*Article* **Effects of Velocity-Based versus Percentage-Based Resistance Training on Explosive Neuromuscular Adaptations and Anaerobic Power in Sport-College Female Basketball Players**

**Mingyang Zhang 1,† , Duanying Li 2,†, Jiaxin He <sup>1</sup> , Xingyue Liang <sup>1</sup> , Dongyu Li <sup>3</sup> , Wenfeng Song <sup>2</sup> , Shicong Ding <sup>2</sup> , Jie Shu <sup>1</sup> , Xiaoning Sun 2,\* and Jian Sun 2,\***


**Abstract:** The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on anaerobic ability, sprint performance, and jumping ability. Eighteen female basketball players from a Sport College were randomly divided into two groups: VBRT (n = 10) and PBRT (n = 8). The six-week intervention consisted of two sessions per week of free-weight back squats with linear periodization from 65% to 95%1RM. In PBRT, the weights lifted were fixed based on 1RM percentage, while in VBRT, the weights were adjusted based on individualized velocity profiles. The T-30m sprint time, relative power of countermovement jump (RP-CMJ), and Wingate test were evaluated. The Wingate test assessed peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), maximal velocity (Vmax), and total work (TW). Results showed that VBRT produced a very likely improvement in RP-CMJ, Vmax, PP, and FI (Hedges' g = 0.55, 0.93, 0.68, 0.53, respectively, *p* < 0.01). On the other hand, PBRT produced a very likely improvement in MP (Hedges' g = 0.38) and TW (Hedges' g = 0.45). Although VBRT showed likely favorable effects in RP-CMJ, PP, and Vmax compared to PBRT (*p* < 0.05 for interaction effect), PBRT produced greater improvements in MP and TW (*p* < 0.05 for interaction effect). In conclusion, PBRT may be more effective in maintaining high-power velocity endurance, while VBRT has a greater impact on explosive power adaptations.

**Keywords:** load-velocity relationship; autoregulation; load monitoring; fixed-loading; resistance training; Wingate anaerobic performance

### **1. Introduction**

"Traditionally, resistance training (RT) has been prescribed based on a percentage of an individual's one-repetition maximum (1RM), referred to as percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) [1]. This involves setting a fixed load based on a baseline %1RM before training, meaning the intensity is determined by the individual's %1RM. However, PBRT is unable to account for changes in muscle performance caused by life stressors and fatigue [2]. With the rise of linear position transducers (LPTs), strength training coaches can now gather real-time and kinetic data, leading to the widespread use of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) [2,3]. VBRT is a novel form of autoregulated RT that adjusts intensity and volume based on an individualized load-velocity profile (LVP) regression equation [2,4,5]. This involves using the mean concentric velocity (MCV) of the first repetition as a measure of performance to adjust the training load. Trainers perform the exercise with maximal effort and the velocity of the concentric phase is recorded across different loads. Thresholds are established at each relative load or velocity loss, which are then used to adjust the subsequent training load and control the training volume [6]. By monitoring MCV data based on LVP, VBRT allows for training loads to be adjusted based

**Citation:** Zhang, M.; Li, D.; He, J.; Liang, X.; Li, D.; Song, W.; Ding, S.; Shu, J.; Sun, X.; Sun, J. Effects of Velocity-Based versus Percentage-Based Resistance Training on Explosive Neuromuscular Adaptations and Anaerobic Power in Sport-College Female Basketball Players. *Healthcare* **2023**, *11*, 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/ healthcare11040623

Academic Editor: Felipe Aidar

Received: 2 February 2023 Revised: 14 February 2023 Accepted: 16 February 2023 Published: 20 February 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

on the athlete's physiological state and strength performance [7]. Notably, in contrast to PBRT, VBRT offers a more personalized approach to load prescription [2].

Recently, there have been several controlled trials that have compared the effects of VBRT and PBRT on physical performance measures such as strength, linear sprint, change of direction, jump, and aerobic endurance [8–10]. This comparison has become a focus in the field of strength and conditioning, and while these studies provide useful insights for coaches, the results in terms of muscle strength remain controversial and the mechanisms behind the adaptations are not fully understood [1,3,9,11]. To further shed light on this topic, this study aims to compare the two training protocols on lower limb muscular function and power performance in greater depth. The originality of this study lies in its exploration of the effects of VBRT and PBRT on anaerobic performance adaptations, an area that has not been studied in depth before.

Basketball is a sport that requires high levels of intensity and is largely based on anaerobic metabolism. Anaerobic power and capacity play a crucial role in determining the physical fitness and overall game performance of basketball players, particularly in defensive and offensive transitions [12]. To assess anaerobic performance in professional basketball players, the Wingate anaerobic power test (WAnT) has been widely used due to its reliability. The results of a study by Apostolidis et al. [13] showed a strong correlation between the mean power in the WAnT and the performance of basketball players, including control dribbling and high-intensity shuttle running.

This study aimed to compare the effects of VBRT and PBRT on lower-limb power and anaerobic performance in off-season female basketball players from a Sport College over a six-week linear mesocycle. The hypothesis was that VBRT, based on recent studies [1,9,10], would result in greater improvements in anaerobic performance compared to PBRT.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Participants*

The study recruited 18 female basketball players from the Sport College Basketball Association (SCBA) Championship winning team. The players, who had an average age of 22.3 ± 1.8 years, height of 169.7 ± 7 cm, and body mass of 60.4 ± 5.8 kg, were randomly assigned to either the VBRT group (n = 10) or the PBRT group (n = 8) using card markers drawn by an uninformed researcher. The distribution of playing positions was equal among the groups to reduce the impact of position on anaerobic capacity [14]. The inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, at least 2 years of RT experience, no musculoskeletal injuries in the past 6 months, completion of a 10-week basketball training prior to the study, and a negative result from the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) test.

Participants were required to provide written informed consent prior to participating in the study. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This ensured that the study was conducted in a fair and ethical manner, with the participants' wellbeing and rights being of utmost importance.

#### *2.2. Experimental Design*

All participants took part in a 6-week training program, which was conducted twice a week on Monday and Wednesday and followed a progressive mesocycle design. The program consisted of three load phases, each with specific training objectives (as shown in Figure 1). Participants performed two RT programs that only varied in amount of weight lifted and number of repetitions (velocity-based vs. percentage-based). The training volume in both programs corresponded to the number of repetitions. Additionally, both groups were verbally encouraged to perform a maximal voluntary contraction at the concentric phase with a standardized body posture during RT. The RT sessions were completed in the afternoon (3:30–4:00 p.m.), were separated by 48 h, and avoided holidays. Both RT programs consisted of free-weight back squats and bench presses and were supervised and monitored by two conditioning training coaches.
