Efficacy of complex training on angular velocity of shoulder in collegiate basketball players

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at the time of ball release is a crucial factor deciding the ball velocity in throwing. Even though there are some studies conducted regarding the effectiveness of complex training on the lower limb, the researchers has not given much attention to the upper limb.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the efficacy of a complex training program combining plyometric and weight training on the angular velocity of shoulder with a program composed of only plyometric training or only weight training.

METHODS:

It was a pre-test – post-test experimental study. Thirty healthy male collegiate basketball players were randomly divided into three groups: Plyometric training group ( $n=$ 10), weight training group ( $n=$ 10), complex training group which includes both plyometric training and weight training ( $n=$ 10). The training was given for six weeks with a frequency of two days per week. Subjects were measured for angular velocity of shoulder before and after the training period by using Biodex upper body cycle. All the three groups were compared by using one way ANOVA. Post-hoc fisher least significant difference (LSD) test was used to find out the difference between groups.

RESULTS:

All the groups showed a significant gain in angular velocity after the six-week training period ( $p<$ 0.05). However, the improvement attained in complex training group were significantly greater than other training groups ( $p<$ 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

The study concluded that a combination of plyometric and weight training (complex training) can improve the angular velocity of shoulder in male collegiate basketball players more than plyometric or weight training alone.

Keywords

Plyometric training complex training athletic performance upper extremity upper body cycle

1. Introduction

Throwing is a popular form of action in many sports such as baseball, throw ball, basketball, cricket, javelin, etc. Overhead serve in tennis, the badminton smash, and serve or spike in volleyball are actions which are similar to throwing activity and have similar mechanics. The relationship between upper body muscle strength and throwing velocity has been reported by some of the previous researchers [1, 2]. It is a known fact that improvement in muscular power gives the athlete an increased chance of high performance [3]. Van den Tillar et al. [4] and Wagner et al. [5] conducted a comprehensive analysis of throwing activity in handball players. Both the research team concluded that shoulder internal rotation angular velocity at the time of ball release is a crucial factor deciding the ball velocity in throwing.

Plyometric has been introduced in the sports world in the early 1970s and has become one of the most crucial component of all the sports training and conditioning programs [6]. It is commonly used by the sports person and coaches for the improvement of explosive power by the stretch-shortening cycle [7]. The plyometric training program can be incorporated and combined with other training program, or it can be given as a standalone exercise. It can be performed with upper limb or lower limb at varying intensity levels [8]. Researchers show that upper limb plyometric are the one of the most valuable tools to improve upper limb power that eventually enhance throwing performance in handball and rugby players [9, 10, 11]. Carter et al. [12] reported a significant gain in internal and external rotation strength after eight weeks of ‘ballistic six plyometric protocol’ in intercollegiate baseball players. Swanik et al. [13] also reported a significant improvement in isokinetic strength of internal and external rotators of shoulder joint after six weeks Plyometric training in female swimmers.

Complex training provides a combination of resistance training and biomechanically similar plyometric program in the same session with a minimal rest period [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Even though there are some studies conducted regarding the effectiveness of complex training on lower limb, the researchers has not given much attention to the upper body. Some studies with conflicting result have been reported regarding the effectiveness of combination of plyometric training and weight training on upper limb [19, 20, 21, 22]. Jensen et al. [19] conducted a biomechanical and EMG analysis of combination of strength training and plyometric training. The researchers concluded that both training methods are equally useful in motor unit activation and force output produced. Faignbaum et al. [23] and Zepeda et al. [24] compared the effectiveness of complex training and other weight training protocol in children and female basketball players respectively. Both the researchers concluded that complex training was equally effective but not superior to weight training programs on improving upper limb power. Ebben et al. [20] also reported a similar result in athletic population. At the same time, Evans et al. [21] reported a superiority of complex training with noncomplex training method. In a recent research conducted by Shafeeq et al. [22] confirms the superiority of complex training (plyometric training and weight training) on plyometric and weight training alone in non-athletic population. Most of the studies designed to find out the effectiveness of plyometric or weight training on upper limb assessed the isokinetic strength of the internal and external rotator muscles of the shoulder and none of these studies assessed the angular velocity. None of the researchers studied the impact of complex training on the angular velocity of the upper limb or shoulder. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the impact of a program combining plyometric training and weight training on the angular velocity of the shoulder and compare it with plyometric and weight training separately. We hypothesised that the complex training combining of plyometric and weight training will be more effective than plyometric and weight training alone in improving shoulder angular velocity in collegiate basketball players.

