Back to all available

Effects of complex training on physical performance in elite modern pentathletes during precompetition periods

sports-medicine

Abstract

This study compared the effects of complex training (CT) versus resistance training (RT) on agility, strength, and power in elite modern pentathletes during precompetition periods. Ten male modern pentathletes from the Chinese national team participated. They first completed the RT mesocycles (eight weeks), followed by the CT mesocycles (eight weeks), with a detraining microcycle (two weeks) in between for rest. Agility (three-cone test, TCT), strength ( one-repetition maximum back squat, 1RM-BS; isometric mid-thigh pull peak force, IMTP), and power (counter-movement jump, CMJ; reaction strength index, RSI) performance were assessed at four time points: before RT (T0), at the end of RT (T1), before CT (T2), and at the end of CT (T3). The results revealed that the TCT improved significantly from T2 to T3 (p = 0.006), with a significant difference between T3 and T1 (p = 0.002), but no significant improvement was observed from T0 to T1 (p = 0.383). The 1RM-BS and IMTP improved significantly from T0 to T1 (p < 0.001, p = 0.006), from T2 to T3 (all p < 0.001), and T3 was significantly improved compared to T1 (all p < 0.001). CMJ and RSI also showed significant improvements from T0 to T1 (p = 0.002, p = 0.015), from T2 to T3 (p < 0.001, p = 0.015), and T3 was significantly better than T1 (p = 0.001, p = 0.037). These findings indicate that CT is more effective than RT in improving agility, strength, and power in elite modern pentathletes during precompetition training periods.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].