## 3 Results  
No significant differences among the groups were found in the pretest for any of the variables analyzed. Additionally, no significant interaction was identified for SQIRM (F = 1.96; \(p\) = 0.158) and SPR20 (F = 0.542; \(p\) = 0.578) (Table 3). Pre vs. post comparisons showed significant improvements for SQIRM in all groups, with 8.4% (moderate effect size), 10.2% (moderate effect size), and 10.9% (large effect size) for the VL15, VL30, and TRT groups, respectively. In addition, for SPR20m, significant differences from preintervention to postintervention were seen for all the groups, although with a small improvement  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Exercise** & **Sets \(\times\) Reps** & **Load** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Training session 1} & \multirow{3}{*}{BB back squat} & \multirow{3}{*}{3 \(\times\) 6} & PBT 80\% 1 RM, \\  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{of 1 RM movement velocity.} \\  & & & Body weight \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Death first \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 3 \(\times\) 6 \\ \end{tabular} } & 2 RIR \\  & & & 1 RIR \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} OHP \\ \end{tabular} } & 3 \(\times\) 6 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Lunge \(\dagger\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{BM+} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Training session 2} & \multirow{3}{*}{BB back squat} & \multirow{3}{*}{3 \(\times\) 8} & PBT 60\% 1 RM, \\  & & & VBT: load that aligns with 60\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{of 1 RM movement velocity} \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Bench press \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 3 \(\times\) 10 \\ \end{tabular} } & 2 RIR \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Deadlift} & 3 \(\times\) 10 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} BB bent-over row \\ \end{tabular} } & 3 \(\times\) 10 & 1 RIR \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{OHP} & 3 \(\times\) 10 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Hip thrust} & 3 \(\times\) 10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* RM—one repetition maximum; BB—barbell; BM—body mass; OHP—overhead press; RIR—repetitions in reserve; \(\dagger\) lunge load calculated [16]: 0.6 (6 RM squat [kg; 0.52] + 14.82 kg).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive characteristics of the base training program.  
percentage (1.6% for VL15 and VL30 and 1.2% for TRT) and trivial effect size for all the groups.  
A significant interaction was observed for the Countermovement Jump (CMJ) test (F = 38.24, \(p\) = 0.000), with the post hoc analysis revealing differences between the VL15 and TRT groups (\(p\) = 0.034). When comparing the initial and final measurements, the VL15 group demonstrated a 6.0% improvement (moderate effect size), while the VL30 group showed a 6.2% improvement (moderate effect size). In contrast, the TRT group had a smaller improvement of 1.7% (trivial effect size). For the Reactive Strength Index (RSI), a significant interaction was noted (F = 8.33; \(p\) = 0.001), with the post hoc analysis revealing differences between the VL15 and VL30 groups (\(p\) = 0.004) as well as between the VL15 and TRT groups (\(p\) = 0.018). The VL15 and VL30 groups achieved improvements of 12.2% (large effect size) and 3.2% (small effect size), respectively, while the TRT group saw a minimal improvement of 0.4% (trivial effect size). The COD test also showed a significant interaction (F = 3.64; \(p\) = 0.038). The post hoc analysis indicated significant differences between the VL15 and VL30 groups (\(p\) = 0.049) and between the VL15 and TRT groups (\(p\) = 0.015), but no significant difference was found between the VL30 and TRT groups (\(p\) = 0.980). In terms of percentage improvements from pre- to post-testing, the VL15 group improved by 2.4% (moderate effect size), the VL30 group improved by 1.5% (moderate effect size), and the TRT group improved by 0.6% (trivial effect size).