2. Methods

2.1 Subjects

Thirty healthy collegiate male basketball players between the age group of 16–25 years from Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi were recruited for the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Athletes who had already undergone plyometric training, athletes with recent musculoskeletal injuries; athletes with biomechanical abnormalities, and athletes with disabilities in the shoulder or elbow were excluded from the study. The participants were informed about the procedure, possible risks and benefits of the study, and a written informed consent was obtained. All the subjects were familiar with the strength training but novice to plyometric training and were involved in an almost similar type of training activities as they were supervised by the same trainer from the university. All the subjects had prior basketball experience of at least three years. The subjects were in their offseason conditioning program at the time of testing and they were instructed to maintain their normal dietary habits during the study. All the participants were screened by using the questionnaire and physical evaluation of the subjects was conducted by a certified physical therapist. The study was approved by the institutional ethical committee of Jamia Hamdard and the institutional review board of Jamia Hamdard. The testing was done at the physical therapy laboratory of the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Jamia Hamdard. The design of the study was a pre-test – post-test design.

Table 1
Summary of the plyometric training program

Plyometric exercises	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Level 4
	Day 1 – week 1		Day 2 – week 2		Day 1 – week 4		Day 2 – week 5
	Day 2 – week 1		Day 1 – week 3		Day 2 – week 4		Day 1 – week 6
	Day 1 – week 2		Day 2 – week 3		Day 1 – week 5		Day 2 – week 6
	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight
Double arm overhead throw Double arm chest passDouble arm side to side throwDouble arm through leg throw	3 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 6 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	6lb	3 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 8 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	6lb	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 7 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	8lb	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 7 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	8lb

2.2 Data acquisition

All the thirty subjects underwent a pre-test assessment of angular velocity by using arm cycle ergometer (Biodex Upper Body Cycle; 950-146; Biodex medical system; Shirley; NY, UK). Prior to data collection all the participants took part in a single introductory session. All the subjects were informed not to involve any of the physical training other than their regular training and not to change their dietary habits. During this session the researchers demonstrated each training and testing methods to the participants and they were allowed to practice. The same equipment and techniques were used for familiarisation and testing. The pre-test was done in a single session two days before the initiation of training protocols. Subjects were allowed to perform 10 minutes’ warm-up before testing. The warm up were including the anterior and posterior shoulder stretch, anterior, superior and inferior capsular stretch. To perform the pre-test, the subjects were asked to rotate the upper body cycle for sixty seconds with maximal effort without resistance. The researcher has given verbal encouragement to all the participants during the testing. The RPM (Revolutions per minute) obtained as output were converted into angular velocity.

2.3 Training protocol

After the completion of pre-test, subjects were randomly allocated to three groups, each group consisting of 10 subjects. Group A – plyometric training, Group B – weight training and Group C – complex training. Before the initiation of training protocol, all the subjects were instructed regarding the proper execution of the exercises in the training. The training continued for six weeks with a frequency of two days per week. The researchers supervised all the training sessions. Not more than two training session was missed by any of the participants. The exercises were progressed its difficulty by increasing repetition and weight of the medicine ball (for the plyometric group) and weight of the plates (weight training groups) in every week.

2.3.1 Group A: Plyometric training

All the plyometric exercise was done by using a medicine ball. The plyometric training program used in the study was based on previous researchers and finding by different researchers [25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. The plyometric exercises given to the subjects were double arm overhead throw, double arm chest pass, double arm side-to-side throw, double arm through leg throw, with a 30 sec of rest between each set (Table 1). As the subjects were novice to plyometrics and to avoid the risk of injuries the intensity of the training was kept low in the first week and progressively increased from next week onwards [30].

2.3.2 Group B: Weight training

The weight training group performed the following exercises: Frontal raise, prone extension, shoulder abduction, external rotation, internal rotation, biceps curl, triceps curl, forearm supination, forearm pronation, wrist flexion and extension. The weight training program was selected according to some of the previous findings [12, 31] (Table 2).

2.3.3 Group C: Complex training

The subjects in this group underwent both the training pattern given to groups A and B with the reduced intensity by 25% [32]. An intra-complex rest interval (ICRI) of eight minutes was given between weight training and plyometric training [30].

Post-test outcome measure angular velocities were again measured and recorded.

