@misc{LesinskiMuehlbauerBueschetal.2014,
  author    = {Lesinski, Melanie and M{\"u}hlbauer, Thomas and Buesch, Dirk and Granacher, Urs},
  title     = {Effects of complex training on strength and speed performance in athletes: A systematic review effects of complex training on athletic performance},
  series = {Sportverletzung, Sportschaden : Grundlagen, Pr{\"a}vention, Rehabilitation},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Sportverletzung, Sportschaden : Grundlagen, Pr{\"a}vention, Rehabilitation},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Thieme},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0932-0555},
  doi       = {10.1055/s-0034-1366145},
  pages     = {85 -- 107},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background: Post-activation potentiation (PAP) can elicit acute performance enhancements in variables of strength, power, and speed. However, it is unresolved whether the frequent integration of PAP eliciting conditioning activities in training (i.e., complex training) results in long-term adaptations. In this regard, it is of interest to know whether complex training results in larger performance enhancements as compared to more traditional and isolated training regimens (e. g., resistance training). Thus, this systematic literature review summarises the current state of the art regarding the effects of complex training on measures of strength, power, and speed in recreational, subelite, and elite athletes. Further, it provides information on training volume and intensities that proved to be effective. Methods: Our literature search included the electronic databases Pubmed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (1995 to September 2013). In total, 17 studies met the inclusionary criteria for review. Ten studies examined alternating complex training and 7 studies sequenced complex training. Results: Our findings indicated small to large effects for both alternating complex training (countermovement jump height: +7.4 \% [ESd = -0.43]; squat jump height: +9.8 \% [ESd = -0.66]; sprint time: -2.4\% [ESd = 0.63]) and sequenced complex training (countermovement jump height: +6.0 \% [ESd = -0.83]; squat jump height: +11.9\% [ESd = -0.97], sprint time: -0.7\% [ESd = 0.52]) in measures of power and speed. As compared to more traditional training regimens, alternating and sequenced complex training showed only small effects in measures of strength, power, and speed. A more detailed analysis of alternating complex training revealed larger effects in countermovement jump height in recreational athletes (+9.7\% [ESd = -0.57]) as compared to subelite and elite athletes (+2.7\% [ESd = -0.15]). Based on the relevant and currently available literature, missing data (e.g., time for rest interval) and diverse information regarding training volume and intensity do not allow us to establish evidence-based dose-response relations for complex training. Conclusion: Complex training represents an effective training regimen for athletes if the goal is to enhance strength, power, and speed. Studies with high methodological quality have to be conducted in the future to elucidate whether complex training is less, similar, or even more effective compared to more traditional training regimens. Finally, it should be clarified whether alternated and/or sequenced conditioning activities implemented in complex training actually elicit acute PAP effects.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{BehmYoungWhittenetal.2017,
  author    = {Behm, David George and Young, James D. and Whitten, Joseph H. D. and Reid, Jonathan C. and Quigley, Patrick J. and Low, Jonathan and Li, Yimeng and Lima, Camila D. and Hodgson, Daniel D. and Chaouachi, Anis and Prieske, Olaf and Granacher, Urs},
  title     = {Effectiveness of Traditional Strength vs. Power Training on Muscle Strength, Power and Speed with Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis},
  series = {Frontiers in physiology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in physiology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-042X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fphys.2017.00423},
  pages     = {37},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Numerous national associations and multiple reviews have documented the safety and efficacy of strength training for children and adolescents. The literature highlights the significant training-induced increases in strength associated with youth strength training. However, the effectiveness of youth strength training programs to improve power measures is not as clear. This discrepancy may be related to training and testing specificity. Most prior youth strength training programs emphasized lower intensity resistance with relatively slow movements. Since power activities typically involve higher intensity, explosive-like contractions with higher angular velocities (e.g., plyometrics), there is a conflict between the training medium and testing measures. This meta-analysis compared strength (e.g., training with resistance or body mass) and power training programs (e.g., plyometric training) on proxies of muscle strength, power, and speed. A systematic literature search using a Boolean Search Strategy was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, SPORT Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and revealed 652 hits. After perusal of title, abstract, and full text, 107 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed small to moderate magnitude changes for training specificity with jump measures. In other words, power training was more effective than strength training for improving youth jump height. For sprint measures, strength training was more effective than power training with youth. Furthermore, strength training exhibited consistently large magnitude changes to lower body strength measures, which contrasted with the generally trivial, small and moderate magnitude training improvements of power training upon lower body strength, sprint and jump measures, respectively. Maturity related inadequacies in eccentric strength and balance might influence the lack of training specificity with the unilateral landings and propulsions associated with sprinting. Based on this meta-analysis, strength training should be incorporated prior to power training in order to establish an adequate foundation of strength for power training activities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GaeblerPrieskeHortobagyietal.2018,
  author    = {Gaebler, Martijn and Prieske, Olaf and Hortobagyi, Tibor and Granacher, Urs},
  title     = {The effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on physical fitness and athletic performance in Youth},
  series = {Frontiers in physiology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in physiology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-042X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fphys.2018.01057},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Combining training of muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness within a training cycle could increase athletic performance more than single-mode training. However, the physiological effects produced by each training modality could also interfere with each other, improving athletic performance less than single-mode training. Because anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical differences between young and adult athletes can affect the responses to exercise training, young athletes might respond differently to concurrent training (CT) compared with adults. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on selected physical fitness components and athletic performance in youth. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 886 records. The studies included in the analyses examined children (girls age 6-11 years, boys age 6-13 years) or adolescents (girls age 12-18 years, boys age 14-18 years), compared CT with single-mode endurance (ET) or strength training (ST), and reported at least one strength/power-(e.g., jump height), endurance-(e.g., peak. VO2, exercise economy), or performance-related (e.g., time trial) outcome. We calculated weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs). CT compared to ET produced small effects in favor of CT on athletic performance (n = 11 studies, SMD = 0.41, p = 0.04) and trivial effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.04, p = 0.86) and exercise economy (n = 5 studies, SMD = 0.16, p = 0.49) in young athletes. A sub-analysis of chronological age revealed a trend toward larger effects of CT vs. ET on athletic performance in adolescents (SMD = 0.52) compared with children (SMD = 0.17). CT compared with ST had small effects in favor of CT on muscle power (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.23, p = 0.04). In conclusion, CT is more effective than single-mode ET or ST in improving selected measures of physical fitness and athletic performance in youth. Specifically, CT compared with ET improved athletic performance in children and particularly adolescents. Finally, CT was more effective than ST in improving muscle power in youth.},
  language  = {en}
}