This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 11 September 2011, At: 20:29

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Effect of order of exercise on performance during a

complex training session in rugby players
a b
Markus Deutsch & Rhodri Lloyd
a
Fusion Sport, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
b
School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

Available online: 20 May 2008

To cite this article: Markus Deutsch & Rhodri Lloyd (2008): Effect of order of exercise on performance during a complex
training session in rugby players, Journal of Sports Sciences, 26:8, 803-809

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410801942130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, June 2008; 26(8): 803 – 809

Effect of order of exercise on performance during a complex training

session in rugby players

MARKUS DEUTSCH1 & RHODRI LLOYD2

1
Fusion Sport, Brisbane, QLD, Australia and 2School of Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

(Accepted 24 January 2008)

Abstract
In this study, we examined the acute effects of manipulating exercise order when combining countermovement jumps and
loaded parallel squats in a complex training session, and the acute effects of countermovement jumps and loaded parallel
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011

squats on sprinting performance. Eight rugby players participated in five trials, including two that involved performing
loaded parallel squats followed by countermovement jumps or vice versa in a randomized cross-over design. Peak rate of
force development and peak force were measured during countermovement jumps and loaded parallel squats. Peak power,
jump height, and duration of amortization phase were also determined during the countermovement jumps. Peak force
during squatting was significantly greater in both cross-over treatments (loaded parallel squats–countermovement jumps and
countermovement jumps–loaded parallel squats) compared with the control (P  0.05), although no significant interaction
effects were observed. Prior countermovement jumps resulted in slower 5-m split and overall 20-m sprint times compared
with the control (countermovement jumps vs. control: 5-m split, 1.23 s, s ¼ 0.11 vs. 1.13 s, s ¼ 0.11; overall 20-m, 3.29 s,
s ¼ 0.19 vs. 3.18 s, s ¼ 0.18; P 5 0.05). It is possible to combine heavy resistance and plyometric exercises without detriment
to training performance, but sprint training should be performed independently to minimize any potential interference from
prior resistance training.

Keywords: Rate of force development, post-activation potentiation, fatigue, countermovement jump

Introduction
Complex training has been defined as combining
plyometric training and weight training exercises in
the same training session in a bid to realize a greater
training effect on the targeted muscle groups, and to
provide a more time-efficient method of combining
strength and power training, particularly during
competitive training cycles (Chu, 1996). Previous
research has revealed that after a bout of heavy
resistance exercise, subsequent muscle performance
can be temporarily enhanced due to the influence of
an increased excitability of the central nervous
system (Ebben, Jensen, & Blackard, 2000). This
increased neural excitability appears to be the result
of an acute physiological adjustment, lasting up to
8–10 min, referred to as ‘‘post-activation potentia-
tion’’ (Sale, 2002; Smilios, Pilianidis, Sotiropoulos,
Antonakis & Tokmakidis, 2005). The potential
benefits of the ‘‘window’’ of post-activation potentia-
tion effect have been acknowledged as offering
an opportunity for optimizing force and power
production and to exceed the performance achieved
without prior loading (French, Kraemer, & Cooke,
2003).
There is consistent evidence that muscular excit-
ability is heightened and muscular force production
is increased due to prior contractile muscle activation
(Gullich & Schmidtbleicher, 1996; MacIntosh &
Rassier, 2002; Sale, 2002). Specifically, research
indicates that complex training protocols can pro-
duce acute improvements in vertical jump perfor-
mance in athletes (Baker & Newton, 2005;
Masamoto, Larson, Gates, & Faigenbaum, 2003;
Radcliffe & Radcliffe, 1999; Young, Jenner, &
Griffiths, 1998), and prolonged training programmes
incorporating complex training have been found to
accentuate the performance of selected muscular
actions (Hodgson, Docherty, & Robbins, 2005).
Furthermore, when depth jumps were performed
beforehand, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) squat
performance was significantly improved (Masamoto
et al., 2003). Mechanisms of increased motor neuron
excitability, enhanced motor unit recruitment pat-
terns or increased activation of synergists (or all