Table 2
Summary of the resistance training program

Weight training	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Level 4
	Day 1 – week 1		Day 2 – week 2		Day 1 – week 4		Day 2 – week 5
	Day 2 – week 1		Day 1 – week 3		Day 2 – week 4		Day 1 – week 6
	Day 1 – week 2		Day 2 – week 3		Day 1 – week 5		Day 2 – week 6
	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight	Sets x repetition	Weight
Frontal raise	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 10 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	40% of	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 10 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	60% of	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 8 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	80% of	4 ${}_{\text{sets}}$ X 6 ${}_{\text{reps}}$	1000% of
Prone extension		1RM		1RM		1RM		1RM
Shoulder abduction
External rotation
Internal rotation
Biceps curl
Triceps curl
Forearm supination
Forearm pronation
Wrist curl (flexion)
Wrist curl (extension)

Table 3

Demographic data and pre-test angular velocity

	Group A	Group B	Group C	$p$ -value
Age (years)	22.70 $\pm$ 1.41	22.30 $\pm$ 1.63	23.30 $\pm$ 1.41	0.336
Height (cm)	160.90 $\pm$ 8.46	164.80 $\pm$ 10.75	167.30 $\pm$ 8.05	0.306
Weight (kg)	59.10 $\pm$ 6.34	58.80 $\pm$ 6.01	56.60 $\pm$ 2.54	0.518
Pre-test angular velocity (rad/sec)	9.64 $\pm$ 1.14	9.86 $\pm$ 1.63	10.32 $\pm$ 1.46	0.563

Values are Mean $\pm$ SD.

2.4 Statistical analysis

All analysis was obtained using SPSS (version 16.0 SPSS Inc). Demographic data of subjects including age, weight, height and sex were descriptively summarized. The dependent variable for statistical analysis was Angular Velocity. All the three groups were compared by using one way ANOVA. Post-hoc fisher least significant difference (LSD) test was used to find out the difference between groups. Pre-test and post-test data were compared using a paired sample t-test within each group. A 0.05 level of significance was used for all comparisons.

3. Results

The demographic data and pre-test of the subjects of all the three groups were compared, and the result showed that no significant difference age, weight, height and pre-test angular velocity between these groups ( $p>$ 0.05) (Table 3). Within group analysis to find out the difference in angular velocity in pre and post-test showed a significant difference in all the groups ( $p<$ 0.05) (Table 4). When the post-test values were compared, the combination training group showed a significantly better improvement in angular velocity than the other groups ( $p<$ 0.05). At the same time, there was no significant difference between plyometric and weight training group in post-test angular velocity ( $p>$ 0.05) (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Table 4

Comparison of pre- and post-test value of angular velocity in all groups

Group	Angular velocity	Angular velocity	$p$ -value
	pre-test value	post-test value
Group A	9.64 $\pm$ 1.14	11.05 $\pm$ 1.27	0.000
Group B	9.86 $\pm$ 1.63	11.20 $\pm$ 1.81	0.000
Group C	10.32 $\pm$ 1.46	12.50 $\pm$ 1.71	0.000

Values are Mean $\pm$ SD in rad/sec.

Table 5

Between-group comparison of angular velocity difference

	Group A	Group B	Group C	ANOVA		Post hoc analysis (LSD)
	$N=$ 10	$N=$ 10	$N=$ 10	F	p	A v/s B ‘P’	A v/s C ‘P’	B v/s C ‘P’
Angular velocity diff.	1.41 $\pm$ 0.41	1.34 $\pm$ 0.63	2.34 $\pm$ 0.46	11.95	0.000	1.000	0.001	0.000

Values are Mean $\pm$ SD in rad/sec.

