Complex training combines high-load resistance exercises with plyometric actions and can be implemented using different exercise sequences. Given that neuromuscular adaptations are specific to the force–velocity characteristics and fatigue conditions under which training stimuli are applied, exercise order may influence the expression of training adaptations. This study compared the effects of ascending (ACT; plyometrics before resistance exercises) and descending (DCT; resistance before plyometrics) complex training methods on athletic performance in national-level male basketball players. Twenty athletes (ACT: n=8; DCT: n=12) completed an 8-week training program performed twice weekly during the off-season. Both protocols included matched training volumes (sets × repetitions × load) and intensities but differed in exercise sequencing: DCT prioritized resistance exercises before plyometrics, while ACT followed the opposite order. Primary outcomes were change of direction (5-10-5, CODAT) and countermovement jumps without and with arm swing (CMJ, CMJ-A; respectively), squat jumps (SJ). Secondary outcomes included drop jumps from 40 and 60 cm (DJ-40, DJ-60), linear sprint times (5 m, 10 m), and force output during isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP). After adjustment for baseline performance, no consistent between-group differences were observed for jumping performance during CMJ, CMJ-A, SJ, or DJ, nor for sprinting or change-of-direction performance (all p ≥ 0.05). A significant between-group effect favoring DCT was observed only for CMJ-A peak velocity (p = 0.015) and early-phase isometric force production at 100 ms during the IMTP (p = 0.011). These findings indicate that both ACT and DCT can be effectively implemented during the off-season in national-level basketball players. Exercise sequencing appears to act as a fine-tuning variable that may influence specific neuromuscular qualities, rather than producing broad performance advantages across athletic tasks.
Mikołajec et al. (Mon,) studied this question.