Correspondence: M. Deutsch, Fusion Sport, Brisbane, QLD 4108, Australia. E-mail: markus.deutsch@fusionsport.com
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410801942130
 804 M. Deutsch & R. Lloyd
three) were suggested to be responsible for this
enhancement in 1-RM performance.
Although some researchers have looked at the
effects of performing heavy resistance exercise before
plyometric exercise, there is a paucity of literature
investigating the potential effects of performing
plyometrics before heavy resistance exercise. Addi-
tionally, few studies have investigated the effects of
strength and power activities on speed performance.
Finally, few studies have investigated complex
training in competitive in-season athletes, and there-
fore may lack external validity relative to the time-
saving benefits of these training methods. The
objectives of the current study were threefold: (1)
to compare the potentiating effects of plyometric
exercises prior to heavy resistance exercise perfor-
mance, and heavy resistance exercise prior to
plyometrics; (2) to provide further insight into
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
relationships between key aspects of strength, power,
and speed; and (3) to examine the acute effects of
strength and power exercises on sprinting perfor-
mance in rugby players.
Methods
Participants
Eight male participants (mean age 20.4 years, s ¼ 1.7;
height 1.83 m, s ¼ 0.06; body mass 93.9 kg, s ¼ 12.2)
from a university first XV squad volunteered for the
study. None of the participants reported any injury at
the time of testing, and all were involved in regular
in-season training. All participants reported previous
experience of heavy resistance exercise training (3.3
years, s ¼ 0.9) and plyometrics exposure (1.9 years,
s ¼ 1.6), and all had previously played or were
currently playing at a higher representative level
(i.e. county, regional or national sides). All partici-
pants completed informed consent forms, and ethics
approval was granted by the University of Wales
Ethics Committee. All participants continued their
normal training regimes (including two skill-specific
team sessions and two weekly resistance training
sessions) for the duration of the study.
Design
Testing was performed at the same time on each test
day with all measurements for the performance tests
being administered by the same researcher. The
experimental test sessions were completed over the
course of 5 days (Table I). Participants completed
resistance training experience and injury history
questionnaires, their control speed tests, and a
loaded parallel squat and countermovement jump
familiarization session on day 1. Day 2 involved
participants being tested for their control loaded
Table I. Programme time-frame for test protocol.
Day Content
Day 1 Resistance training experience questionnaires
completed þ speed control measure þ familiarization
session
Day 2 Participants’ loaded parallel squats (LPS) control
measure tested þ speed
Day 3 Participants’ countermovement jump (CMJ) control
measure tested þ speed
Day 4 Group 1: LPS followed by CMJ; Group 2: CMJ
followed by LPS
Day 5 Group 1: CMJ followed by LPS; Group 2: LPS
followed by CMJ
parallel squat measurements and a subsequent speed
test. On day 3, participants performed their control
countermovement jump measurement followed by a
speed test. The participants were then randomly
allocated to one of two groups, whereby on day 4
group one performed the loaded parallel squats
followed by countermovement jumps and group
two performed the countermovement jumps before
the loaded parallel squats. On day 5, the groups
crossed over to perform the alternate treatment.
Throughout the course of the study, players were
requested to follow similar diets, refrain from alcohol
consumption, and repeat similar exercise pro-
grammes for 24 h prior to each test session.
Force plate variables
From the countermovement jump protocol, peak
rate of force development, peak force, amortization
phase duration, jump height, and peak power were
measured. Values for peak force and peak rate of
force development were obtained during the loaded
parallel squat protocol. For the purpose of the study,
the following definitions were employed:
. Amortization phase duration: The time from
the beginning of the eccentric contraction to
the end of the isometric contraction during the
countermovement jump.
. Peak rate of force development: The highest rate of
force production (N  s71) during the amortiza-
tion phase of the countermovement jump and
loaded parallel squat.
. Peak force: The maximum amount of force (N)
produced during the countermovement jump
and loaded parallel squat.
. Jump height: The difference (cm) in the centre
of mass of the participant from their standing
position to the apex of the countermovement
jump. This was calculated instantaneously via
the computer software using the impulse-
momentum method.

