## 4 Discussion
In addition, Team 2 showed a significantly greater decrease in fat percentage compared to Teams 1 and 3 [TG (Fat Perc): \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.472], indicating that the moderate protocol had finally shown better results in reducing fat. The fat percentage reductions that we demonstrated in our study after 6 weeks of pre-season training agree with previous studies that were performed in other basketball teams, which had also shown significant reductions after 6 (\(-\)3.49%) or 8 (\(-\)3.1%) weeks of pre-season training [21; 22]. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the decrease in fat percentage was not accompanied by weight loss. This finding indicates that although some players experienced a notable reduction in body fat, they simultaneously built more muscle mass, which explains why their body weight remained comparable to levels as those that were observed before the start of the preparation period. [22]. Aerobic capacity was similarly improved for each one of the three teams [(Team 1: 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.76, \(p\) = 0.002), (Team 2: 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.73, \(p\) = 0.002) and (Team 3: 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.55, \(p\) = 0.002)], without any significant differences between them. Nevertheless, a trend for a gradual decrease as we proceed from the heavy to the light protocol is evident, but yet again, these data were found to be not statistically significant. The study by [PERSON] et al., 2018 [23] was the only one that attempted to evaluate aerobic capacity before and after a 6-week pre-season training period using the VO2 max test, and they demonstrated slightly greater improvements (\(\sim\)3 mL/min/kg) compared to our study. However, the main difference between the two studies was that [PERSON] et al. used a fitness protocol based on repeated sprint ability training, compared to our research that used a mixed fitness protocol based on functional and polyometric training. Also, significant improvements were found in three more studies in basketball athletes, where aerobic capacity was examined via the Yo-Yo test after 3 (476 m), 7 (485 m) and 12 (49 m) weeks of pre-season training [11; 24; 25]. On the other hand, while anaerobic capacity was also improved for every team in our study [(Team 1: 30.8 \(\pm\) 11.3, \(p\) < 0.001), (Team 2: 22.17 \(\pm\) 9.15, \(p\) < 0.001) and (Team 3: 15.48 \(\pm\) 5.91, \(p\) < 0.001)], the ANOVA test between the teams showed that Team 1 had a significantly greater increase compared to Team 3 [TG (Anaerobic Capacity): \(p\) = 0.006, \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.340]. This finding clearly suggests that the heavy protocol that was executed by Team 1 produced better results compared to the light protocol that was used by Team 3. Only one study that tried to examine anaerobic capacity in professional basketball athletes before and after the pre-season period through the anaerobic power step test (APST) was found, which showed significant improvements (497 watts) after 6 weeks of a mixed aerobic and anaerobic fitness training protocol [21]. The rest of the studies have either simply evaluated anaerobic capacity through a single measurement [17; 26] or have investigated the relationship between anaerobic ability with other performance markers [27; 28; 29; 30]. From a practical point of view, the increases in aerobic capacity for the three teams are not considered large, as it is validated also by the effect size. A few years ago, the fitness programs in basketball were more focused on improving aerobic endurance, which is a contrast with the last few years when the game of basketball became much faster, and therefore, anaerobic capacity is the basis of a basketball player's endurance. This was also confirmed by the highest values of VO2 max that were observed in older studies [31; 32] compared to newer [33; 34]. On the contrary, it is normal to observe a larger effect size in the increases in anaerobic capacity, as this was the main goal of our training protocols.