Complex and Functional Training Extract from Supertraining

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