. Peak power: The highest mechanical power (W)
generated during the countermovement jump
test.
Speed assessment and familiarization protocol
A standardized warm-up was performed before all
sessions (Masamoto et al., 2003; Smilios et al.,
2005), including 400 m of sub-maximal running,
and 5 min of light dynamic stretching targeting the
main muscle groups of the lower limbs.
The protocol for the speed assessment was based
on previous work in rugby (Ellis et al., 2000) and
involved a 20-m sprint from a standing start. Timing
gates (Smartspeed, Fusion Sport, Australia) were
positioned at 5-, 10-, and 20-m intervals. The
starting position involved the participant placing his
front foot up to, but not beyond, a line positioned
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
30 cm behind the start line (0 m). The speed
protocol was 3 6 20-m sprints with 3 min passive
recovery between trials to ensure sufficient recovery
(Bogdanis, Nevill, & Lakomy, 1995). The best split
times and final time (20 m) were recorded from
three separate trials, even if the best results came
from different trials.
Following the speed test, participants performed a
series of squats with an increasing load, until their
three-repetition maximum (3-RM) parallel squat
was achieved using a free barbell. Similar to previous
research, participants rested for a minimum of 4 min
between trials (Masamoto et al., 2003). The 3-RM
was defined as the maximum resistance it was
possible to lift three times, with correct technique,
through the full range of motion up to a knee angle
of 908. The angle was established by initially
measuring a 908 angle using a goniometer at the
lateral aspect of the knee joint. Foot placements were
marked on the force plate and elastic cord was
attached between the two squat racks at each
participant’s corresponding squat height. Partici-
pants then squatted down until they came into
contact with the cord. All participants were initially
asked to estimate their 3-RM based on their weight
training experiences. The mass for the initial set was
chosen to be approximately 10 kg less than this
estimate, and upon successful achievement of each
set, the mass was increased by either 2.5 kg or 5 kg
for the subsequent set. A 3-min rest was allowed
between sets, and the final 3-RM was identified for
each participant within five sets or fewer. A mini-
mum increase of 2.5 kg was used to assimilate
realistic training practice and achieve the desired
result within five sets. Following the recording of the
participant’s 3-RM, loads for the loaded parallel
squat protocol were calculated. Finally, the partici-
pants performed the countermovement jump proto-
col to complete the familiarization session.
Complex training for rugby 805
Loaded parallel squat protocol
Rate of force development and peak force were
assessed using a one-repetition loaded parallel squat
(with a load equivalent to 3-RM resistance). The
squat was performed using a free standing plate-
loaded barbell supported by two squat racks (York
Barbell Company, York, PA, USA) either side of the
force plate. The barbell and squat racks were
positioned directly over a 900 6 600 mm force
platform plate (type 9287BA, Kistler Instrumente
AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) fitted with an inte-
grated charge amplifier. Participants were instructed
to perform a single parallel squat with a loaded
barbell across their shoulders at a resistance equiva-
lent to their 3-RM. All output data were automati-
cally captured on a PC and values for peak force and
peak rate of force development were calculated
(Bioware1 V.3.2.6, Kistler Instrumente AG,
Winterthur, Switzerland).
Participants initiated the squat on their own
accord, to squat until an angle of 908 was achieved
at the knee joint, pausing momentarily before the
explosive upward phase of the lift. The rest period
between lifts was set at 3 min. After completing the
loaded parallel squat protocol, participants were
given 10 min of rest before performing the sprint
test procedure. The rest period was based on
previous literature that stated 10 min would achieve
an optimal balance between sufficient physiological
recovery and maintenance of the post-activation
potentiation effect (Schmidtbleicher, 1992).
Countermovement jump protocol
Lower-limb power production was measured via
force platform analysis using a vertical counter-
movement jump. Participants performed a standing
vertical countermovement jump while positioned on
the force platform. Data were recorded for the trial in
which the highest values for rate of force develop-
ment and peak force were achieved. Participants
were given 3 min of rest between countermovement
jump trials, and data were automatically captured as
in the loaded parallel squat protocol. Following the
countermovement jump test, participants were given
10 min of rest and then performed the speed
protocol.
Cross-over treatments
Following a warm-up on day 4, group one performed
three single repetitions of the loaded parallel
squat protocol, with 3 min of rest between squats
(Masamoto et al., 2003). This was followed by a
10-min rest period to enable maximal potentiation
effects to accrue (Schmidtbleicher, 1992) and then
 806 M. Deutsch & R. Lloyd

