Health, Sport, Training
Conditions
Brief summary
The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of 8 weeks of Velocity-based training on physical fitness and aerobic gymnastics skills performance among college aerobic gymnastics athletes in Henan, China 1. To examine the effects of Velocity-based training across pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2 on selected fitness components in terms of power, strength, speed, agility, balance, endurance, coordination, and flexibility among aerobic gymnast athletes in Henan, China. 2. To evaluate the effects of Velocity-based training across pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 on selected parameters of gymnast athletes skills in Group A Floor Elements (Family 1 Dynamic Strength: A-Frame, Family 2 Static Strength: Support, Family 3 Leg Circle: Helicopter), Group B Airborne Elements (Family 4 Dynamic Jump: Air Turn, Family 5 Form Jump: Cossack, Family 6 Split Leap: Switch Split ), and Group C Stanning Elements(Family Turns: Turn) of aerobic gymnasts from Henan, China. 3. To examine the effects of Velocity-based training across pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2 on the skills performance of aerobic gymnasts in terms of scoring routines.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALVelocity-Based Training (VBT)
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method in which training loads are prescribed and adjusted in real time based on movement velocity feedback (kinematic outcomes).
BEHAVIORALConventional Resistance Training
Thirty university aerobic gymnasts underwent an 8-week conventional (percentage-based) resistance training program following the athletes' standard training schedule, without velocity monitoring or feedback.
Sponsors
Ma Kui
Qufu Normal University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 24 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. College aerobics athletes. 2. Participants must have received at least one year of training in a Henan provincial college training team and be a formal aerobic gymnast in a Shandong provincial college. 3. Participants must have participated in the Henan provincial aerobic gymnastics national team selection competition.
Exclusion criteria
1. Participants have high levels of asymmetry due to congenital physical dysplasia (Smith, 2020). 2. History of sports injuries within the past year and continuous treatment. 3. Participants who cannot complete the entire experimental training due to participating in the professional competition schedule.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Strength: One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press and Back Squat | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Maximal upper-body strength (1RM bench press) and lower-body strength (1RM back squat) were each assessed using standardised one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing protocols. Values are reported separately for bench press and back squat, both in kilograms (kg). Higher values indicate greater maximal strength. |
| Power: Standing Long Jump Distance | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Power was assessed using the standing long jump (SLJ) test, measured as horizontal jump distance in centimetres (cm) using a tape measure. Higher values indicate greater lower-body power. |
| Speed: 30-Metre Sprint Time | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Linear sprinting speed was assessed using a 30-metre sprint test, timed with a stopwatch and recorded in seconds (s). Lower values indicate faster sprint speed (better performance). |
| Agility: Illinois Agility Test Time | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Change-of-direction agility was assessed using the Illinois Agility Test (IAT), timed with a stopwatch and recorded in seconds (s). Lower values indicate better agility performance. |
| Endurance: Trunk Flexor Test Time | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Endurance was assessed using the Trunk Flexor Test (TFT), a timed isometric hold test recorded in seconds (s) using a stopwatch. Higher values indicate greater muscular endurance. |
| Balance: Y-Balance Test Composite Reach Distance | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Dynamic balance was assessed using the Y-Balance Test (YBT), with composite reach distance measured in centimetres (cm) using the Y-Balance Test instrument. Higher values indicate better dynamic balance. |
| Coordination: Wall-Toss Test Successful Catches | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Upper-limb neuromuscular coordination was assessed using the Wall-Toss Test (WTT), recorded as the number of successful ball catches completed within a fixed 30-second trial. Higher values indicate better coordination. Note: this measure is a count of catches, not a time-based measurement. |
| Flexibility: Sit-and-Reach Distance | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Flexibility was assessed using the Sit-and-Reach (SAR) test, measured in centimetres (cm) using a sit-and-reach box. Higher values indicate greater flexibility. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Dynamic Strength (Explosive A-Frame) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 1 Dynamic Strength difficulty element (Explosive A-Frame) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Static Strength (Straddle Planche) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 2 Static Strength difficulty element (Straddle Planche) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Leg Circle (Helicopter) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 3 Leg Circle difficulty element (Helicopter) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Dynamic Jump (Scale Twist) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 4 Dynamic Jump difficulty element (Scale Twist) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Form Jump (Cossack Jump) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 5 Form Jump difficulty element (Cossack Jump) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Split Leap (Scissors Leap Turn) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 6 Split Leap difficulty element (Scissors Leap Turn) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Turn (Double Illusion) | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Execution of the Family 7 Turn difficulty element (Double Illusion) was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), on a scale of 0 to 10 points. Higher scores indicate better technical execution. |
| Aerobic Gymnastics Overall Routine Score | Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention. | Overall competitive routine performance was scored by certified judges according to the FIG Aerobic Gymnastics Code of Points (2025), combining Difficulty (D-Score), Execution (E-Score), and Artistry (A-Score) components. Total score is reported in points with no fixed upper bound; higher scores indicate better overall routine performance. |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed