Comparative Effects of Complex Contrast Training and Traditional Training Methods on Physical Performance Within Female, Semiprofessional Australian Rules Football Players

Abstract

Luders, J, Garrett, J, Gleadhill, S, Mathews, L, and Bennett, H. Comparative effects of complex contrast training and traditional training methods on physical performance within female, semiprofessional Australian Rules Football players. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2024—This study aimed to explore whether complex contrast training (CCT) would elicit greater strength and power adaptations than traditional (TRAD) training methods using a volume- and intensity-matched design. Fourteen semiprofessional female Australian Football players completed the study. Both CCT and TRAD saw improvements in all performance outcomes: 1 repetition maximum (1RM) back squat (21.3 ± 8.2 and 16.7 ± 6.8 kg), 1RM bench press (5.3 ± 3.6 and 2.1 ± 4.0 kg), 1RM trap bar deadlift (5.0 ± 6.6 and 11.3 ± 2.5 kg), 5 m sprint (0.002 ± 0.09 and 0.02 ± 0.2 s), 10 m sprint (0.04 ± 0.17 and 0.02 ± 0.1 s), 15 m sprint (0.009 ± 0.15 and 0.08 ± 0.2 s), countermovement jump (CMJ) height (230 ± 150 and 340 ± 390 cm), CMJ absolute peak power (158.5 ± 69.6 and 235.6 ± 229.6 N), CMJ relative peak power (3.46 ± 4.1 and 2.68 ± 1.4 N·kg−1)), and plyometric push-up peak relative power (20.5 ± 13.4 and 15.2 ± 13.5 N). There were no between-group differences except for TRAD recording slightly greater improvements in 1RM Trap bar deadlift (Bayes factor [BF10] = 1.210). Complex contrast training completed sessions on average ∼7 minutes quicker than TRAD (BF10 = 5.722), while both groups reporting similar ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) with CCT (±SD) 58.4 ± 6.7 minutes and TRAD 65.5 ± 4.8. Based on the results, CCT training provides the same performance outcomes as traditional training methods across a period of 8 weeks, while taking less time to achieve these outcomes and with similar RPE.