three repetitions of the countermovement jump
were performed with 1 min of rest between trials
(Masamoto et al., 2003). Group two performed the
identical protocols, but in reverse order (i.e. counter-
movement jump protocol followed by loaded parallel
squat protocol). Testing on day 5 involved both
cohorts performing the same loaded parallel squat
and countermovement jump protocols, but in
reverse order (Table I).
Statistical analysis
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to determine any interactions between the
trial (control vs. intervention) and group (loaded
parallel squats–countermovement jumps vs. counter-
movement jumps–loaded parallel squats) test results.
Post-hoc analysis was performed using Tukey’s HSD
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
jumps), duration of amortization phase (counter-
movement jumps), and peak power (countermove-
ment jumps) (P 4 0.05; Table III). Peak force in the
loaded parallel squats was significantly greater in
both cross-over treatments (loaded parallel squats–
countermovement jumps and countermovement
jumps–loaded parallel squats) compared with the
control measurement (P  0.05; Figure 1), but no
significant interaction effects were observed
(P 4 0.05; Figure 1).
Relationships between speed, power, and strength
variables
There was a significant negative correlation between
peak rate of force development and duration of the

test to ascertain the source of the difference. For all Table III. Mean (+s) power and strength variables in the
tests, statistical significance was set at P  0.05. performance test for control, post-loaded parallel squat (LPS),
Finally, Pearson’s product–moment correlation coef- and post-countermovement jump (CMJ).
ficients (r) were used to investigate the strength of
Performance
relationships between speed, force, and power
variable Control LPS–CMJ CMJ–LP
variables.
Peak rate of force 11,760+4078 12,552+3083 10,941+1600
development,
Results CMJ (N  s71)
Peak force, 1108+211 1126+146 1154+145
Effects of countermovement jumps and loaded parallel CMJ (N)
squats on sprint performance Duration of 0.8+0.4 0.8+0.3 0.7+0.1
amortization
Five-metre split times were significantly slower after phase, CMJ (s)
the countermovement jumps compared with the Peak power, 2242+369 2165+317 2227+390
CMJ (W)
control measurement (P  0.05; Table II). No Jump height, 24.4+4.5 20.3+6.9 21.8+4.5
differences were observed for the 5- to 10-m and CMJ (cm)
10- to 20-m split times. Overall 20-m times were Peak rate of force 6699+969 7614+1247 6740+1021
significantly slower after the countermovement development,
jumps compared with the control measurement LPS (N  s71)
Peak force, 527+251 683+315a 645+226a
(P  0.05; Table II). LPS (N)
a
Significantly different (P  0.05) from control.
Results for cross-over treatments
No significant differences were observed between
treatments for peak rate of force development
(countermovement jumps), peak force (counter-
movement jumps), jump height (countermovement

Table II. Mean (+ s) time during the sprint test speed for control,
post-loaded parallel squat (LPS), and post-countermovement
jump (CMJ).

