HealthNCT07721077
Effects of Velocity-based Training on Physical Fitness and Skills Performance Among Aerobic Gymnast Athletes in Henan, China
A study testing Velocity-Based Training (VBT) and Conventional Resistance Training in people with Health and Sport, run by Ma Kui at 1 site in China.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 24 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- What is being tested?
- Velocity-Based Training (VBT) and Conventional Resistance Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2026to 15 Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 24 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Being tested
- Velocity-Based Training (VBT), Conventional Resistance Training
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Velocity-Based Training (VBT)Behavioural
Also called 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).
Conventional Resistance TrainingBehavioural
Also called Conventional Training / Percentage-Based 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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 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. Receives: 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. Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Resistance Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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).
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jul 2026
- Study start1 Apr 2026
- Primary completion20 Jun 2026
- Study completion15 Jul 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for HealthStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ma Kui
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Qufu Normal University
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Ma Kui, Universiti Putra Malaysia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07721077
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20250908
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 6 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 22 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Velocity-based Training on Physical Fitness and Skills Performance Among Aerobic Gymnast Athletes in Henan, China
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07721077
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 20250908
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ma KuiUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Qufu Normal University
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Jul 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Velocity-Based Training Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Velocity-Based Training (VBT)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. |
| Control Training Group | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional Resistance TrainingThirty university aerobic gymnasts underwent an 8-week conventional (percentage-based) resistance training intervention following standard training protocols without velocity monitoring. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 24 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Velocity-Based Training (VBT)Also: VBTVelocity-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). | Behavioural | Velocity-Based Training Group |
| Conventional Resistance TrainingAlso: Conventional Training / Percentage-Based TrainingThirty university aerobic gymnasts underwent an 8-week conventional (percentage-based) resistance training program following the athletes' standard training schedule, without velocity monitoring or feedback. | Behavioural | Control Training Group |
Primary outcome
Strength: One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press and Back Squat
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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)
Time 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)
Time frame: 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)
Time frame: 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)
Time frame: 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)
Time frame: 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)
Time frame: 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)
Time frame: 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
Time frame: 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.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Jul 2026.
Related trials for Health
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Validation of the Healthcare Relationship Assessment Scale (ERA) in Health Sciences Students.
Health Adult Subjects, Communication
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Not yet recruiting
Preventive and Personalized Digital Emotion Regulation Skills Intervention to Reduce Depression and Anxiety in Youths With Adverse Childhood Experiences
Adverse Childhood Experience, Depression / Major Depressive Disorder
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Daily Digital Meditation on Well-Being in US Young Adults (BEGIN II)
Mental Health and General Well-being
Recruiting
Colon-delivered Riboflavin and Gut Microbiota Composition
Microbiome Dysbiosis, Gut Health
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Velocity-Based Training (VBT) and Conventional Resistance Training in people with Health and Sport, run by Ma Kui at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Strength: One-Repetition Maximum Bench Press and Back Squat (time frame: Assessed at baseline (Week 0), Week 4, and Week 8 of the 8-week training intervention.). The study lists 16 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Jul 2026.