., AND G.J. WILSON. Poor correlations between iso-
metric tests and dynamic performance: Relationship to muscle
activation. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 73:353–357. 1996.
12. MURPHY, A.J., G.J. WILSON, AND J.F. PRYOR. Use of iso-inertial
force mass relationship in the prediction of dynamic human
performance. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 69:250–257. 1994.
13. NEWTON, R.V., W.J. KRAEMER, K. HAKKINEN, B.J. HUMPHRIES,
AND A.J. MURPHY. Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation
during explosive upper body movements. J. Appl. Biomechanics
12:13–43. 1996.
14. POLHEMUS, R.E., E. BURKHERDT, M. OSINA, AND M. PATTERSON.
The effect of plyometric training with ankle and vest weights
on the conventional weight training programs for men. Track
Field Q. Rev. 80:59–61. 1980.
15. TRACY, J.E., S. OBUCHI, AND B. JOHNSON. Kinematic and elec-
tromyographic analysis of elbow flexion during inertial exer-
cise. J. Ath. Training 30:254–258. 1995.
16. SALE, D.G. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med. Sci.
Sports. Exerc. 20:5135–5145. 1988.
17. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y. Perspectives in the improvement of speed-
strength preparation of jumpers. Track Field. 9:11–12. 1966.
18. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y. Speed-strength preparation and develop-
ment of strength endurance athletes in various specializations.
Soviet Sports Rev. 21:120–124. 1986.
19. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y., AND V. TATYAN. Speed strength prepa-
ration of future champions. Logkaya Atletika 2:12–13. 1973.
20. VERKHOSHANSKY, Y., AND V. TATYAN. Speed strength prepa-
rations of future champions. Soviet Sports Rev. 18:166–170. 1983.
21. WILSON, G.J., A.J. MURPHY, AND A. GIORGI. Weight and ply-
ometric training: Effects on eccentric and concentric force pro-
duction. Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 21:301–315. 1996.