Performance variable Control Post LPS Post CMJ

5m 1.13+0.11 1.17+0.06 1.23+0.11a

5–10 m 0.75+0.04 0.76+0.04 0.77+0.04
10–20 m 1.30+0.08 1.30+0.06 1.30+0.07
20-m total 3.18+0.18 3.23+0.12 3.29+0.19a Figure 1. Mean (+ s) peak force for loaded parallel squat during
the three trials. aSignificantly different (P  0.05) from control.
a
Significantly different (P  0.05) from control. LPS ¼ loaded parallel squats, CMJ ¼ countermovement jumps.

amortization phase in the countermovement jumps
(r ¼ 70.726, P  0.05), in addition to a significant
positive correlation between the peak force in the
loaded parallel squats and duration of the amortiza-
tion phase in the countermovement jumps
(r ¼ 0.823, P  0.05). Additionally, a significant
negative correlation was identified between 20-m
split time and peak power in the countermovement
jumps (r ¼ 70.783, P  0.05).
Discussion
The main findings of this study were that perfor-
mance of heavy resistance exercise was not impaired
when preceded by a series of plyometric activities
and that, unlike in several previous investigations of
complex training (Burger, Boyer-Kendrick, &
Dolny, 2000; Jones & Lees, 2003; Masamoto et al.,
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
2003; Smilios et al., 2005), heavy resistance exercise
did not elicit a beneficial effect during subsequent
plyometric exercise. In addition, sprint performance
was impaired when it was preceded by plyometric,
but not heavy resistance, exercise.
In the current study, peak force values in the
loaded parallel squats were 22% greater when
preceded by a set of countermovement jumps
compared with the control trial. This supports
previous research that reported significant improve-
ments in heavy resistance exercise performance
following a series of plyometric activities (Masamoto
et al., 2003). From these results it is reasonable to
suggest that countermovement jumps elicited post-
activation potentiation in the activated muscle
groups of the lower limbs. The explosive-type
loading experienced during the countermovement
jumps may have enhanced the excitability of the
motor units and in turn contributed to a significant
ergogenic effect in the subsequent loaded parallel
squats. This supports previous literature that postu-
lated explosive-type loading to facilitate the function
of the neuromuscular system without causing fatigue
(Schmidtbleicher, Gollhofer, & Frick, 1988). Addi-
tionally, it could be argued that the fact that the
countermovement jumps can be performed at a
faster rate than the loaded parallel squats means that
the effect on the stretch reflex is greater, leading to
greater muscular elastic recoil and consequently
greater force production (Sleivert & Taingahue,
2002). Despite the increase in loaded parallel squat
peak force following countermovement jumps, the
peak rate of force development was not significantly
different from the control.
While loaded parallel squat peak force in the
countermovement jump–loaded parallel squat trial
was greater than that in the control trial, it was not
greater than that in the loaded parallel squat–
countermovement jump trial. In fact, peak force
Complex training for rugby 807
during the loaded parallel squats was 30% higher in
the loaded parallel squat–countermovement jump
protocol than in the control. Since high loaded
parallel squat peak force in the loaded parallel squat–
countermovement jump trial is clearly not related to
post-activation potentiation, it is proposed that a
learning effect might have occurred resulting in
increased loaded parallel squat peak force in both
the loaded parallel squats–countermovement jumps
and countermovement jumps–loaded parallel squats
trials compared with the control trial. After a set of
loaded parallel squats, jump height was not im-
proved. This is in contrast to previous literature
identifying significant improvements in jump height
in countermovement jump performance following an
initial set of heavy resistance exercise (French et al.,
2003; Smilios et al., 2005; Young et al., 1998).
Previous research highlighted a stimulation of
neuromuscular function as the mechanism respon-
sible for the increased countermovement jump
performance, and noted that a load of 60% 1-RM
with explosive execution was sufficient to elicit a
potentiating effect (Smilios et al., 2005). However,
this suggestion contradicts the ‘‘size principle’’ that
relates to the theory that a heavy load is required to
activate all motor units (Henneman, Somjen, &
Carpenter, 1985). The methodology of Smilios et al.
(2005) also contrasts alternative research that
attained potentiating benefits in jump height as a
result of preconditioning heavy resistance exercise
performance using loads of up to 90% 1-RM to
achieve these changes (Gourgoulis, Aggeloussis,
Kasimatis, Mavromatis & Garas, 2003). The failure
of loads of similar magnitude used in the present
study to elicit a significant post-activation potentia-
tion effect might suggest that for in-season athletes
lighter loads such as those used by Smilios et al.
(2005) might be more appropriate. However, taking
all of the performance parameters measured during
the two cross-over trials, no significant improve-
ments or impairment in performance were evident,
suggesting that plyometric and heavy resistance
exercise can be employed in combination during an
in-season training session without impairing perfor-
mance during the session.
Although the loaded parallel squat protocol in the
current study did not improve sprint performance,
neither did it have a negative impact. This finding
differs from the research of Smith and colleagues
(Smith, Fry, Weiss, Li & Kinzey, 2001), who
reported a warm-up protocol of 10 single repetitions
of the parallel back squat at 90% of the participant’s
1-RM produced a potentiating advantage on sub-
sequent 10-s sprint performance. The absence of an
ergogenic benefit from heavy resistance exercise in
the current study may be due to the lower volume of
exercise failing to produce a state of post-activation
