NCT07721077

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. 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. 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. 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.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
60

participants targeted

Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Apr 2026

Shorter than P25 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

April 1, 2026

Completed
3 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

June 20, 2026

Completed
16 days until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

July 6, 2026

Completed
9 days until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

July 15, 2026

Completed
7 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

July 22, 2026

Completed
Last Updated

July 22, 2026

Status Verified

July 1, 2026

Enrollment Period

3 months

First QC Date

July 6, 2026

Last Update Submit

July 19, 2026

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (16)

  • 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.

Study Arms (2)

Velocity-Based Training Group

EXPERIMENTAL

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)

Control Training Group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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

Interventions

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).

Also known as: VBT
Velocity-Based Training Group

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.

Also known as: Conventional Training / Percentage-Based Training
Control Training Group

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 24 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • College aerobics athletes.
  • 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.
  • Participants must have participated in the Henan provincial aerobic gymnastics national team selection competition.

You may not qualify if:

  • Participants have high levels of asymmetry due to congenital physical dysplasia (Smith, 2020).
  • History of sports injuries within the past year and continuous treatment.
  • Participants who cannot complete the entire experimental training due to participating in the professional competition schedule.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Velocity-based training

Zhengzhou, Henan, 450000, China

Location

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR
Purpose
BASIC SCIENCE
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Doctoral Candidate

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

July 6, 2026

First Posted

July 22, 2026

Study Start

April 1, 2026

Primary Completion

June 20, 2026

Study Completion

July 15, 2026

Last Updated

July 22, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-07

Locations