All the training protocols in the study followed the principles of progressive overload. The intensity of the training and load was increased in every week. The result showed that both plyometric training and weight training leads to a gain in the angular velocity, but its combination found more effective. The findings of this research add values to some of the previous studies which showed an improvement in performance after plyometric and weight training [3, 23, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35]. de Villarreal et al. [3] studies the effectiveness of a combined training approach which includes plyometric training, squatting and counter jump on different performance characteristics in the non-athletic population. The researchers noticed a slight improvement in maximal strength and velocity of displacement in subjects those who have undergone a combined training program. Rodriguez-Rosell et al. [34] suggested that a combined weight training and plyometric training is an efficient method in improving the activities which involves acceleration and deceleration movements. The result of our study is also in agreement with the study conducted by Faigenbaum et al. [23]. The researchers compared the effect of six weeks of a combination of plyometric and resistance training with a resistance training program in fitness performance in boys between the ages 12–15. The resistance training group were given a statics starching followed by a resistance training program whereas the combined training group performed both resistance training and plyometric training. The plyometric program they used for the study was focusing on both upper limb and lower limb. The experiment showed a significant improvement in the performance measures like long jump, medicine ball toss and agility shuttle run in the subject who performed both plyometric and resistance training than the group performed resistance training and stretching. Experiments conducted by Adams et al. [32] and Bevan et al. [30] also concluded that combining weight training with plyometric training can improve muscular performance. A similar conclusion was done by Myer et al. [33] who reported a six-week combination training including plyometric, speed and weight training can lead to a significant gain in performance in female athletes. The finding of our study is supported by Baker et al. [36] who claims an improvement in power outputs after a complex training protocol with an ICRI of three minutes. However the participants of Baker’s research was elite athlete with prior experience in complex training methods. But the subjects in our study was of collegiate level without any experience in complex training.

The effectiveness of resistance training of shoulder joint on throwing performance has been reported by different researchers. Veliz et al. [37] found a meaningful improvement in throwing velocity after eighteen weeks of higher intensity resistance training in elite water polo players. Hermassi et al. [10] compared resistance throwing training program with a regular throwing program. The researchers found that the resistance throwing training by using medicine ball was more beneficial than throwing training without resistance. Escamilla et al. [38] and Raeder et al. [39] also reported an improvement in throwing velocity after a six week of resistance training in the athletic population.

Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of plyometric training on upper limb performance. It is considered as one of the most useful tools for the enhancement of throwing performance in track and field throwing [10]and baseball throwing [12]. Chelly et al. [9] reported an improvement in ball throwing velocity after the biweekly plyometric program for eight weeks in adolescent handball players. Singh et al. [40] conducted a study on the effectiveness ‘ballistic six plyometric training’ in Indian medium pace cricket bowlers. They concluded that the plyometric training program caused a significant improvement in bowling velocity, hence performance in cricket players.

In plyometric, the muscle involved undergo a rapid switching from eccentric phase to a concentric phase called stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) [41]. This SSC decreases transition phase and helps in greater power production. The weight training caused an increase in the strength of the muscles and plyometric exploit the SSC [9]. The muscular strength gained by weight training might have caused to produce a more forceful eccentric and concentric contraction and thus creating a strong and rapid SSC in the subjects who has undergone complex training [30, 32]. Improvement may also be due to neuromuscular adaptation such as increased inhibition of antagonistic muscles as well as better activation and contraction of synergistic muscles.

We have demonstrated that a combination of plyometric training and weight training improves the angular velocity of the shoulder joint. The plyometric training program and weight training program act as a synergist i.e. their combination effect were greater than their individual effect. According to Hodgson et al. [42] complex training may stimulate the excitability of motor units, may increase the phosphorylation of myosin light chain making the myofilament more calcium sensitive and may also decrease the presynaptic inhibition which ultimately leads to an improved power output. This mechanism which is known as post activation potential (PAP) can be the physiological rationale behind improved muscle performance in complex training group. Robbins et al. [43] also claims that improvement of force output in complex training is due to PAP. It is important to utilise the optimal PAP recovery period for significant improvement in performance. We used an ICRI of eight minutes to utilise the optimal PAP recovery period which was recommended by some of the previous researchers [30, 44, 45].

However, there were some limitations to this study. Researchers were not able to assess the total work performed during different training session in each group. There is a high chance that the combination group may have been exposed to high training stimulus in comparison to other groups. The activity level of the subjects was not measured before the start of the study. Even though there was no significant difference in the baseline measures between the groups, there may be a chance of a difference in the activity level of the subjects in each group. We were not able to use any physiological measures such as MRI, EMG or evoked contractile properties to describe the underlying mechanism in training adaptation. Athletes who participated in the study were of collegiate level. It is recommended to conduct similar studies with professional athletes (i.e. overhead athletes) who participate in national and international competitions. Isokinetic data and EMG can be incorporated in the study. An isokinetic machine can provide more accurate readings at particular angles to measure angular velocity. EMG can be used to measure the number of neuron recruitments at different angles to improvise angular velocity. The effectiveness of a combined training protocol in the post-rehabilitation program to overcome the weak angles especially in throwing and racquet sports can also be done as a future research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and support received from the teaching and clinical staff of the Physical Therapy Department at Hamdard University during the data collection process.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Pedegana

Elsner

Roberts

Lang

Farewell

. The relationship of upper extremity strength to throwing speed. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 1982; 10(6): 352-4.