 808 M. Deutsch & R. Lloyd
potentiation in the local neuromuscular sites. The
current study revealed that 5-m and 20-m sprint
times were significantly slower following a preceding
set of countermovement jumps, indicating that the
countermovement jump protocol negatively affected
sprint performance. The mechanism by which
countermovement jumps had a negative effect on
performance is unclear, although metabolic fatigue
could be responsible.
The results of the current study suggest that peak
rate of force development in the countermovement
jumps was significantly related to the duration of the
amortization phase in the countermovement jumps.
This suggests that a shorter amortization phase will
result in a greater peak rate of force development,
and a longer amortization phase may well result in a
detrimental effect on subsequent strength perfor-
mance. Previous researchers stated that a squatting
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
protocol should be performed as explosively as
possible (Gourgoulis et al., 2003), and although a
rationale for this was not provided, it is reasonable to
suggest that avoiding a prolonged amortization
phase, which might impede the stretch reflex, is
desirable. Theoretically, this indicates that at a
neural level, muscle fibres initially recruited for the
explosive phase of the countermovement jump are at
risk of losing their elastic recoil properties if placed
under prolonged load-bearing stress during the
amortization phase. The balance between post-
activation potentiation and fatigue from prior con-
tractile activity is arguably difficult to achieve,
although their correlation in the current study would
suggest that to attain maximum motor unit stimula-
tion for subsequent loaded parallel squats, repeti-
tions of the countermovement jump should be
performed as dynamically as possible (Gourgoulis
et al., 2003).
In the current study, peak force was not different
when loaded parallel squats were completed either
before or after countermovement jumps. Since
neither this variable nor any of the other variables
measured in the loaded parallel squat–countermove-
ment jump and countermovement jump–loaded
parallel squat trials were different, it would be fair
to conclude that trial order does not affect the
performance of either countermovement jumps or
loaded parallel squats in a training session. The
ability for these training methods to be combined
without significant detrimental effects on perfor-
mance during training suggests that they can be used
concurrently to try to achieve improvements in both
maximal strength and power during in-season train-
ing. The cumulative effects of complex training
before and during a competitive season require
further investigation, particularly the potential adap-
tations that may occur over the course of weeks or
months. However, it is tentatively suggested that
rugby players and other athletes can undertake a
complex training programme that incorporates plyo-
metrics and heavy resistance exercise during the
competitive season. It appears that countermove-
ment jumps should not be performed before sprint-
ing to facilitate performance during sprint training
sessions but that loaded parallel squats can co-exist
with sprint training in a complex training format
without sacrificing sprint performance. Arguably the
time-saving and practical benefits of being able to
combine power- and speed-based activities within a
heavy resistance exercise training programme could
be advantageous to rugby union players in what is
habitually an intricate and demanding phase of the
rugby calendar. It is recommended that future
research should examine the precise underlying
neuromuscular mechanisms that may be attributable
for the performance-enhancing effects of plyometrics
on heavy resistance exercise.
References
Baker, D., & Newton, R. U. (2005). Acute effect on power output
of alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during
complex training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
19, 202–205.
Bogdanis, G. C., Nevill, M. E., & Lakomy, H. K. A. (1995).
Recovery of power output and muscle metabolites following
30 s of maximal sprint cycling in man. Journal of Physiology,
282, 467–480.
Burger, T., Boyer-Kendrick, T., & Dolny, D. (2000). Complex
training compared to a combined weight training and plyo-
metric training program. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 14, 360.
Chu, D. A. (1996). Explosive power and strength: Complex training
for maximum results. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ebben, W. P., Jensen, R. L., & Blackard, D. O. (2000).
Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of complex training
variables. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 451–
456.
Ellis, L., Gastin, P., Lawrence, S., Savage, B., Buckeridge, A.,
Stapff, A., et al. (2000). Protocols for the physiological
assessment of team sport players. In C. J. Gore (Ed.),
Physiological tests for elite athletes (pp. 128–144). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
French, D. N., Kraemer, W. J., & Cooke, C. B. (2003). Changes
in dynamic exercise performance following a sequence of
preconditioning isometric muscle actions. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 17, 678–685.
Gourgoulis, V., Aggeloussis, N., Kasimatis, P., Mavromatis, G., &
Garas, A. (2003). Effect of a submaximal half-squat warm-up
program on vertical jumping ability. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 17, 342–344.
Gullich, A. D., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (1996). MVC-induced
short-term potentiation of explosive force. New Studies in
Athletics, 4, 67–81.
Henneman, E., Somjen, G., & Carpenter, D. O. (1985).
Functional significance of cell size in apinal motorneurones.
Journal of Neurophysiology, 28, 560–580.
Hodgson, M., Docherty, D., & Robbins, D. (2005). Post-
activation potentiation – underlying physiology and implica-
tions for motor performance. Sports Medicine, 35, 585–595.

