## 4 Discussion
's study [27] demonstrate that VL10% training conducted twice a week resulted in larger percentage increases in Countermovement Jump (CMJ) performance (9.2% compared to 5.4%) and sprint performance (\(-1.5\%\) versus 0.4%) compared to VL30% in resistance-trained young males. Three velocity-based groups (VL10%, VL30%, and VL45%) underwent eight weeks of velocity-based training (VBT) with consistent training parameters: a load of 55-70% of one-repetition maximum (1 RM), a training frequency of two sessions per week with three sets per session, and a four-minute recovery period between sets. All of the groups demonstrated significant improvements in muscle strength (VL10%: 6.4-58.6%; VL30%: 4.5-66.2%; VL45%: 1.8-52.1%; \(p<0.05\)-0.001). Notably, the VL10% group experienced a significantly greater improvement in counter-movement jump (CMJ) performance (11.9%), as well as a larger percentage change in sprint performance compared to the other two groups (VL10%: \(-2.4\%\); VL30%: \(-1.8\%\); VL45%: \(-0.5\%\)). Finally, two recently published reviews dealing with the effects of VBT on the performance outcomes of elite athletes [28] and trained individuals [29] suggest that VBT may effectively improve maximum leg strength, countermovement jump, and sprint ability. Furthermore, it appears that implementing smaller velocity losses (up to 20%) promotes more beneficial neuromuscular adaptations, decreases neuromuscular fatigue, and ensures a higher quality of performance with a significantly lower total volume of training. Overall, the previously mentioned study supports this study's findings that low velocity loss training leads to superior power-related performance while yielding similar strength outcomes compared to high velocity loss training (30%) in athletes. VBT appears to be an effective method for enhancing performance attributes in well-trained individuals. This is widely supported by various studies that compare the effects of VBT with traditional resistance training on performance outcomes. In a six-week (two sessions/week) study of trained men by [PERSON] et al. [16], the VBT group achieved similar improvements in back squats (9% vs. 8%) and a significantly better jump height (5% vs. 1%) when compared with a TRT approach, despite a significant 9% reduction in the total training volume. Additionally, a comparison of six weeks of velocity-based training (VBT) versus traditional resistance training (TRT), conducted with resistance-trained individuals [30], demonstrated more favorable training outcomes for the VBT group in jump height (effect size = 1.81), sprint performance (effect size = 1.27-1.35), and change of direction (effect size = 0.67-0.97). However, it remained unclear if either training method was superior for enhancing maximal strength (effect size = \(-0.57\)). The observed training effects were greater than those reported in the present study, which could be attributed to the longer study duration (6 weeks compared to 4 weeks) as well as the higher volume of lighter loads, faster training repetitions, and consequently, more pronounced adaptations in the velocity aspect of the force-velocity curve and high-speed actions such as the countermovement jump, sprint, and change of direction [14]. Furthermore, the increases in maximal strength observed for both groups in this study were nearly identical to the present study's findings for the VL30% and TRT groups (10.2%, ES = 1.09 and 10.9%, ES = 1.49, respectively). These results were also slightly higher than those reported by [PERSON] et al. (\(\
eg\%\), ES = 0.59 vs. -8%, ES = 0.44 for VBT and TRT, respectively) and our VL15% group (8.4%, ES = 0.72). The six-week study comprised two weekly sessions dedicated to free weight squats, with a progressively increasing load that ranged from 65% to 90% of the 1 RM, aimed to evaluate the impact of velocity-based resistance training compared to traditional resistance training on the athletic performance of college female basketball players [31].