Marques

van den Tilaar

Vescovi

Gonzalez-Badillo

. Relationship between throwing velocity, muscle power, and bar velocity during bench press in elite handball players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 2007; 2(4): 414-22.

de Villarreal

Requena

Izquierdo

Gonzalez-Badillo

. Enhancing sprint and strength performance: Combined versus maximal power, traditional heavy-resistance and plyometric training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2013; 16(2): 146-50.

Van den Tillaar

Ettema

. Back issues. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2004; 3: 211-9.

Wagner

Müller

. Motor learning of complex movements. The effects of applied training methods (differential and variable training) to the quality parameters (ball velocity, accuracy and kinematics) of a handball throw. Sports Biomechanics 2008; 7: 54-71.

Singh

. Effects of vertical and horizontal plyometric exercises on running speed. Human Movement 2013; 14(2): 144-7.

Nuhmani

Sharma

. Comparison of internal and external attentional focusing strategy on power gain with plyometric on upper limb. Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy Journal 2013; 6(3): 117.

Booth

Orr

. Effects of plyometric training on sports performance. Strength and Conditioning Journal 2016; 38(1): 30-7.

Chelly

Hermassi

Aouadi

Shephard

. Effects of 8-week in-season plyometric training on upper and lower limb performance of elite adolescent handball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2014; 28(5): 1401-10.

10.

Hermassi

Van den Tillaar

Khlifa

Chelly

Chamari

. Comparison of in-season-specific resistance vs. a regular throwing training program on throwing velocity, anthropometry, and power performance in elite handball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2015; 29(8): 2105-14.

11.

Cadore

Pinheiro

Izquierdo

Correa

Radaelli

Martins

, et al. Neuromuscular, hormonal, and metabolic responses to different plyometric training volumes in rugby players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2013; 27(11): 3001-10.

12.

Carter

Kaminski

Douex Jr

Knight

Richards

. Effects of high volume upper extremity plyometric training on throwing velocity and functional strength ratios of the shoulder rotators in collegiate baseball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2007; 21(1): 208-15.

13.

Swanik

Lephart

Swanik

Lephart

Stone

. The effects of shoulder plyometric training on proprioception and selected muscle performance characteristics. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 2002; 11(6): 579-86.

14.

Ebben

. Complex training: A brief review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2002.

15.

Ebben

Blackard

. Complex training with combined explosive weight training and plyometric exercises. Olympic Coach 1997; 7(4): 11-2.

16.

Comyns

Harrison

Hennessy

Jensen

. The optimal complex training rest interval for athletes from anaerobic sports. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength and Conditioning Association 2006; 20(3): 471-6.

17.

Matthews

Comfort

. Applying complex training principles to boxing: A practical approach. Strength and Conditioning Journal 2008; 30(5): 12-5.

18.

Robbins

Young

Behm

Payne

. Effects of agonist-antagonist complex resistance training on upper body strength and power development. Journal of Sports Sciences 2009; 27(14): 1617-25. PubMed PMID: 19967584, Epub 2009/12/08, Eng.

19.

Jensen

Blackard

Ebben

McLaughlin

Watts

. Kinetic and electromyographic analyses of combined strength and plyometric training in women basketball players. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1999; 31(5): S193.

20.

Ebben

Watts

Jensen

Blackard

. EMG and kinetic analysis of complex training exercise variables. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2000; 14(4): 451-6.

21.

Evans

Hodgkins

Durham

Berning

Adams

. The acute effects of a 5RM bench press on power output. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise 2000; 32(5): S311.

22.

Shafeeq

Dhinu

Paul

Singh

. Impact of isolated and combined resistance training and plyometric training on strength and power outputs. Brazilian Journal of Biomotricity 2013; 7(2).

23.

Faigenbaum

McFarland

Keiper

Tevlin

Ratamess

Kang

, et al. Back Issues. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2007; 6: 519-25.

24.

Zepeda

Gonzalez

. Complex training: Three weeks pre-season conditioning in division I female basketball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2000; 14(3): 372.

25.

Wilk

Voight

Keirns

Gambetta

Andrews

Dillman

. Stretch-shortening drills for the upper extremities: Theory and clinical application. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 1993; 17(5): 225-39.

26.

Vossen

Kramer

Burke

Vossen

. Comparison of dynamic push-up training and plyometric push-up training on upper-body power and strength. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2000; 14(3): 248-53.

27.

Chaouachi

Hammami

Kaabi

Chamari

Drinkwater

Behm

. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2014; 28(6): 1483-96.

28.

Gelen

Dede

Bergun Meric Bingul

Aydin

. Acute effects of static stretching, dynamic exercises, and high volume upper extremity plyometric activity on tennis serve performance. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2012; 11(4): 600.

29.

Wilk

Arrigo

. Current concepts in the rehabilitation of the athletic shoulder. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 1993; 18(1): 365-78.

30.

Bevan

Owen

Cunningham

Kingsley

Kilduff

. Complex training in professional rugby players: Influence of recovery time on upper-body power output. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength and Conditioning Association 2009; 23(6): 1780-5.

31.

Hand

Verscheure

Osternig

. A comparison of whole-body vibration and resistance training on total work in the rotator cuff. Journal of Athletic Training 2009; 44(5): 469.

32.

Adams

O’Shea

Climstein

. The effect of six weeks of squat, plyometric and squat-plyometric training on power production. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 1992; 6(1): 36-41.

33.

Myer

Ford

Palumbo

Hewett

. Neuromuscular training improves performance and lower-extremity biomechanics in female athletes. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2005; 19(1): 51-60.

34.

Rodriguez-Rosell

Torres-Torrelo

Franco-Marquez

Gonzalez-Suarez

González-Badillo

. Effects of light-load maximal lifting velocity weight training vs. combined weight training and plyometrics on sprint, vertical jump and strength performance in adult soccer players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2017; 20(7): 695-9.

35.

Kobal

Loturco

Barroso

Gil

Cuniyochi

Ugrinowitsch

Roschel

Tricoli

. Effects of different combinations of strength, power, and plyometric training on the physical performance of elite young soccer players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2017; 31(6): 1468-76.

36.

Baker

Newton

. Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength and Conditioning Association 2005; 19(1): 202-5.

37.

Veliz

Requena

Suarez-Arrones

Newton

de Villarreal

. Effects of 18-week in-season heavy-resistance and power training on throwing velocity, strength, jumping, and maximal sprint swim performance of elite male water polo players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2014; 28(4): 1007-14.

38.

Escamilla

Ionno

Scott deMahy

Fleisig

Wilk

Yamashiro

, et al. Comparison of three baseball-specific 6-week training programs on throwing velocity in high school baseball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2012; 26(7): 1767-81.

39.

Raeder

Fernandez-Fernandez

Ferrauti

. Effects of six weeks of medicine ball training on throwing velocity, throwing precision, and isokinetic strength of shoulder rotators in female handball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2015; 29(7): 1904-14.

40.

Singh

Gopal

Sandhu

. The effect of ‘Ballistic Six’ plyometric training on performance of medium pace Asian Indian cricket bowlers. Saudi Journal of Sports Medicine 2014; 14(2): 94.

41.

Turner

Jeffreys

. The stretch-shortening cycle: Proposed mechanisms and methods for enhancement. Strength and Conditioning Journal 2010; 32(4): 87-99.

42.

Hodgson

Docherty

Robbins

. Post-activation potentiation. Sports Medicine 2005; 35(7): 585-95.

43.

Robbins

. Post activation potentiation and its practical applicability. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2005; 19(2): 453-8.

44.

Kilduff

Bevan

Kingsley

Owen

Bennett

Bunce

, et al. Post activation potentiation in professional rugby players: Optimal recovery. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2007; 21(4): 1134-8.

45.

Kilduff

Owen

Bevan

Bennett

Kingsley

Cunningham

. Influence of recovery time on post-activation potentiation in professional rugby players. Journal of Sports Sciences 2008; 26(8): 795-802.

Efficacy of complex training on angular velocity of shoulder in collegiate basketball players

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION:

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 Subjects

Table 1 Summary of the plyometric training program

2.3 Training protocol

2.3.1 Group A: Plyometric training

2.3.2 Group B: Weight training

2.3.3 Group C: Complex training

Table 2 Summary of the resistance training program

3. Results

4. Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Table 1
Summary of the plyometric training program

Table 2
Summary of the resistance training program