Jones, P., & Lees, A. (2003). A biomechanical analysis of the acute
effects of complex training using lower limb exercises. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 17, 694–700.
MacIntosh, B. R., & Rassier, D. E. (2002). What is fatigue?
Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 27, 42–55.
Masamoto, N., Larson, R., Gates, T., & Faigenbaum, A. V.
(2003). Acute effects of plyometric exercise on maximum squat
performance in male athletes. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research, 17, 68–71.
Radcliffe, J. C., & Radcliffe, J. L. (1999). Effects of different
warm-up protocols on peak power output during a single
response jump task. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
38, S189.
Sale, D. G. (2002). Postactivation potentiation: Role in human
performance. Exercise and Sports Science Reviews, 30, 138–143.
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1992). Training for power events. In Strength
and power in sport (pp. 381–395). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.
Schmidtbleicher, D., Gollhofer, A., & Frick, U. (1988). Effects of
a stretch–shortening type training on the performance capability
and innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. In
A. G. de Groot (Ed.), Biomechanics XI-A, vol. 7 (pp. 185–189).
Amsterdam: Free University Press.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 20:29 11 September 2011
Complex training for rugby 809
Sleivert, G. G., & Taingahue, M. (2002). The relationship
between maximal jump-squat power and sprint acceleration in
team sport athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87,
264–271.
Smilios, I., Pilianidis, T., Sotiropoulos, K., Antonakis, M., &
Tokmakidis, S. P. (2005). Short-term effects of selected
exercise and load in contrast training on vertical jump
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19,
135–139.
Smith, J. C., Fry, A. C., Weiss, L. W., Li, Y., & Kinzey, S. J.
(2001). The effects of high-intensity exercise on a 10-second
sprint cycle test. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
15, 344–348.
Young, W. B., Jenner, A., & Griffiths, K. (1998). Acute
enhancement of power performance from heavy load squats.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 12, 82–84.