A post from Mel Siff and his Yahoo Group at health.groups.yahoo.com/group/supertraining , the best of which can be found at melsiff.com
Here is an extract from my book which defines "complex training" as it
was formally conceived as a training approach in Russia. If one analyses
this information in some depth, it will be seen how it also applies to what
constitutes 'functional training' and how 'functional training' may be
integrated into an overall complex or concentrated loading scheme of physical
preparation. Well-meaning attempts to separate all training into
"functional" and "non-functional" training thus may be seen to be often
misleading and inaccurate, because a complex (at the level of the single
session or microcycle) comprising "functional" and "non-functional", machine
and free weight, two dimensional and three-dimensional, training can still
produce a perfectly acceptable scheme to achieve "functional training". One
cannot categorically label a given exercise or form of training as
"functional" or "non-functional" without considering the context of the
specific training stage and individual involved.
A post from Mel Siff and his Yahoo Group at health.groups.yahoo.com/group/supertraining , the best of which can be found at melsiff.com
Here is an extract from my book which defines "complex training" as it
was formally conceived as a training approach in Russia. If one analyses
this information in some depth, it will be seen how it also applies to what
constitutes 'functional training' and how 'functional training' may be
integrated into an overall complex or concentrated loading scheme of physical
preparation. Well-meaning attempts to separate all training into
"functional" and "non-functional" training thus may be seen to be often
misleading and inaccurate, because a complex (at the level of the single
session or microcycle) comprising "functional" and "non-functional", machine
and free weight, two dimensional and three-dimensional, training can still
produce a perfectly acceptable scheme to achieve "functional training". One
cannot categorically label a given exercise or form of training as
"functional" or "non-functional" without considering the context of the
specific training stage and individual involved.
COMPLEX TRAINING
(Siff MC "Supertraining" 2000 Ch 6, pp 367-368)
<>
namely the complex and the concentrated loading methods. Complex loading
involves prescription of multi-faceted training regimes to achieve several
different fitness objectives over the same period, whereas the concentrated
loading method concentrates for a given period on producing a single major
specific fitness quality via the use of a unidirectional regime of training.
Complex training refers to the concurrent use of different training means in
the same workout, microcycle or mesocycle. For instance, a complex workout
might comprise resistance training, plyometrics and sprinting; a complex
microcycle (typically a week) might employ those same training means on
different days or during different sessions on the same day. If complex
means are to be utilised, it is essential to understand fully how the
different means and exercises interact with one another, as determined by the
acute and delayed after-effects of each (discussed earlier in this chapter).
In addition, the prescription of complex means depends on the individual, the
level of proficiency of the athlete, the specific objective, and the stage of
the training programme, especially the proximity to important competitions
"Complex training", which involves concurrent (during one workout or
microcycle) and parallel (prolonged stages of training, up to a year) use of
several training tasks and loads of different primary emphasis, is usually
regarded as the most effective form of training construction. This is a
direct result of considerable early research that supported the principle of
complex organisation of training. The results showed that the athlete
achieves balanced and multi-faceted physical fitness, that development of one
motor ability contributes to the development of others and that multifaceted
loading improves strength, speed of movement and endurance to a greater
extent than unidirectional exercise (Krestovnikov, 1951; Letunov et al.,
1954; Zimkin, 1956; Korobkov et al, 1960).
Consequently, arguments were propounded for unifying the GPP and SPP, and
combining personal qualities to determine training methods, independent of
the athlete's level of qualification. Complex training became preferred over
the unidirectional approach, with its inherently monotonous workouts that
tend to diminish conditioning effectiveness and promote one-sided physical
preparation.
Prolonged unidirectional work (focused on developing factors such as strength
or speed) apparently causes the body to adapt to loading with the dominant
involvement of only some of the physiological mechanisms and does not create
conditions for specific adaptation to competition activities. Parallel
loading of different emphasis was shown to simultaneously improve different
physiological functions in the necessary balance for various sports
(Matveyev, 1970).
All of these concepts are indisputable in principle and are important as the
most general guidelines, serving as the fundamentals of physical education
and sport training. However, the research supporting these ideas was done
many years ago and utilised athletes of low qualification. Had advanced
athletes taken part in these studies, then their achievements would have been
only average with respect to modern criteria. Besides this, the form of
loading in those days was different. Therefore, under modern conditions this
loading would be applicable only to beginners or athletes of average
qualification.
According to Verkhoshansky (1977), there generally appears to be little
advantage for high-level athletes to utilise the complex system of training,
although one should not dismiss their possible value at different stages of
training with certain individuals in specific cases. Arguments in favour of
another approach may be based on more progressive sports practice, involving
the search to overcome the major deficiencies of the complex system of
training, in particular the following:
1. Highly qualified athletes have a very high level of special physical
preparedness. To raise this significantly to improve sports proficiency, one
must use strong and relatively prolonged training influences of appropriate
emphasis. Complex training does not achieve this. In complex training, the
distribution of the volume of special loading (see Ch 6.7.4) is not able to
provoke extensive adaptation of the necessary emphasis.
2. There is a definite specificity in the structure of the physical
preparedness of high-level athletes. Complex training, with its multifaceted
influence on the body, cannot create the conditions necessary for producing
highly specific physical preparedness. Besides this, complex training at high
volume accentuates the need to establish specific relationships between the
processes which develop separate systems of the body, as well as between the
training effects of loading of different primary emphasis.
3. Highly qualified athletes have to execute the competition activities
expertly and with precise control. Extensive complex loading to
simultaneously perfect sport technique and special physical preparedness
inevitably leads to general fatigue and deterioration of this control.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/supplements-and-vitamins-articles/complex-and-functional-training-extract-from-supertraining-111
Read More......
