Effects of Velocity-based Training on Physical Fitness and Skills Performance Among Aerobic Gymnast Athletes in Henan, China

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.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Training; Sport; Health
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Velocity-Based Training (VBT); Behavioral: Conventional Resistance Training

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 60
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• China
  • Henan
    • Zhengzhou, Henan, China, 450000
      • Velocity-based training

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Description

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.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Basic Science
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Double

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Velocity-Based Training Group; Thirty university aerobic gymnasts underwent an 8-week velocity-based resistance training (VBT) intervention, in which training loads were prescribed and adjusted in real time according to movement velocity feedback.	Behavioral: Velocity-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).; Other Names: VBT
Active Comparator: Control Training Group; Thirty university aerobic gymnasts underwent an 8-week conventional (percentage-based) resistance training intervention following standard training protocols without velocity monitoring.	Behavioral: Conventional 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.; Other Names: Conventional Training / Percentage-Based Training

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Strength: One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press and Back Squat	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Power: Standing Long Jump Distance	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Speed: 30-Metre Sprint Time	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).	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Agility: Illinois Agility Test Time	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Endurance: Trunk Flexor Test Time	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Balance: Y-Balance Test Composite Reach Distance	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Coordination: Wall-Toss Test Successful Catches	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Flexibility: Sit-and-Reach Distance	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Dynamic Strength (Explosive A-Frame)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Static Strength (Straddle Planche)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Leg Circle (Helicopter)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Dynamic Jump (Scale Twist)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Form Jump (Cossack Jump)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Split Leap (Scissors Leap Turn)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Skill Score: Turn (Double Illusion)	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Aerobic Gymnastics Overall Routine Score	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.	Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Ma Kui
• Collaborators: Qufu Normal University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): April 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Actual): June 20, 2026
• Study Completion (Actual): July 15, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: July 6, 2026
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: July 19, 2026
• First Posted (Actual): July 22, 2026

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): July 22, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: July 19, 2026
• Last Verified: July 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: 20250908

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No